Fortification of rice with vitamins and minerals for addressing micronutrient malnutrition

Fortification of condiments and seasonings with iron for preventing anaemia and improving health

BACKGROUND

Anaemia affects approximately 1.8 billion people worldwide; over 60% of anaemia cases globally are due to iron deficiency (ID). Iron deficiency and anaemia contribute to the global burden of disease and affect physical and cognitive development in children, and work productivity and economic well-being in adults. Fortification of food with iron, alone or in combination with other nutrients, is an effective intervention to control ID. Condiments and seasonings are ideal food vehicles for iron fortification in countries where they are commonly used.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects and safety of condiment and seasoning fortification with iron alone or iron plus other micronutrients on iron deficiency, anaemia, and health-related outcomes in the general population.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and other databases up to 24 January 2023. We also searched the International clinical trials registry platform (ICTRP) for any ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (randomisation at individual or cluster level), non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series with at least three measure points both before and after intervention, and controlled before-after studies. Participants were populations of any age (including pregnant women), from any country, excluding those with critical illness or severe co-morbidities. We included interventions in which condiments or seasonings have been fortified with any combination of iron and other vitamins and minerals, irrespective of the fortification technology used.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and assessed the eligibility of studies. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or input from a third review author. Two review authors extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias in all the included studies. We followed the methods laid out by Cochrane and used GRADE criteria for assessing certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search identified 15,902 records after removal of duplicates. We included 16 studies with 20,512 participants (18,410 participants after adjusting for clustering effects). They were all carried out in upper-middle- and lower-middle-income countries. Three studies were controlled before-after studies, one was non-randomised trial, and 12 were RCTs (including three cluster RCTs). Six studies took place in schools; seven in communities; and one each in a nursery/kindergarten, tea estate, and factory. Three studies involved only women, one study involved both women and their children, and all other studies focused on children and/or adolescents. Nine studies used salt as a vehicle for iron fortification, three used fish sauce, two used soy sauce, one used curry powder, and one a "seasoning powder". The dose of iron received by participants ranged from 4.4 mg to 55 mg/day. The sample sizes in the trials ranged from 123 to 14,398, and study durations ranged from three months to two years. Twelve RCTs contributed data for meta-analysis. Six trials compared iron-fortified condiments versus the unfortified condiment, and six trials provided data comparing iron fortification in combination with other micronutrients versus the same condiment with other micronutrients, but no added iron. In one trial, the fortificant contained micronutrients that may have affected the absorption of iron. Overall no studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias. All included studies were assessed to have a high overall risk of bias, with the most concerns being around allocation concealment, blinding, and random sequence generation. There was very high heterogeneity amongst studies in almost all examined outcomes. Condiments/seasonings fortified with iron versus unfortified condiments/seasonings We are uncertain about whether consuming condiments/seasonings fortified with iron in comparison to the same unfortified condiment reduces anaemia at the end of intervention (risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.65; 2328 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty of evidence). We are uncertain about whether consuming iron-fortified condiments increases haemoglobin concentrations (mean difference (MD) 6.40 (g/L), 95% CI -0.62 to 13.41; 2808 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Fortification of condiments/seasonings with iron probably slightly reduces ID (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.01; 391 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about whether fortification with iron increases ferritin concentration (MD 14.81 (µg/L), 95% CI 5.14 to 24.48; 4459 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Condiments/seasonings fortified with iron plus other micronutrients versus condiments/seasonings fortified with other micronutrients except iron Consuming condiments/seasonings fortified with iron plus other micronutrients may reduce anaemia (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89; 1007 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about whether fortification of condiments/seasonings with iron plus other micronutrients will improve haemoglobin concentration (MD 6.22 g/dL, 95% CI 1.60 to 10.83; 1270 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). It may reduce ID (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.69; 1154 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about whether fortification with iron plus other micronutrients improves ferritin concentration (MD 10.63 µg/L, 95% CI 2.40 to 18.85; 1251 participants; 5 studies; very low -certainty evidence). Condiments/seasonings fortified with iron versus no intervention No trial reported data on this comparison. No studies reported adverse effects. Funding sources do not appear to have distorted the results in any of the assessed trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether consuming iron-fortified condiments/seasonings reduces anaemia, improves haemoglobin concentration, or improves ferritin concentration. It may reduce ID. Findings about ferritin should be interpreted with caution since its concentrations increase during inflammation. Consuming condiments/seasonings fortified with iron plus other micronutrients may reduce anaemia, and we are uncertain whether this will improve haemoglobin concentration or ferritin concentration. More studies are needed to determine the true effect of iron-fortified condiments/seasonings on preventing anaemia and improving health. The effects of this intervention on other health outcomes like malaria incidence, growth and development are unclear.

