Effect of a package of health and nutrition services on sustained recovery in children after moderate acute malnutrition and factors related to sustaining recovery: a cluster-randomized trial

Background: Children who recover from moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) have high rates of relapse in the year after nutritional recovery. Interventions to decrease these adverse outcomes are needed to maximize the overall effectiveness of supplemental feeding programs (SFPs).Objective: We evaluated the effectiveness of a package of health and nutrition interventions on improving the proportion of children who sustained recovery for 1 y after MAM treatment. We further explored factors related to sustained recovery.Design: We conducted a cluster-randomized clinical effectiveness trial involving rural Malawian children aged 6-62 mo who were enrolled on discharge from an SFP for MAM. We enrolled 718 children at 10 control sites and 769 children at 11 intervention sites. In addition to routine health and nutrition counseling, the intervention group received a package of health and nutrition interventions that consisted of a lipid nutrient supplement, deworming medication, zinc supplementation, a bed net, and malaria chemoprophylaxis. A survival analysis was used to determine the effectiveness of the intervention as well as to identify factors associated with sustained recovery.Results: Of 1383 children who returned for the full 12-mo follow-up period, 407 children (56%) and 347 children (53%) sustained recovery in the intervention and control groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in relapse-free survival curves between the treatment and control groups (P = 0.380; log-rank test). The risk factors for relapse or death after initial recovery were a smaller midupper arm circumference on SFP admission (P = 0.01) and discharge (P < 0.001), a lower weight-for-height z score on discharge (P < 0.01), and the receipt of ready-to-use supplementary food as opposed to ready-to-use therapeutic food during treatment (P < 0.05).Conclusion: The provision of a package of health and nutrition services in addition to traditional SFP treatment has no significant effect on improving sustained recovery in children after treatment of MAM. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02351687.

Including whey protein and whey permeate in ready-to-use supplementary food improves recovery rates in children with moderate acute malnutrition: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The utility of dairy ingredients in the supplementary foods used in the treatment of childhood moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) remains unsettled.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effectiveness of a peanut-based ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF) with soy protein compared with a novel RUSF containing dairy ingredients in the form of whey permeate and whey protein concentrate in the treatment of children with MAM.

DESIGN

We conducted a randomized, double-blind clinical effectiveness trial involving rural Malawian and Mozambican children 6-59 mo of age with MAM treated with either soy RUSF or a novel whey RUSF treatment of ~75 kcal · kg(-1) · d(-1) for up to 12 wk.

RESULTS

The proportion of children that recovered from MAM was significantly higher in the group that received whey RUSF (960 of 1144; 83.9%) than in the group that received soy RUSF (874 of 1086; 80.5%; P < 0.04; risk difference 3.4%, 95% CI: 0.3%, 6.6%). Children who consumed whey RUSF also demonstrated better growth markers, with a higher mean midupper arm circumference (MUAC) at the time of discharge (P < 0.009), greater MUAC gain during the course of treatment (P < 0.003), higher mean weight-for-height z score at discharge (P < 0.008), and greater weight gain (P < 0.05). No significant differences were identified in length gain or time to recovery between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the importance of milk protein in the treatment of MAM, because the use of a novel whey RUSF resulted in higher recovery rates and improved growth than did soy RUSF, although the whey RUSF supplement provided less total protein and energy than the soy RUSF. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01790048.