Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 4 supplementary foods for treating moderate acute malnutrition: results from a cluster-randomized intervention trial in Sierra Leone.

BACKGROUND: Moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) affects 33 million children annually. Investments in formulations of corn-soy blended flours and lipid-based nutrient supplements have effectively improved MAM recovery rates. Information costs and cost-effectiveness differences are still needed. OBJECTIVES: We assessed recovery and sustained recovery rates of MAM children receiving a supplementary food: ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF), corn soy whey blend with fortified vegetable oil (CSWB w/oil), or Super Cereal Plus with amylase (SC + A) compared to Corn Soy Blend Plus with fortified vegetable oil (CSB+ w/oil). We also estimated differences in costs and cost effectiveness of each supplement. METHODS: In Sierra Leone, we randomly assigned 29 health centers to provide a supplement containing 550 kcal/d for ∼12 wk to 2691 children with MAM aged 6-59 mo. We calculated cost per enrollee, cost per child who recovered, and cost per child who sustained recovery each from 2 perspectives: program perspective and caregiver perspective, combined. RESULTS: Of 2653 MAM children (98.6%) with complete data, 1676 children (63%) recovered. There were no significant differences in the odds of recovery compared to CSB+ w/oil [0.83 (95% CI: 0.64-1.08) for CSWB w/oil, 1.01 (95% CI: 0.78-1.3) for SC + A, 1.05 (95% CI: 0.82-1.34) for RUSF]. The odds of sustaining recovery were significantly lower for RUSF (0.7; 95% CI 0.49-0.99) but not CSWB w/oil or SC + A [1.08 (95% CI: 0.73-1.6) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.67-1.4), respectively] when compared to CSB+ w/oil. Costs per enrollee [US dollars (USD)/child] ranged from $105/child in RUSF to $112/child in SC + A and costs per recovered child (USD/child) ranged from $163/child in RUSF to $179/child in CSWB w/oil, with overlapping uncertainty ranges. Costs were highest per sustained recovery (USD/child), ranging from $214/child with the CSB+ w/oil to $226/child with the SC + A, with overlapping uncertainty ranges. CONCLUSIONS: The 4 supplements performed similarly across recovery (but not sustained recovery) and costed measures. Analyses of posttreatment outcomes are necessary to estimate the full cost of MAM treatment. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03146897.

Treating high-risk moderate acute malnutrition using therapeutic food compared with nutrition counseling (Hi-MAM Study): a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus on what is the most appropriate treatment of moderate acute malnutrition (MAM). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine if provision of ready-to-use-therapeutic food (RUTF) and antibiotics to "high-risk" MAM (HR-MAM) children in addition to nutritional counseling would result in higher recovery and less deterioration than nutrition counseling alone. METHODS: At the 11 intervention clinics, HR-MAM children were given RUTF and amoxicillin along with standard nutrition counseling, for 2-12 wk. All others received 6 wk of nutrition counseling alone. HR-MAM was defined as midupper arm circumference (MUAC) <11.9 cm, weight-for-age z score (WAZ) <-3.5, mother not the main caregiver, or a child <2 y old not being breastfed. Outcomes were compared using intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Analysis included 573 children at the intervention sites and 714 children at the control sites. Of the intervention group, 317 (55%) were classified as HR-MAM. Short-term recovery was greater at the intervention sites [48% compared with 39% at week 12; risk difference (rd): 0.08; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.13]. The intervention group had lower risk of deteriorating to severe acute malnutrition (SAM) (18% compared with 24%; rd: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.11, -0.04), lower risk of dying (1.8% compared with 3.1%; rd: -0.02; 95% CI: -0.03, -0.00), and greater gains in MUAC and weight than did children at the control sites. However, by 24 wk, the risk of SAM was similar between the 2 arms (31% compared with 34%; rd: -0.03; 95% CI: -0.09, 0.02). Control group data identified recent illness, MUAC <12.0 cm, WAZ <-3, dropping anthropometry, age <12 mo, being a twin, and a history of previous SAM as risk factors for deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of RUTF and antibiotics to HR-MAM children improved short-term recovery and reduced short-term risk of deterioration. However, recovery rates were still suboptimal and differences were not sustained by 6 mo post enrollment.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03647150.

Treatment of severe acute malnutrition with oat or standard ready-to-use therapeutic food: a triple-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised that an alternative RUTF (ready-to-use therapeutic food) made with oats (oat-RUTF) would be non-inferior to standard RUTF (s-RUTF). DESIGN: This was a randomised, triple-blind, controlled, clinical non-inferiority trial comparing oat-RUTF to s-RUTF in rural Sierra Leone. Children aged 6-59 months with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) were randomised to oat-RUTF or s-RUTF. s-RUTF was composed of milk powder, sugar, peanut paste and vegetable oil, with a hydrogenated vegetable oil additive. Oat-RUTF contained oats and no hydrogenated vegetable oil additives. The primary outcome was graduation, an increase in anthropometric measurements such that the child was not acutely malnourished. Secondary outcomes were rates of growth, time to graduation and presence of adverse events. Intention to treat analyses was used. RESULTS: Of the 1406 children were enrolled, graduation was attained in 404/721 (56%) children receiving oat-RUTF and 311/685 (45%) receiving s-RUTF (difference 10.6%, 95% CI 5.4% to 15.8%). Death, hospitalisation or remaining with SAM was seen in 87/721 (12%) receiving oat-RUTF and in 125/685 (18%) receiving s-RUTF (difference 6.2%, 95% CI 2.3 to 10.0, p=0.001). Time to graduation was less for children receiving oat RUTF; 3.9±1.8 versus 4.5±1.8 visits, respectively (p<0.001). Rates of weight in the oat-RUTF group were greater than in the s-RUTF group; 3.4±2.7 versus 2.5±2.3 g/kg/d, p<0.001. CONCLUSION: Oat-RUTF is superior to s-RUTF in the treatment of SAM in Sierra Leone. We speculate that might be because of beneficial bioactive components or the absence of hydrogenated vegetable oil in oat-RUTF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03407326.