Factors affecting the implementation of calcium supplementation strategies during pregnancy to prevent pre-eclampsia: a mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Daily calcium supplements are recommended for pregnant women from 20 weeks' gestation to prevent pre-eclampsia in populations with low dietary calcium intake. We aimed to improve understanding of barriers and facilitators for calcium supplement intake during pregnancy to prevent pre-eclampsia. DESIGN: Mixed-method systematic review, with confidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL and Global Health (via EBSCO) and grey literature databases were searched up to 17 September 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included primary qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies reporting implementation or use of calcium supplements during pregnancy, excluding calcium fortification and non-primary studies. No restrictions were imposed on settings, language or publication date. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed the qualitative data using thematic synthesis, and quantitative findings were thematically mapped to qualitative findings. We then mapped the results to behavioural change frameworks to identify barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Eighteen reports from nine studies were included in this review. Women reported barriers to consuming calcium supplements included limited knowledge about calcium supplements and pre-eclampsia, fears and experiences of side effects, varying preferences for tablets, dosing, working schedules, being away from home and taking other supplements. Receiving information regarding pre-eclampsia and safety of calcium supplement use from reliable sources, alternative dosing options, supplement reminders, early antenatal care, free supplements and support from families and communities were reported as facilitators. Healthcare providers felt that consistent messaging about benefits and risks of calcium, training, and ensuring adequate staffing and calcium supply is available would be able to help them in promoting calcium. CONCLUSION: Relevant stakeholders should consider the identified barriers and facilitators when formulating interventions and policies on calcium supplement use. These review findings can inform implementation to ensure effective and equitable provision and scale-up of calcium interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021239143.

Calcium supplementation to prevent pre-eclampsia: protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis, network meta-analysis and health economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Low dietary calcium intake is a risk factor for pre-eclampsia, a major contributor to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity worldwide. Calcium supplementation can prevent pre-eclampsia in women with low dietary calcium. However, the optimal dose and timing of calcium supplementation are not known. We plan to undertake an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised trials to determine the effects of various calcium supplementation regimens in preventing pre-eclampsia and its complications and rank these by effectiveness. We also aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of calcium supplementation to prevent pre-eclampsia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will identify randomised trials on calcium supplementation before and during pregnancy by searching major electronic databases including Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PubMed, Scopus, AMED, LILACS, POPLINE, AIM, IMSEAR, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, without language restrictions, from inception to February 2022. Primary researchers of the identified trials will be invited to join the International Calcium in Pregnancy Collaborative Network and share their IPD. We will check each study's IPD for consistency with the original authors before standardising and harmonising the data. We will perform a series of one-stage and two-stage IPD random-effect meta-analyses to obtain the summary intervention effects on pre-eclampsia with 95% CIs and summary treatment-covariate interactions (maternal risk status, dietary intake, timing of intervention, daily dose of calcium prescribed and total intake of calcium). Heterogeneity will be summarised using tau2, I2 and 95% prediction intervals for effect in a new study. Sensitivity analysis to explore robustness of statistical and clinical assumptions will be carried out. Minor study effects (potential publication bias) will be investigated using funnel plots. A decision analytical model for use in low-income and middle-income countries will assess the cost-effectiveness of calcium supplementation to prevent pre-eclampsia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approvals are required. We will store the data in a secure repository in an anonymised format. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021231276.

Wheat flour fortification with iron and other micronutrients for reducing anaemia and improving iron status in populations.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is a condition where the number of red blood cells (and consequently their oxygen-carrying capacity) is insufficient to meet the body's physiological needs. Fortification of wheat flour is deemed a useful strategy to reduce anaemia in populations. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of wheat flour fortification with iron alone or with other vitamins and minerals on anaemia, iron status and health-related outcomes in populations over two years of age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, 21 other databases and two trials registers up to 21 July 2020, together with contacting key organisations to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cluster- or individually-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) carried out among the general population from any country, aged two years and above. The interventions were fortification of wheat flour with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients. We included trials comparing any type of food item prepared from flour fortified with iron of any variety of wheat DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed risks of bias. We followed Cochrane methods in this review. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified 3538 records, after removing duplicates. We included 10 trials, involving 3319 participants, carried out in Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Kuwait, Philippines, South Africa and Sri Lanka. We identified two ongoing studies and one study is awaiting classification. The duration of interventions varied from 3 to 24 months. One study was carried out among adult women and one trial among both children and nonpregnant women. Most of the included trials were assessed as low or unclear risk of bias for key elements of selection, performance or reporting bias. Three trials used 41 mg to 60 mg iron/kg flour, three trials used less than 40 mg iron/kg and three trials used more than 60 mg iron/kg flour. One trial used various iron levels based on type of iron used: 80 mg/kg for electrolytic and reduced iron and 40 mg/kg for ferrous fumarate. All included studies contributed data for the meta-analyses. Iron-fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients added versus wheat flour (no added iron) with the same other micronutrients added Iron-fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients added versus wheat flour (no added iron) with the same other micronutrients added may reduce by 27% the risk of anaemia in populations (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.97; 5 studies, 2315 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether iron-fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients reduces iron deficiency (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.04; 3 studies, 748 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or increases haemoglobin concentrations (in g/L) (mean difference MD 2.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.80; 8 studies, 2831 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children (including constipation, nausea, vomiting, heartburn or diarrhoea), except for risk of infection or inflammation at the individual level. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to the risk of Infection or inflammation at individual level as measured by C-reactive protein (CRP) (mean difference (MD) 0.04, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.11; 2 studies, 558 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Iron-fortified wheat flour with other micronutrients added versus unfortified wheat flour (nil micronutrients added) It is unclear whether wheat flour fortified with iron, in combination with other micronutrients decreases anaemia (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.46; 2 studies, 317 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably reduces the risk of iron deficiency (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99; 3 studies, 382 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether it increases average haemoglobin concentrations (MD 2.53, 95% CI -0.39 to 5.45; 4 studies, 532 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children. Nine out of 10 trials reported sources of funding, with most having multiple sources. Funding source does not appear to have distorted the results in any of the assessed trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Fortification of wheat flour with iron (in comparison to unfortified flour, or where both groups received the same other micronutrients) may reduce anaemia in the general population above two years of age, but its effects on other outcomes are uncertain. Iron-fortified wheat flour in combination with other micronutrients, in comparison with unfortified flour, probably reduces iron deficiency, but its effects on other outcomes are uncertain. None of the included trials reported data on adverse side effects except for risk of infection or inflammation at the individual level. The effects of this intervention on other health outcomes are unclear. Future studies at low risk of bias should aim to measure all important outcomes, and to further investigate which variants of fortification, including the role of other micronutrients as well as types of iron fortification, are more effective, and for whom.