Nutrition-specific interventions for preventing and controlling anaemia throughout the life cycle: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Anaemia is a prevalent health problem worldwide. Some types are preventable or controllable with iron supplementation (pills or drops), fortification (sprinkles or powders containing iron added to food) or improvements to dietary diversity and quality (e.g. education or counselling).

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the benefits or harms of nutrition-specific interventions for preventing and controlling anaemia in anaemic or non-anaemic, apparently healthy populations throughout the life cycle.

METHODS

In August 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and 10 other databases for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in anaemic or non-anaemic, apparently healthy populations. We followed standard Cochrane methodology, extracting GRADE ratings where provided. The primary outcomes were haemoglobin (Hb) concentration, anaemia, and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA); secondary outcomes were iron deficiency (ID), severe anaemia and adverse effects (e.g. diarrhoea, vomiting).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 systematic reviews, 33 of which provided GRADE assessments; these varied between high and very low. Infants (6 to 23 months; 13 reviews) Iron supplementation increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and IDA in two reviews. Iron fortification of milk or cereals, multiple-micronutrient powder (MMNP), home fortification of complementary foods, and supplementary feeding increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia in six reviews. In one review, lipid-based nutrient supplementation (LNS) reduced the risk of anaemia. In another, caterpillar cereal increased Hb levels and IDA prevalence. Food-based strategies (red meat and fortified cow's milk, beef) showed no evidence of a difference (1 review). Preschool and school-aged children (2 to 10 years; 8 reviews) Daily or intermittent iron supplementation increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and ID in two reviews. One review found no evidence of difference in Hb levels, but an increased risk of anaemia and ID for the intermittent regime. All suggested that zinc plus iron supplementation versus zinc alone, multiple-micronutrient (MMN)-fortified beverage versus control, and point-of-use fortification of food with iron-containing micronutrient powder (MNP) versus placebo or no intervention may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia and ID. Fortified dairy products and cereal food showed no evidence of a difference on the incidence of anaemia (1 review). Adolescent children (11 to 18 years; 4 reviews) Compared with no supplementation or placebo, five types of iron supplementation may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia (3 reviews). One review on prevention found no evidence of a difference in anaemia incidence on iron supplementation with or without folic acid, but Hb levels increased. Another suggested that nutritional supplementation and counselling reduced IDA. One review comparing MMN fortification with no fortification observed no evidence of a difference in Hb levels. Non-pregnant women of reproductive age (19 to 49 years; 5 reviews) Two reviews suggested that iron therapy (oral, intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM)) increased Hb levels; one showed that iron folic acid supplementation reduced anaemia incidence; and another that daily iron supplementation with or without folic acid or vitamin C increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and ID. No review reported interventions related to fortification or dietary diversity and quality. Pregnant women of reproductive age (15 to 49 years; 23 reviews) One review apiece suggested that: daily iron supplementation with or without folic acid increased Hb levels in the third trimester or at delivery and in the postpartum period, and reduced the risk of anaemia, IDA and ID in the third trimester or at delivery; intermittent iron supplementation had no effect on Hb levels and IDA, but increased the risk of anaemia at or near term and ID, and reduced the risk of side effects; vitamin A supplementation alone versus placebo, no intervention or other micronutrient might increase maternal Hb levels and reduce the risk of maternal anaemia; MMN with iron and folic acid versus placebo reduced the risk of anaemia; supplementation with oral bovine lactoferrin versus oral ferrous iron preparations increased Hb levels and reduced gastrointestinal side effects; MNP for point-of-use fortification of food versus iron and folic acid supplementation might decrease Hb levels at 32 weeks' gestation and increase the risk of anaemia; and LNS versus iron or folic acid and MMN increased the risk of anaemia. Mixed population (all ages; 22 reviews) Iron supplementation versus placebo or control increased Hb levels in healthy children, adults, and elderly people (4 reviews). Hb levels appeared to increase and risk of anaemia and ID decrease in two reviews investigating MMN fortification versus placebo or no treatment, iron fortified flour versus control, double fortified salt versus iodine only fortified salt, and rice fortification with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice or no intervention. Each review suggested that fortified versus non-fortified condiments or noodles, fortified (sodium iron ethylenediaminetetraacetate; NaFeEDTA) versus non-fortified soy sauce, and double-fortified salt versus control salt may increase Hb concentration and reduce the risk of anaemia. One review indicated that Hb levels increased for children who were anaemic or had IDA and received iron supplementation, and decreased for those who received dietary interventions. Another assessed the effects of foods prepared in iron pots, and found higher Hb levels in children with low-risk malaria status in two trials, but no difference when comparing food prepared in non-cast iron pots in a high-risk malaria endemicity mixed population. There was no evidence of a difference for adverse effects. Anaemia and malaria prevalence were rarely reported. No review focused on women aged 50 to 65 years plus or men (19 to 65 years plus).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to no treatment, daily iron supplementation may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia and IDA in infants, preschool and school-aged children and pregnant and non-pregnant women. Iron fortification of foods in infants and use of iron pots with children may have prophylactic benefits for malaria endemicity low-risk populations. In any age group, only a limited number of reviews assessed interventions to improve dietary diversity and quality. Future trials should assess the effects of these types of interventions, and consider the requirements of different populations.

