Water, sanitation and hygiene interventions and the prevention and treatment of childhood acute malnutrition: A systematic review.

Undernutrition is more prevalent among children living in unsanitary environments with inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). Despite good evidence for the effect of WASH on multiple infectious diseases, evidence for the effect of WASH interventions on childhood undernutrition is less well established, particularly for acute malnutrition. To assess the effectiveness of WASH interventions in preventing and treating acute childhood malnutrition, we performed electronic searches to identify relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 13 May 2019. We included studies assessing the effect of WASH on prevention and treatment of acute malnutrition in children under 5 years of age. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. We included 26 articles of 599 identified references with a total of 43,083 participants. Twenty-five studies reported on the effect of WASH on prevention, and two studies reported its effect on treatment of acute malnutrition. Current evidence does not show consistent associations of WASH conditions and interventions with prevention of acute malnutrition or with the improvement of its treatment outcomes. Only two high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated that improved water quality during severe acute malnutrition treatment improved recovery outcomes but did not prevent relapse. Many of the interventions consisted of a package of WASH services, making impossible to attribute the effect to one specific component. This highlights the need for high-quality, rigorous intervention studies assessing the effects of WASH interventions specifically designed to prevent acute malnutrition or improve its treatment.

Potential consequences of expanded MUAC-only programs on targeting of acutely malnourished children and ready-to-use-therapeutic-food allocation: lessons from cross-sectional surveys.

BACKGROUND: Some of the recently piloted innovative approaches for the management of acute malnutrition in children use the "expanded MUAC-only" approach, with Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) < 125 mm as the sole anthropometric criterion for screening and admission, classification of cases as severe using the 115 mm cut-off, and use Ready-to-Use-Therapeutic-Food (RUTF) for the management of both moderate (MAM) and severe (SAM) cases of acute malnutrition. Our study aimed at exploring the potential consequences of this "expanded MUAC-only" program scenario on the eligibility for treatment and RUTF allocation, as compared with the existing WHO normative guidance. METHODS: We analyzed data from 550 population representative cross-sectional cluster surveys conducted since 2007. We retrieved all children classified as SAM and MAM according to currently used case definitions, and calculated the proportions of SAM children who would be excluded from treatment, misclassified as MAM, or whose specific risks (because of having both MUAC and weight-for height deficits) would be ignored. We also analyzed the expected changes in the number and demographics (sex, age) of children meant to receive RUTF according to the new approach. RESULTS: We found that approximately one quarter of SAM children would not be detected and eligible for treatment under the "expanded MUAC-only" scenario, and another 20% would be classified as MAM. A further 17% of the total SAM children would be admitted and followed only according to their MUAC or oedema status, while they also present with a severe weight-for height deficit on admission. Considering MAM targeting, about half of the MAM children would be left undetected. This scenario also shows a 2.5 time increase in the number of children targeted with RUTF, with approximately 70% of MAM and 30% of SAM cases among this new RUTF target. CONCLUSIONS: This empirical evidence suggests that adoption of "expanded MUAC-only" programs would likely lead to a priori exclusion from treatment or misclassifying as MAM a large proportion of SAM cases, while redirecting programmatic costs in favor of those less in need. It underscores the need to explore other options for improving the impact of programs addressing the needs of acutely malnourished children.