Calcium-fortified foods in public health programs: considerations for implementation.

Low calcium intake is common worldwide and can result in nutritional rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults. Calcium-fortified foods could improve calcium intake. However, there is limited calcium fortification experience, with technical and practical issues that may hamper its adoption. The objective of this landscape review is to summarize these issues to help policymakers guide the planning and design of calcium fortification as a public health strategy. One challenge is the low bioavailability of calcium salts (∼20-40%); thus, large amounts need to be added to food to have a meaningful impact. Solubility is important when fortifying liquids and acidic foods. Calcium salts could change the flavor, color, and appearance of the food and may account for 70-90% of the total fortification cost. Safety is key to avoid exceeding the recommended intake; so the amount of added calcium should be based on the target calcium intake and the gap between inadequate and adequate levels. Monitoring includes the quality of the fortified food and population calcium intake using dietary assessment methods. Calcium fortification should follow regulations, implemented in an intersectorial way, and be informed by the right to health and equity. This information may help guide and plan this public health strategy.

Current calcium fortification experiences: a review.

Low dietary calcium is very common in many populations, contributing to nutritional rickets/osteomalacia in children/adults and increasing the risk of several health problems. Calcium is a nutrient of concern as the recommended nutrient requirements are difficult to meet in the absence of dairy products. The provision of culturally acceptable calcium-fortified foods may improve calcium intake when it is a feasible and cost-effective strategy in a particular setting. This landscape review was conducted in 2019 and describes current calcium fortification efforts and lessons learned from these experiences. Worldwide, the United Kingdom is the only country where calcium fortification of wheat flour is mandatory. It is estimated that this fortified staple ingredient contributes to 13-14% of calcium intake of the British population. Other items voluntary fortified with calcium include maize flour, rice, and water. Current calcium fortification programs may lack qualified personnel/training, clear guidelines on implementation, regulation, monitoring/evaluation, and functional indicators. Also, the cost of calcium premix is high and the target groups may be hard to reach. There is a lack of rigorous evaluation, particularly in settings with multiple micronutrient programs implemented simultaneously, with low quality of the evidence. Further research is needed to assess the impact of calcium fortification programs.

Effects of oral vitamin D supplementation on linear growth and other health outcomes among children under five years of age.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone that is important for its role in calcium homeostasis to maintain skeletal health. Linear growth faltering and stunting remain pervasive indicators of poor nutrition status among infants and children under five years of age around the world, and low vitamin D status has been linked to poor growth. However, existing evidence on the effects of vitamin D supplementation on linear growth and other health outcomes among infants and children under five years of age has not been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of oral vitamin D supplementation on linear growth and other health outcomes among infants and children under five years of age. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2019, we searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, 14 other electronic databases, and two trials registries. We also searched the reference lists of relevant publications for any relevant trials, and we contacted key organisations and authors to obtain information on relevant ongoing and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of oral vitamin D supplementation, with or without other micronutrients, compared to no intervention, placebo, a lower dose of vitamin D, or the same micronutrients alone (and not vitamin D) in infants and children under five years of age who lived in any country. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 75 studies (187 reports; 12,122 participants) included in the qualitative analysis, 64 studies (169 reports; 10,854 participants) contributed data on our outcomes of interest for meta-analysis. A majority of included studies were conducted in India, USA, and Canada. Two studies reported for-profit funding, two were categorised as receiving mixed funding (non-profit and for-profit), five reported that they received no funding, 26 did not disclose funding sources, and the remaining studies were funded by non-profit funding. Certainty of evidence varied between high and very low across outcomes (all measured at endpoint) for each comparison. Vitamin D supplementation versus placebo or no intervention (31 studies) Compared to placebo or no intervention, vitamin D supplementation (at doses 200 to 2000 IU daily; or up to 300,000 IU bolus at enrolment) may make little to no difference in linear growth (measured length/height in cm) among children under five years of age (mean difference (MD) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 1.68; 3 studies, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably improves length/height-for-age z-score (L/HAZ) (MD 0.11, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.22; 1 study, 1258 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably makes little to no difference in stunting (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; 1 study, 1247 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, vitamin D supplementation results in little to no difference in developing hypercalciuria compared to placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.28 to 14.67; 2 studies, 68 participants; high-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation impacts the development of hypercalcaemia as the certainty of evidence was very low (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.90; 2 studies, 367 participants). Vitamin D supplementation (higher dose) versus vitamin D (lower dose) (34 studies) Compared to a lower dose of vitamin D (100 to 1000 IU daily; or up to 300,000 IU bolus at enrolment), higher-dose vitamin D supplementation (200 to 6000 IU daily; or up to 600,000 IU bolus at enrolment) may have little to no effect on linear growth, but we are uncertain about this result (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.22 to 0.21; 5 studies, 283 participants), and it may make little to no difference in L/HAZ (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.86; 2 studies, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies evaluated stunting. As regards adverse events, higher-dose vitamin D supplementation may make little to no difference in developing hypercalciuria (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35; 6 studies, 554 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in hypercalcaemia (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 5 studies, 986 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to lower-dose vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D supplementation (higher dose) + micronutrient(s) versus vitamin D (lower dose) + micronutrient(s) (9 studies) Supplementation with a higher dose of vitamin D (400 to 2000 IU daily, or up to 300,000 IU bolus at enrolment) plus micronutrients, compared to a lower dose (200 to 2000 IU daily, or up to 90,000 IU bolus at enrolment) of vitamin D with the same micronutrients, probably makes little to no difference in linear growth (MD 0.60, 95% CI -3.33 to 4.53; 1 study, 25 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies evaluated L/HAZ or stunting. In terms of adverse events, higher-dose vitamin D supplementation with micronutrients, compared to lower-dose vitamin D with the same micronutrients, may make little to no difference in developing hypercalciuria (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.48; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference in developing hypercalcaemia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90, 1.11; 2 studies, 126 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies measured hyperphosphataemia and three studies measured kidney stones, but they reported no occurrences and therefore were not included in the comparison for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that oral vitamin D supplementation may result in little to no difference in linear growth, stunting, hypercalciuria, or hypercalcaemia, compared to placebo or no intervention, but may result in a slight increase in length/height-for-age z-score (L/HAZ). Additionally, evidence suggests that compared to lower doses of vitamin D, with or without micronutrients, vitamin D supplementation may result in little to no difference in linear growth, L/HAZ, stunting, hypercalciuria, or hypercalcaemia. Small sample sizes, substantial heterogeneity in terms of population and intervention parameters, and high risk of bias across many of the included studies limit our ability to confirm with any certainty the effects of vitamin D on our outcomes. Larger, well-designed studies of long duration (several months to years) are recommended to confirm whether or not oral vitamin D supplementation may impact linear growth in children under five years of age, among both those who are healthy and those with underlying infectious or non-communicable health conditions.