Mega-map of systematic reviews and evidence and gap maps on the interventions to improve child well-being in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Despite a considerable reduction in child mortality, nearly six million children under the age of five die each year. Millions more are poorly nourished and in many parts of the world, the quality of education remains poor. Children are at risk from multiple violations of their rights, including child labour, early marriage, and sexual exploitation. Research plays a crucial role in helping to close the remaining gaps in child well-being, yet the global evidence base for interventions to meet these challenges is mostly weak, scattered and often unusable by policymakers and practitioners. This mega-map encourages the generation and use of rigorous evidence on effective ways to improve child well-being for policy and programming.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this mega-map is to identify, map and provide an overview of the existing evidence synthesis on the interventions aimed at improving child well-being in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

Campbell evidence and gap maps (EGMs) are based on a review of existing mapping standards (Saran & White, 2018) which drew in particular of the approach developed by 3ie (Snilstveit, Vojtkova, Bhavsar, & Gaarder, 2013). As defined in the Campbell EGM guidance paper; "Mega-map is a map of evidence synthesis, that is, systematic reviews, and does not include primary studies" (Campbell Collaboration, 2020). The mega-map on child well-being includes studies with participants aged 0-18 years, conducted in LMICs, and published from year 2000 onwards. The search followed strict inclusion criteria for interventions and outcomes in the domains of health, education, social work and welfare, social protection, environmental health, water supply and sanitation (WASH) and governance. Critical appraisal of included systematic reviews was conducted using "A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews"-AMSTAR-2 rating scale (Shea, et al., 2017).

RESULTS

We identified 333 systematic reviews and 23 EGMs. The number of studies being published has increased year-on-year since 2000. However, the distribution of studies across World Bank regions, intervention and outcome categories are uneven. Most systematic reviews examine interventions pertaining to traditional areas of health and education. Systematic reviews in these traditional areas are also the most funded. There is limited evidence in social work and social protection. About 69% (231) of the reviews are assessed to be of low and medium quality. There are evidence gaps with respect to key vulnerable populations, including children with disabilities and those who belong to minority groups.

CONCLUSION

Although an increasing number of systematic reviews addressing child well-being topics are being published, some clear gaps in the evidence remain in terms of quality of reviews and some interventions and outcome areas. The clear gap is the small number of reviews focusing explicitly on either equity or programmes for disadvantaged groups and those who are discriminated against.

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.

