Effectiveness of a nonweight-based daily dosage of ready-to-use therapeutic food in children suffering from uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition: A nonrandomized, noninferiority analysis of programme data in Afghanistan.

Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) remains a major global public health problem. SAM cases are treated using ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) at a dosage of ∼200 kcal/kg/day per the standard treatment protocol (STD). Emerging evidence on simplifications to the standard protocol, which among other adaptations, includes reducing the daily RUTF dosage, indicates that it is effective and safe for treating children with SAM. In response to a foreseen stock shortage of RUTF, the government of Afghanistan endorsed the temporary use of a modified treatment protocol in which the daily RUTF dosage was prescribed at 1000 kcal/day (irrespective of body weight) until the child achieved moderate acute malnutrition status (weight-for-height z-score ≥ -3 or mid-upper arm circumference [MUAC] ≥ 115 mm), at which point 500 kcal/day was prescribed until cured (modified treatment protocol [MTP]). In this paper, we report the results of this nonweight-based daily RUTF dosage experience. Data of 2042 children with SAM, treated using either the STD protocol (n = 269) or the MTP protocol (n = 1773) from August 2019 to March 2021 in five provinces, were analyzed. The per-protocol analyses confirmed noninferiority of MTP protocol when compared to STD protocol for recovery rate [93.3% vs. 90.2%; ∆ (95% confidence interval, CI) = 3.1 (-0.9; 7.2) %] and length-of-stay [82.6 vs. 75.6 days; ∆ (95% CI) = 6.9 (3.3; 10.5) days], considering the margin of noninferiority of -10% and +14 days, respectively. Weight gain velocity was smaller in the MTP protocol group than in the STD protocol group [3.7 (1.7) vs. 5.2 (2.9) g/kg/day; ∆ (95% CI) = -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2); p < 0.001]. The STD group had a significantly higher mean than the MTP group for absolute MUAC gain [∆ (95% CI) = 1.7 (1.0; 2.3) mm; p < 0.001] and the MUAC velocity [∆ (95% CI) = 0.29 (0.20; 0.37) mm/week; p < 0.001]. Our results confirm the noninferiority of a nonweight-based daily dosage and support the endorsement of this modification as an alternative to the standard protocol in resource-constrained contexts.

Growth monitoring and mortality risk in low birthweight infants: a birth cohort study in Burkina Faso.

Background: Wasting and underweight in infancy is an increasingly recognised problem but consensus on optimum assessment is lacking. In particular, there is uncertainty on how to interpret anthropometry among low birth weight (LBW) infants who may be growing normally. This research aimed to determine growth of infants from birth to two months (around age of vaccination) and the mortality risk of underweight LBW infants compared to normal birth weight (NBW) infants at two and six months age. Methods: A secondary analysis of a birth cohort of 1103 infants in Burkina Faso was conducted. Anthropometry was performed monthly from 0 to 12 months. We assessed associations with mortality using Cox proportional hazards models and assessed discriminatory values using area under receiver operating characteristics curves. Results: Eighty-six (7.8%) children died by age one year, 26/86 (30%) and 51/86 (59%) within two and six months, respectively. At age two months, weight gain since birth did not better discriminate mortality risk than current weight-for-age (P=0.72) or mid-upper arm circumference (P=0.21). In total, 227 (21%) LBW infants had increased risk of mortality: adjusted hazards ratio (aHR) 3.30 (95%CI 2.09 to 4.90). Among infants who were underweight at two and six months, LBW infants (64% and 49%, respectively) were not at reduced risk of death compared to NBW infants (aHR 2.63 (95%CI 0.76 to 9.15) and 2.43 (95%CI 0.74 to 7.98), respectively). Conclusion: Assessing weight gain since birth does not offer advantages over immediate anthropometry for discriminating mortality risk. LBW infants who are later identified as underweight require care to help prevent mortality.