Wheat flour fortification with iron for reducing anaemia and improving iron status in populations.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is a condition where the number of red blood cells (and consequently their oxygen-carrying capacity) is insufficient to meet the body's physiologic needs. Fortification of wheat flour is deemed a useful strategy to reduce anaemia in populations. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of wheat flour fortification with iron alone or with other vitamins and minerals on anaemia, iron status and health-related outcomes in populations over two years of age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and other databases up to 4 September 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cluster- or individually randomised controlled trials (RCT) carried out among the general population from any country aged two years and above. The interventions were fortification of wheat flour with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients. Trials comparing any type of food item prepared from flour fortified with iron of any variety of wheat were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We followed Cochrane methods in this review. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified 3048 records, after removing duplicates. We included nine trials, involving 3166 participants, carried out in Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Kuwait, Phillipines, Sri Lanka and South Africa. The duration of interventions varied from 3 to 24 months. One study was carried out among adult women and one trial among both children and nonpregnant women. Most of the included trials were assessed as low or unclear risk of bias for key elements of selection, performance or reporting bias. Three trials used 41 mg to 60 mg iron/kg flour, two trials used less than 40 mg iron/kg and three trials used more than 60 mg iron/kg flour. One trial employed various iron levels based on type of iron used: 80 mg/kg for electrolytic and reduced iron and 40 mg/kg for ferrous fumarate. All included studies contributed data for the meta-analyses. Seven studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron alone versus unfortified wheat flour, three studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified wheat flour and two studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with the same micronutrients (but not iron). No studies included a 'no intervention' comparison arm. None of the included trials reported any other adverse side effects (including constipation, nausea, vomiting, heartburn or diarrhoea). Wheat flour fortified with iron alone versus unfortified wheat flour (no micronutrients added) Wheat flour fortification with iron alone may have little or no effect on anaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.07; 5 studies; 2200 participants; low-certainty evidence). It probably makes little or no difference on iron deficiency (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.07; 3 studies; 633 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and we are uncertain about whether wheat flour fortified with iron increases haemoglobin concentrations by an average 3.30 (g/L) (95% CI 0.86 to 5.74; 7 studies; 2355 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children, except for risk of infection or inflammation at the individual level. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to risk of Infection or inflammation at individual level as measured by C-reactive protein (CRP) (moderate-certainty evidence). Wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified wheat flour (no micronutrients added) Wheat flour fortified with iron, in combination with other micronutrients, may or may not decrease anaemia (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.31; 2 studies; 322 participants; low-certainty evidence). It makes little or no difference to average risk of iron deficiency (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.00; 3 studies; 387 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may or may not increase average haemoglobin concentrations (mean difference (MD) 3.29, 95% CI -0.78 to 7.36; 3 studies; 384 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children. Wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with same micronutrients (but not iron) Given the very low certainty of the evidence, the review authors are uncertain about the effects of wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with same micronutrients (but not iron) in reducing anaemia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71; 1 study; 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in reducing iron deficiency (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97; 1 study; 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention may make little or no difference to the average haemoglobin concentration (MD 0.81, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.89; 2 studies; 488 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on the adverse effects in children. Eight out of nine trials reported source of funding with most having multiple sources. Funding source does not appear to have distorted the results in any of the assessed trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Eating food items containing wheat flour fortified with iron alone may have little or no effect on anaemia and probably makes little or no difference in iron deficiency. We are uncertain on whether the intervention with wheat flour fortified with iron increases haemoglobin concentrations improve blood haemoglobin concentrations. Consuming food items prepared from wheat flour fortified with iron, in combination with other micronutrients, has little or no effect on anaemia, makes little or no difference to iron deficiency and may or may not improve haemoglobin concentrations. In comparison to fortified flour with micronutrients but no iron, wheat flour fortified with iron with other micronutrients, the effects on anaemia and iron deficiency are uncertain as certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. The intervention may make little or no difference to the average haemoglobin concentrations in the population. None of the included trials reported any other adverse side effects. The effects of this intervention on other health outcomes are unclear.

Regulatory and Policy-Related Aspects of Calcium Fortification of Foods. Implications for Implementing National Strategies of Calcium Fortification.

Daily calcium intake is well below current recommendations in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Calcium intake is usually related to bone health, however an adequate calcium intake has also been shown to reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, lower blood pressure and cholesterol values, and to prevent recurrent colorectal adenomas. Food fortification of foods has been identified as a cost-effective strategy to overcome micronutrient gaps in public health. This review summarizes regulatory aspects of fortification of commonly consumed foods with micronutrients, with an emphasis on calcium. We selected a convenient sample of 15 countries from different WHO regions and described the regulatory framework related to calcium fortification of staple foods. We assessed the relevant policies in electronic databases including the WHO Global database on the Implementation of Nutrition Action (GINA) for fortification policies and the Global Fortification Data Exchange Database, a fortification database developed and maintained by Food Fortification Initiative (FFI), Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Iodine Global Network (IGN), and Micronutrient Forum. Food fortification with micronutrients is widely used in many of the selected countries. Most countries had national legislation for the addition of micronutrients to staple foods, especially wheat flour. These national legislations, that includes regulations and standards, can provide the framework to consider the implementation of adding calcium to the fortification strategies, including the selection of the adequate food vehicle to reach the targeted population at risk safely. The strategy to include calcium in the fortification mix in fortified staple foods seems promising in these countries. However, potential undesired changes on the organoleptic characteristics of fortified foods and products thereof, and operational feasibility at the manufacturing site should be evaluated by the stakeholders during the planning stage. Codex Alimentarius standards should be considered by regulators in order to assure adherence to international standards. While the selected countries already have established national regulations and/or standards for fortification of key staple food vehicles, and there are experiences in the implementation of fortification of some staple foods, national food intake surveys can help plan, design, and modify existing fortification programs as well as monitor food and nutrient consumption to assess risk and benefits.

