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.

Programmatic adaptations to acute malnutrition screening and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented numerous challenges to acute malnutrition screening and treatment. To enable continued case identification and service delivery while minimising transmission risks, many organisations and governments implemented adaptations to community-based management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) programmes for children under 5. These included: Family mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC); modified admission and discharge criteria; modified dosage of therapeutic foods; and reduced frequency of follow-up visits. This paper presents qualitative findings from a larger mixed methods study to document practitioners' operational experiences and lessons learned from these adaptations. Findings reflect insights from 37 interviews representing 15 organisations in 17 countries, conducted between July 2020 and January 2021. Overall, interviewees indicated that adaptations were mostly well-accepted by staff, caregivers and communities. Family MUAC filled screening gaps linked to COVID-19 disruptions; however, challenges included long-term accuracy of caregiver measurements; implementing an intervention that could increase demand for inconsistent services; and limited guidance to monitor programme quality and impact. Modified admission and discharge criteria and modified dosage streamlined logistics and implementation with positive impacts on staff workload and caregiver understanding of the programme. Reduced frequency of visits enabled social distancing by minimising crowding at facilities and lessened caregivers' need to travel. Concerns remained about how adaptations impacted children's identification for and progress through treatment and programme outcomes. Most respondents anticipated reverting to standard protocols once transmission risks were mitigated. Further evidence, including multi-year programmatic data analysis and rigorous research, is needed in diverse contexts to understand adaptations' impacts, including how to ensure equity and mitigate unintended consequences.