Fortification of wheat and maize flour with folic acid for population health outcomes

BACKGROUND

Folate is a B-vitamin required for DNA synthesis, methylation, and cellular division. Wheat and maize (corn) flour are staple crops consumed widely throughout the world and have been fortified with folic acid in over 80 countries to prevent neural tube defects. Folic acid fortification may be an effective strategy to improve folate status and other health outcomes in the overall population.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the health benefits and safety of folic acid fortification of wheat and maize flour (i.e. alone or in combination with other micronutrients) on folate status and health outcomes in the overall population, compared to wheat or maize flour without folic acid (or no intervention).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases in March and May 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science (SSCI, SCI), BIOSIS, Popline, Bibliomap, TRoPHI, ASSIA, IBECS, SCIELO, Global Index Medicus-AFRO and EMRO, LILACS, PAHO, WHOLIS, WPRO, IMSEAR, IndMED, and Native Health Research Database. We searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing or planned studies in June 2018, and contacted authors for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with randomisation at the individual or cluster level. We also included non-RCTs and prospective observational studies with a control group; these studies were not included in meta-analyses, although their characteristics and findings were described. Interventions included wheat or maize flour fortified with folic acid (i.e. alone or in combination with other micronutrients), compared to unfortified flour (or no intervention). Participants were individuals over two years of age (including pregnant and lactating women), from any country.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies: four provided data for quantitative analyses (437 participants); five studies were randomised trials (1182 participants); three studies were non-RCTs (1181 participants, 8037 live births); two studies were interrupted time series (ITS) studies (1 study population of 2,242,438, 1 study unreported). Six studies were conducted in upper-middle-income countries (China, Mexico, South Africa), one study was conducted in a lower-middle-income country (Bangladesh), and three studies were conducted in a high-income country (Canada). Seven studies examined wheat flour fortified with folic acid alone or with other micronutrients. Three studies included maize flour fortified with folic acid alone or with other micronutrients. The duration of interventions ranged from two weeks to 36 months, and the ITS studies included postfortification periods of up to seven years. Most studies had unclear risk of bias for randomisation, blinding, and reporting, and low/unclear risk of bias for attrition and contamination.Neural tube defects: none of the included RCTs reported neural tube defects as an outcome. In one non-RCT, wheat flour fortified with folic acid and other micronutrients was associated with significantly lower occurrence of total neural tube defects, spina bifida, and encephalocoele, but not anencephaly, compared to unfortified flour (total neural tube defects risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.48; 1 study, 8037 births; low-certainty evidence).Folate status: pregnant women who received folic acid-fortified maize porridge had significantly higher erythrocyte folate concentrations (mean difference (MD) 238.90 nmol/L, 95% CI 149.40 to 328.40); 1 study, 38 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and higher plasma folate (MD 14.98 nmol/L, 95% CI 9.63 to 20.33; 1 study, 38 participants; very low-certainty evidence), compared to no intervention. Women of reproductive age consuming maize flour fortified with folic acid and other micronutrients did not have higher erythrocyte folate (MD -61.80 nmol/L, 95% CI -152.98 to 29.38; 1 study, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or plasma folate (MD 0.00 nmol/L, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00; 1 study, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence) concentrations, compared to women consuming unfortified maize flour. Adults consuming folic acid-fortified wheat flour bread rolls had higher erythrocyte folate (MD 0.66 nmol/L, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.19; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and plasma folate (MD 27.00 nmol/L, 95% CI 15.63 to 38.37; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence), versus unfortified flour. In two non-RCTs, serum folate concentrations were significantly higher among women who consumed flour fortified with folic acid and other micronutrients compared to women who consumed unfortified flour (MD 2.92 nmol/L, 95% CI 1.99 to 3.85; 2 studies, 657 participants; very low-certainty evidence).Haemoglobin or anaemia: in a cluster-randomised trial among children, there were no significant effects of fortified wheat flour flatbread on haemoglobin concentrations (MD 0.00 nmol/L, 95% CI -2.08 to 2.08; 1 study, 334 participants; low-certainty evidence) or anaemia (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.55; 1 study, 334 participants; low-certainty evidence), compared to unfortified wheat flour flatbread.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fortification of wheat flour with folic acid may reduce the risk of neural tube defects; however, this outcome was only reported in one non-RCT. Fortification of wheat or maize flour with folic acid (i.e. alone or with other micronutrients) may increase erythrocyte and serum/plasma folate concentrations. Evidence is limited for the effects of folic acid-fortified wheat or maize flour on haemoglobin levels or anaemia. The effects of folic acid fortification of wheat or maize flour on other primary outcomes assessed in this review is not known. No studies reported on the occurrence of adverse effects. Limitations of this review were the small number of studies and participants, limitations in study design, and low-certainty of evidence due to how included studies were designed and reported.

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.