Fortification of rice with vitamins and minerals for addressing micronutrient malnutrition.

BACKGROUND: Rice fortification with vitamins and minerals has the potential to increase the nutrition in rice-consuming countries where micronutrient deficiencies exist. Globally, 490 million metric tonnes of rice are consumed annually. It is the dominant staple food crop of around three billion people. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of rice fortification with vitamins and minerals (iron, vitamin A, zinc or folic acid) on micronutrient status and health-related outcomes in the general population. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and 16 other databases all up to 10 December 2018. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 10 December 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials (with either individual or cluster randomisation) and controlled before-and-after studies. Participants were populations older than two years of age (including pregnant women) from any country. The intervention was rice fortified with at least one micronutrient or a combination of several micronutrients (iron, folic acid, zinc, vitamin A or other vitamins and minerals) compared with unfortified rice or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened studies and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies (10,483 participants) and identified two ongoing studies. Twelve included studies were randomised-controlled trials (RCTs), with 2238 participants after adjusting for clustering in two cluster-RCTs, and five were non-randomised studies (NRS) with four controlled before-and-after studies and one cross-sectional study with a control (8245 participants). Four studies were conducted in India, three in Thailand, two in the Philippines, two in Brazil, one each in Bangladesh, Burundi, Cambodia, Indonesia, Mexico and the USA. Two studies involved non-pregnant, non-lactating women and 10 involved pre-school or school-age children. All 17 studies reported fortification with iron. Of these, six studies fortified rice with iron only; 11 studies had other micronutrients added (iron, zinc and vitamin A, and folic acid). One study had one arm each with vitamin A alone and carotenoid alone. Elemental iron content ranged from 0.2 to 112.8 mg/100 g uncooked rice given for a period varying from two weeks to 48 months. Thirteen studies did not clearly describe either sequence generation or allocation concealment. Eleven studies had a low attrition rate. There was no indication of selective reporting in the studies. We considered two RCTs at low overall risk of bias and 10 at high overall risk of bias. One RCT was at high or unclear risk of bias for most of the domains. All controlled before-and-after studies had a high risk or unclear risk of bias in most domains. The included studies were funded by Government, private and non-governmental organisations, along with other academic institutions. The source of funding does not appear to have altered the results. We used the NRS in the qualitative synthesis but we excluded them from the quantitative analysis and review conclusions since they provided mostly contextual information and limited quantitative information. Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added) Fortification of rice with iron (alone or in combination with other micronutrients) may make little or no difference in the risk of having anaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.97; I2 = 74%; 7 studies, 1634 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of iron deficiency (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.84; 8 studies, 1733 participants; low-certainty evidence). Rice fortification may increase mean haemoglobin (mean difference (MD) 1.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.00; I2 = 54%; 11 studies, 2163 participants; low-certainty evidence) and it may make little or no difference to vitamin A deficiency (with vitamin A as one of the micronutrients in the fortification arm) (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.29; I2 = 37%; 4 studies, 927 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported that fortification of rice (with folic acid as one of the micronutrients) may improve serum or plasma folate (nmol/L) (MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.00 to 6.60; 215 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported that fortification of rice with iron alone or with other micronutrients may slightly increase hookworm infection (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.70; 785 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of fortified rice on diarrhoea (RR 3.52, 95% CI 0.18 to 67.39; 1 study, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added) One study had one arm providing fortified rice with vitamin A only versus unfortified rice. Fortification of rice with vitamin A (in combination with other micronutrients) may increase mean haemoglobin (MD 10.00, 95% CI 8.79 to 11.21; 1 study, 74 participants; low-certainty evidence). Rice fortified with vitamin A may slightly improve serum retinol concentration (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.21; 1 study, 74 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies contributed data to the comparisons of rice fortification versus no intervention. The studies involving folic acid and zinc also involved iron in the fortification arms and hence we reported them as part of the first comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Fortification of rice with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients may make little or no difference in the risk of having anaemia or presenting iron deficiency and we are uncertain about an increase in mean haemoglobin concentrations in the general population older than 2 years of age. Fortification of rice with iron and other micronutrients such as vitamin A or folic acid may make little or no difference in the risk of having vitamin A deficiency or on the serum folate concentration. There is limited evidence on any adverse effects of rice fortification.

Regimens of vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy increases the risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, and low birthweight. In a previous Cochrane Review we found that supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D alone compared to no vitamin D supplementation may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and low birthweight and may increase the risk of preterm births if it is combined with calcium. However the effects of different vitamin D regimens are not yet clear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and safety of different regimens of vitamin D supplementation alone or in combination with calcium or other vitamins, minerals or nutrients during pregnancy, specifically doses of 601 international units per day (IU/d) or more versus 600 IU/d or less; and 4000 IU/d or more versus 3999 IU/d or less. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 July 2018), and the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials evaluating the effect of different vitamin D regimens (dose, frequency, duration, and time of commencement of supplementation during pregnancy), alone or in combination with other nutrients on pregnancy and neonatal health outcomes. We only included trials that compared 601 IU/d or more versus 600 IU/d or less and 4000 IU/d or more versus 3999 IU/d or less. We did not include in the analysis groups that received no vitamin D, as that comparison is assessed in another Cochrane Review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently: i) assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria; ii) extracted data from included studies, and iii) assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Our primary maternal outcomes were: pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and any adverse effects; our primary infant outcomes were preterm birth and low birthweight. Data were checked for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this review, we included data from 30 trials involving 7289 women. We excluded 11 trials, identified 16 ongoing/unpublished trials and two trials are awaiting classification. Overall risk of bias for the trials was mixed.Comparison 1. 601 IU/d or more versus 600 IU/d or less of vitamin D alone or with any other nutrient (19 trials; 5214 participants)Supplementation with 601 IU/d or more of vitamin D during pregnancy may make little or no difference to the risk of pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.42); 5 trials; 1553 participants,low-certainty evidence), may reduce the risk of gestational diabetes (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.86; 5 trials; 1846 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may make little or no difference to the risk of preterm birth (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.69; 4 trials; 2294 participants; low-certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to the risk of low birthweight (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.24; 4 trials; 1550 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to women receiving 600 IU/d or less.Comparison 2. 4000 IU or more versus 3999 IU or less of vitamin D alone (15 trials; 4763 participants)Supplementation with 4000 IU/d or more of vitamin D during pregnancy may make little or no difference to the risk of: pre-eclampsia (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.22; 4 trials, 1903 participants, low-certainty evidence); gestational diabetes (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 5 trials, 2276 participants; low-certainty evidence); preterm birth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.12; 6 trials, 2948 participants, low-certainty evidence); and low birthweight (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.70; 2 trials; 1099 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to women receiving 3999 IU/d or less.Adverse events (such as hypercalcaemia, hypocalcaemia, hypercalciuria, and hypovitaminosis D) were reported differently in most trials; however, in general, there was little to no side effects reported or similar cases between groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Supplementing pregnant women with more than the current vitamin D recommendation may reduce the risk of gestational diabetes; however, it may make little or no difference to the risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm birth and low birthweight. Supplementing pregnant women with more than the current upper limit for vitamin D seems not to increase the risk of the outcomes evaluated. In general, the GRADE was considered low certainty for most of the primary outcomes due to serious risk of bias and imprecision of results. With respect to safety, it appears that vitamin D supplementation is a safe intervention during pregnancy, although the parameters used to determine this were either not reported or not consistent between trials. Future trials should be consistent in their reports of adverse events. There are 16 ongoing trials that when published, will increase the body of knowledge.

Redesigning care for older people to preserve physical and mental capacity: WHO guidelines on community-level interventions in integrated care.

Islene Araujo de Carvalho and coauthors discuss the WHO guidelines on integrated care for older people.

Vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy may be needed to protect against adverse pregnancy outcomes. This is an update of a review that was first published in 2012 and then in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether vitamin D supplementation alone or in combination with calcium or other vitamins and minerals given to women during pregnancy can safely improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (12 July 2018), contacted relevant organisations (15 May 2018), reference lists of retrieved trials and registries at clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (12 July 2018). Abstracts were included if they had enough information to extract the data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effect of supplementation with vitamin D alone or in combination with other micronutrients for women during pregnancy in comparison to placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently i) assessed the eligibility of trials against the inclusion criteria, ii) extracted data from included trials, and iii) assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 trials (7033 women), excluded 60 trials, identified six as ongoing/unpublished trials and two trials are awaiting assessments.Supplementation with vitamin D alone versus placebo/no interventionA total of 22 trials involving 3725 pregnant women were included in this comparison; 19 trials were assessed as having low-to-moderate risk of bias for most domains and three trials were assessed as having high risk of bias for most domains. Supplementation with vitamin D alone during pregnancy probably reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.79; 4 trials, 499 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and gestational diabetes (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 4 trials, 446 women, moderate-certainty evidence); and probably reduces the risk of having a baby with low birthweight (less than 2500 g) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.87; 5 trials, 697 women, moderate-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo or no intervention. Vitamin D supplementation may make little or no difference in the risk of having a preterm birth < 37 weeks compared to no intervention or placebo (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.30; 7 trials, 1640 women, low-certainty evidence). In terms of maternal adverse events, vitamin D supplementation may reduce the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91; 1 trial, 1134 women, low-certainty evidence). There were no cases of hypercalcaemia (1 trial, 1134 women, low-certainty evidence), and we are very uncertain as to whether vitamin D increases or decreases the risk of nephritic syndrome (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 trial, 135 women, very low-certainty evidence). However, given the scarcity of data in general for maternal adverse events, no firm conclusions can be drawn.Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium versus placebo/no interventionNine trials involving 1916 pregnant women were included in this comparison; three trials were assessed as having low risk of bias for allocation and blinding, four trials were assessed as having high risk of bias and two had some components having a low risk, high risk, or unclear risk. Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium during pregnancy probably reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.78; 4 trials, 1174 women, moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of the intervention is uncertain on gestational diabetes (RR 0.33,% CI 0.01 to 7.84; 1 trial, 54 women, very low-certainty evidence); and low birthweight (less than 2500 g) (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.10 to 4.55; 2 trials, 110 women, very low-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo or no intervention. Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium during pregnancy may increase the risk of preterm birth < 37 weeks in comparison to women who received placebo or no intervention (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.28; 5 trials, 942 women, low-certainty evidence). No trial in this comparison reported on maternal adverse events.Supplementation with vitamin D + calcium + other vitamins and minerals versus calcium + other vitamins and minerals (but no vitamin D)One trial in 1300 participants was included in this comparison; it was assessed as having low risk of bias. Pre-eclampsia was not assessed. Supplementation with vitamin D + other nutrients may make little or no difference in the risk of preterm birth < 37 weeks (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.59; 1 trial, 1298 women, low-certainty evidence); or low birthweight (less than 2500 g) (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.51; 1 trial, 1298 women, low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether it makes any difference to the risk of gestational diabetes (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.73) or maternal adverse events (hypercalcaemia no events; hypercalciuria RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.97; 1 trial, 1298 women,) because the certainty of the evidence for both outcomes was found to be very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We included 30 trials (7033 women) across three separate comparisons. Our GRADE assessments ranged from moderate to very low, with downgrading decisions based on limitations in study design, imprecision and indirectness.Supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D alone probably reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, low birthweight and may reduce the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage. It may make little or no difference in the risk of having a preterm birth < 37 weeks' gestation. Supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D and calcium probably reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia but may increase the risk of preterm births < 37 weeks (these findings warrant further research). Supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D and other nutrients may make little or no difference in the risk of preterm birth < 37 weeks' gestation or low birthweight (less than 2500 g). Additional rigorous high quality and larger randomised trials are required to evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy, particularly in relation to the risk of maternal adverse events.

Fortification of staple foods with vitamin A for vitamin A deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin A deficiency is a significant public health problem in many low- and middle-income countries, especially affecting young children, women of reproductive age, and pregnant women. Fortification of staple foods with vitamin A has been used to increase vitamin A consumption among these groups. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of fortifying staple foods with vitamin A for reducing vitamin A deficiency and improving health-related outcomes in the general population older than two years of age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following international databases with no language or date restrictions: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process OVID; Embase OVID; CINAHL Ebsco; Web of Science (ISI) SCI, SSCI, CPCI-exp and CPCI-SSH; BIOSIS (ISI); POPLINE; Bibliomap; TRoPHI; ASSIA (Proquest); IBECS; SCIELO; Global Index Medicus - AFRO and EMRO; LILACS; PAHO; WHOLIS; WPRO; IMSEAR; IndMED; and Native Health Research Database. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. The date of the last search was 19 July 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individually or cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this review. The intervention included fortification of staple foods (sugar, edible oils, edible fats, maize flour or corn meal, wheat flour, milk and dairy products, and condiments and seasonings) with vitamin A alone or in combination with other vitamins and minerals. We included the general population older than two years of age (including pregnant and lactating women) from any country. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened and assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We used standard Cochrane methodology to carry out the review. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 randomised controlled trials involving 4455 participants. All the studies were conducted in low- and upper-middle income countries where vitamin A deficiency was a public health issue. One of the included trials did not contribute data to the outcomes of interest.Three trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A versus unfortified staple food, five trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus unfortified staple foods, and two trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus no intervention. No studies compared staple foods fortified with vitamin A alone versus no intervention.The duration of interventions ranged from three to nine months. We assessed six studies at high risk of bias overall. Government organisations, non-governmental organisations, the private sector, and academic institutions funded the included studies; funding source does not appear to have distorted the results.Staple food fortified with vitamin A versus unfortified staple food We are uncertain whether fortifying staple foods with vitamin A alone makes little or no difference for serum retinol concentration (mean difference (MD) 0.03 µmol/L, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.12; 3 studies, 1829 participants; I² = 90%, very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether vitamin A alone reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.05; 2 studies; 993 participants; I² = 33%, very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency.It is uncertain whether vitamin A fortification reduces clinical vitamin A deficiency, defined as night blindness (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.98; 1 study, 581 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias.Staple foods fortified with vitamin A versus no intervention No studies provided data for this comparison.Staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus same unfortified staple foods Fortifying staple foods with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may not increase the serum retinol concentration (MD 0.08 µmol/L, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.22; 4 studies; 1009 participants; I² = 95%, low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by serious inconsistency and risk of bias.In comparison to unfortified staple foods, fortification with vitamin A plus other micronutrients probably reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.49; 3 studies; 923 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by serious risk of bias.Staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus no interventionFortification of staple foods with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may increase serum retinol concentration (MD 0.22 µmol/L, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.30; 2 studies; 318 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). When compared to no intervention, it is uncertain whether the intervention reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; 2 studies; 318 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) . The certainty of the evidence was affected mainly by serious imprecision and risk of bias.No trials reported on the outcomes of all-cause morbidity, all-cause mortality, adverse effects, food intake, congenital anomalies (for pregnant women), or breast milk concentration (for lactating women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Fortifying staple foods with vitamin A alone may make little or no difference to serum retinol concentrations or the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency. In comparison with provision of unfortified foods, provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may not increase serum retinol concentration but probably reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency.Compared to no intervention, staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may increase serum retinol concentration, although it is uncertain whether the intervention reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low.It was not possible to estimate the effect of staple food fortification on outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, adverse effects, congenital anomalies, or breast milk vitamin A, as no trials included these outcomes.The type of funding source for the studies did not appear to distort the results from the analysis.

Fortification of maize flour with iron for controlling anaemia and iron deficiency in populations.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 800 million women and children have anaemia, a condition thought to cause almost 9% of the global burden of years lived with disability. Around half this burden could be amenable to interventions that involve the provision of iron. Maize (corn) is one of the world's most important cereal grains and is cultivated across most of the globe. Several programmes around the world have fortified maize flour and other maize-derived foodstuffs with iron and other vitamins and minerals to combat anaemia and iron deficiency. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of iron fortification of maize flour, corn meal and fortified maize flour products for anaemia and iron status in the general population. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following international and regional sources in December 2017 and January 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; MEDLINE (R) In Process; Embase; Web of Science (both the Social Science Citation Index and the Science Citation Index); CINAHL Ebsco; POPLINE; AGRICOLA (agricola.nal.usda.gov); BIOSIS (ISI); Bibliomap and TRoPHI; IBECS; Scielo; Global Index Medicus - AFRO (includes African Index Medicus); EMRO (includes Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region); LILACS; PAHO (Pan American Health Library); WHOLIS (WHO Library); WPRO (includes Western Pacific Region Index Medicus); IMSEAR, Index Medicus for the South-East Asian Region; IndMED, Indian medical journals; and the Native Health Research Database. We searched clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for any ongoing or planned studies on 17 January 2018 and contacted authors of such studies to obtain further information or eligible data if available.For assistance in identifying ongoing or unpublished studies, we also contacted relevant international organisations and agencies working in food fortification on 9 August 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cluster- or individually randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Interventions included (central/industrial) fortification of maize flour or corn meal with iron alone or with other vitamins and minerals and provided to individuals over 2 years of age (including pregnant and lactating women) from any country. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Trial designs with a comparison group were included to assess the effects of interventions. Trial designs without a control or comparison group (uncontrolled before-and-after studies) were included for completeness but were not considered in assessments of the overall effectiveness of interventions or used to draw conclusions regarding the effects of interventions in the review. MAIN RESULTS: Our search yielded 4529 records. After initial screening of titles and abstracts, we reviewed the full text of 75 studies (80 records). We included 5 studies and excluded 70. All the included studies assessed the effects of providing maize products fortified with iron plus other vitamins and minerals versus unfortified maize flour. No studies compared this intervention to no intervention or looked at the relative effect of flour and products fortified with iron alone (without other vitamins and minerals). Three were randomised trials involving 2610 participants, and two were uncontrolled before-and-after studies involving 849 participants.Only three studies contributed data for the meta-analysis and included children aged 2 to 11.9 years and women. Compared to unfortified maize flour, it is uncertain whether fortifying maize flour or corn meal with iron and other vitamins and minerals has any effect on anaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.40; 2 studies; 1027 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or on the risk of iron deficiency (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.15; 2 studies; 1102 participants; very low-certainty evidence), haemoglobin concentration (mean difference (MD) 1.25 g/L, 95% CI -2.36 to 4.86 g/L; 3 studies; 1144 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or ferritin concentrations (MD 0.48 µg/L, 95% CI -0.37 to 1.33 µg/L; 1 study; 584 participants; very low-certainty evidence).None of the studies reported on any adverse effects. We judged the certainty of the evidence to be very low based on GRADE, so we are uncertain whether the results reflect the true effect of the intervention. We downgraded evidence due to high risk of selection bias and unclear risk of performance bias in one of two included studies, high heterogeneity and wide CIs crossing the line of no effect for anaemia prevalence and haemoglobin concentration. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether fortifying maize flour with iron and other vitamins and minerals reduces the risk of anaemia or iron deficiency in children aged over 2 years or in adults. Moreover, the evidence is too uncertain to conclude whether iron-fortified maize flour, corn meal or fortified maize flour products have any effect on reducing the risk of anaemia or on improving haemoglobin concentration in the population.We are uncertain whether fortification of maize flour with iron reduces anaemia among the general population, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. No studies reported on any adverse effects.Public organisations funded three of the five included studies, while the private sector gave grants to universities to perform the other two. The presence of industry funding for some of these trials did not appear to positively influence results from these studies.The reduced number of studies, including only two age groups (children and women of reproductive age), as well as the limited number of comparisons (only one out of the four planned) constitute the main limitations of this review.

Point-of-use fortification of foods with micronutrient powders containing iron in children of preschool and school-age.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 600 million children of preschool and school age are anaemic worldwide. It is estimated that at least half of the cases are due to iron deficiency. Point-of-use fortification of foods with micronutrient powders (MNP) has been proposed as a feasible intervention to prevent and treat anaemia. It refers to the addition of iron alone or in combination with other vitamins and minerals in powder form, to energy-containing foods (excluding beverages) at home or in any other place where meals are to be consumed. MNPs can be added to foods either during or after cooking or immediately before consumption without the explicit purpose of improving the flavour or colour. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of point-of-use fortification of foods with iron-containing MNP alone, or in combination with other vitamins and minerals on nutrition, health and development among children at preschool (24 to 59 months) and school (five to 12 years) age, compared with no intervention, a placebo or iron-containing supplements. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2016, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL, LILACS, IBECS, Popline and SciELO. We also searched two trials registers in April 2017, and contacted relevant organisations to identify ongoing and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs trials with either individual or cluster randomisation. Participants were children aged between 24 months and 12 years at the time of intervention. For trials with children outside this age range, we included studies where we were able to disaggregate the data for children aged 24 months to 12 years, or when more than half of the participants were within the requisite age range. We included trials with apparently healthy children; however, we included studies carried out in settings where anaemia and iron deficiency are prevalent, and thus participants may have had these conditions at baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials against the inclusion criteria, extracted data from included trials, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and graded the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies involving 5810 participants from Latin America, Africa and Asia. We excluded 38 studies and identified six ongoing/unpublished trials. All trials compared the provision of MNP for point-of-use fortification with no intervention or placebo. No trials compared the effects of MNP versus iron-containing supplements (as drops, tablets or syrup).The sample sizes in the included trials ranged from 90 to 2193 participants. Six trials included participants younger than 59 months of age only, four included only children aged 60 months or older, and three trials included children both younger and older than 59 months of age.MNPs contained from two to 18 vitamins and minerals. The iron doses varied from 2.5 mg to 30 mg of elemental iron. Four trials reported giving 10 mg of elemental iron as sodium iron ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (NaFeEDTA), chelated ferrous sulphate or microencapsulated ferrous fumarate. Three trials gave 12.5 mg of elemental iron as microencapsulated ferrous fumarate. Three trials gave 2.5 mg or 2.86 mg of elemental iron as NaFeEDTA. One trial gave 30 mg and one trial provided 14 mg of elemental iron as microencapsulated ferrous fumarate, while one trial gave 28 mg of iron as ferrous glycine phosphate.In comparison with receiving no intervention or a placebo, children receiving iron-containing MNP for point-of-use fortification of foods had lower risk of anaemia prevalence ratio (PR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.88, 10 trials, 2448 children; moderate-quality evidence) and iron deficiency (PR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.47, 5 trials, 1364 children; moderate-quality evidence) and had higher haemoglobin (mean difference (MD) 3.37 g/L, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.80, 11 trials, 2746 children; low-quality evidence).Only one trial with 115 children reported on all-cause mortality (zero cases; low-quality evidence). There was no effect on diarrhoea (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.78, 2 trials, 366 children; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-use fortification of foods with MNPs containing iron reduces anaemia and iron deficiency in preschool- and school-age children. However, information on mortality, morbidity, developmental outcomes and adverse effects is still scarce.

Ethical issues in the development and implementation of nutrition-related public health policies and interventions: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The limited integration of ethics in nutrition-related public health policies and interventions is one major concern for those who have the task of implementing them. Ethical challenges that are overlooked during the development of such interventions could raise serious ethical issues during their implementation and even after. As a result, these decision makers need technical support and ethical guidance for adaptation of interventions to local (cultural, social, economic, etc.) contexts. AIM: The goal of this scoping review is to delineate and "map" the range of ethical issues in nutrition-related public health interventions, as well as the range of the various fields in which they may arise. METHODS: A scoping review of empirical research and conceptual literature was conducted following the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Searches using PubMed with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) categories and Advanced Search Builder as well as in the Global Health Library were performed. The final sample consists of 169 publications. RESULTS: The ethics of public health prevention or treatment of obesity and non-communicable diseases is the most explicitly and frequently discussed subject. In comparison, ethical issues raised by public health interventions in the fields of undernutrition, breastfeeding, vitamin/mineral supplementation and food fortification, food security, food sustainability and food safety are addressed in a lower proportion of the sample. The results illustrate the various natures, types, and scopes of existing public health nutrition-related interventions, and the various ethical issues that may be raised by these interventions, in addition to the numerous and different contexts in which they may be implemented. DISCUSSION: The ethical issues faced in the development and implementation of nutrition-related public health interventions are varied and cannot be equated with, nor generalized about, when dealing with specific activities in this field. More importantly, these ethical issues cannot be managed without a careful consideration for the complexity of contexts in which nutrition-related interventions are expected to be implemented. These interventions engage a variety of actors with diverse perspectives and interests. We discuss these challenges and also comment on the importance of considering ethical impacts in the monitoring and evaluation of such interventions. CONCLUSION: General ethical frameworks or recommendations-although useful-cannot be expected to provide policy makers, implementators and other public health personnel with sufficient practical ethical guidance as they cannot consider and anticipate the particularities of all specific nutrition-related public health interventions and the complexity of the contexts in which they are implemented. Further research is needed in order to develop more targeted ethical frameworks.

Effects of nutrition interventions during pregnancy on low birth weight: an overview of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Low birth weight (LBW, birth weight less than 2500 g) is associated with infant mortality and childhood morbidity. Poor maternal nutritional status is one of several contributing factors to LBW. We systematically reviewed the evidence for nutrition-specific (addressing the immediate determinants of nutrition) and nutrition-sensitive (addressing the underlying cause of undernutrition) interventions to reduce the risk of LBW and/or its components: preterm birth (PTB) and small-for-gestational age (SGA). METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (September 2015). Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials focusing on nutritional interventions before and during pregnancy to reduce LBW and its components were eligible for inclusion into the overview review. We assessed the methodological quality of the included reviews using A Measurement Tool to Assess Reviews (AMSTAR), PROSPERO: CRD42015024814. RESULTS: We included 23 systematic reviews which comprised 34 comparisons. Sixteen reviews were of high methodological quality, six of moderate and only one review of low quality. Six interventions were associated with a decreased risk of LBW: oral supplementation with (1) vitamin A, (2) low-dose calcium, (3) zinc, (4) multiple micronutrients (MMN), nutritional education and provision of preventive antimalarials. MMN and balanced protein/energy supplementation had a positive effect on SGA, while high protein supplementation increased the risk of SGA. High-dose calcium, zinc or long-chain n-3 fatty acid supplementation and nutritional education decreased the risk of PTB. CONCLUSION: Improving women's nutritional status positively affected LBW, SGA and PTB. Based on current evidence, especially MMN supplementation and preventive antimalarial drugs during pregnancy may be considered for policy and practice. However, for most interventions evidence was derived from a small number of trials and/or participants. There is a need to further explore the evidence of nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions in order to reach the WHO's goal of a 30% reduction in the global rate of LBW by 2025.

The legislative framework for salt iodization in Asia and the Pacific and its impact on programme implementation.

OBJECTIVE: Fortification of food-grade (edible) salt with iodine is recommended as a safe, cost-effective and sustainable strategy for the prevention of iodine-deficiency disorders. The present paper examines the legislative framework for salt iodization in Asian countries. DESIGN: We reviewed salt iodization legislation in thirty-six countries in Asia and the Pacific. We obtained copies of existing and draft legislation for salt iodization from UNICEF country offices and the WHO's Global Database of Implementation of Nutrition Actions. We compiled legislation details by country and report on commonalities and gaps using a standardized form. The association between type of legislation and availability of iodized salt in households was assessed. RESULTS: We identified twenty-one countries with existing salt iodization legislation, of which eighteen were mandatory. A further nine countries have draft legislation. The majority of countries with draft and existing legislation used a mandatory standard or technical regulation for iodized salt under their Food Act/Law. The remainder have developed a 'stand-alone' Law/Act. Available national surveys indicate that the proportion of households consuming adequately iodized salt was lowest in countries with no, draft or voluntary legislation, and highest in those where the legislation was based on mandatory regulations under Food Acts/Laws. CONCLUSIONS: Legislation for salt iodization, particularly mandatory legislation under the national food law, facilitates universal salt iodization. However, additional important factors for implementation of salt iodization and maintenance of achievements include the salt industry's structure and capacity to adequately fortify, and official commitment and capacity to enforce national legislation.

Lipid based nutrient supplements (LNS) for treatment of children (6 months to 59 months) with moderate acute malnutrition (MAM): A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Moderate acute malnutrition is a major public health problem affecting children from low- and middle-income countries. Lipid nutrient supplements have been proposed as a nutritional intervention for its treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LNS for the treatment of MAM in infants and children 6 to 59 months of age. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized-controlled trials and controlled before-after studies. RESULTS: Data from nine trials showed that use of LNS, in comparison to specially formulated foods, improved the recovery rate (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.14, 8 RCTs, 8934 participants, low quality evidence); decreased the chances of no recovery (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.58-0.85, 7 RCTs, 8364 participants, low quality evidence) and the risk of deterioration into severe acute malnutrition (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.73-1.03, 6 RCTs, 6788 participants, low quality evidence). There was little impact on mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54-1.52, 8 RCTs, 8364 participants, very-low- quality evidence) or default rate (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.73-2.4, 7 studies, 7570 participants, low quality evidence). There was improvement in weight gain, weight-for-height z-scores, height-for-age z-scores and mid-upper arm circumference. Subset analyses suggested higher recovery rates with greater amount of calories provided and with ready-to-use therapeutic foods, in comparison to ready-to-use supplementary foods. One study comparing LNS with nutritional counselling (very low quality evidence) showed higher chance of recovery, lower risk of deteriorating into severe acute malnutrition and lower default rate, with no impact on mortality, and no recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence restricted to the African regions suggests that LNS may be slightly more effective than specially formulated fortified foods or nutritional counselling in recovery from MAM, lowering the risk of deterioration into SAM, and improving weight gain with little impact on mortality or default rate.