Optimising the dosage of ready-to-use therapeutic food in children with uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current standard management of severe acute malnutrition uses ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) at a single weight-based calculation resulting in an increasing amount of RUTF provided to the family as the child's weight increases during recovery. Using RUTF at a gradually reduced dosage as the child recovers could reduce costs while achieving similar growth response.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Children aged 6-59 months with a mid-upper-arm circumference (MUAC) of less than 115 mm or a weight-for-height z-score (WHZ) of less than -3 or bipedal oedema and without medical complication were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) using a specially developed software and random blocks (size was kept confidential), to either the current standard treatment (increasing the RUTF amount with increasing weight) or the OptiMA strategy (decreasing the RUTF dose with increasing weight and MUAC). The main endpoint was proportion of children who achieved recovery over the 6 months follow up period, as defined as meeting the following criteria for two consecutive weeks after a minimum of 4 weeks' treatment: axillary temperature less than 37.5 °C, no bipedal oedema, and anthropometric improvement (either MUAC 125 mm or greater or WHZ -1.5 or higher). We performed analyses on the intention-to-treat (ITT) (all children) and per-protocol populations (participants who had a minimum prescription of 4 weeks' RUTF, received at least 90% of the total amount of RUTF they were supposed to receive as per the protocol, and had a maximum interval of 6 weeks between any two visits in the 6-month follow-up). The non-inferiority margin was 10%. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, and is now closed NCT03751475.

FINDINGS

Between July 22, 2019, and January 20, 2020, 491 children were randomly assigned, of whom 482 were analysed (240 in the standard group and 242 in the OptiMA group). In the ITT analysis, 234 (98%) children in the standard group and 231 (96%) children in OptiMA recovered (difference 2.0%, 95% CI -2.0% to 6.4%). In the PP analysis, 234 (98%) children in the standard group and 228 (97%) in OptiMA recovered (difference 1.3%, 95% CI -2.3% to 5.1%). Sensitivity analyses applying the same anthropometric recovery criteria to each group also showed non-inferiority of the OptiMA strategy in ITT and PP analysis.

INTERPRETATION

This non-inferiority trial treating uncomplicated children with MUAC of less than 115 mm or a WHZ of less than -3 or bipedal oedema with decreasing RUTF dose as MUAC and weight increase demonstrated non-inferiority compared to the standard protocol in a highly food-insecure context in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These findings add evidence on the safety of RUTF dose reduction with significant RUTF cost savings.

FUNDING

Innocent Foundation and European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations.

TRANSLATION

For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Optimising Malnutrition Treatment – OptiMA-DRC: Recovery of Severely Wasted Children 6–59 Months in a Randomised Control Trial in Democratic Republic of Congo

Objectives

The main secondary objective of OptiMA-DRC trial was to compare the OptiMA strategy, ie.supplementing with one product, ready-to-use therapeutic food at a gradually reduced doses, with the current national nutritionnal standard protocol in children with uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition (SAM) at inclusion (MUAC < 115 mm or WHZ< −3 or oedema) in both arms.

Methods

This non-inferiority, individually randomised controlled clinical trial was conducted in Kasai province, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) between July 2019 and July 2020. Children 6–59 months with MUAC < 115 mm or weight-for-height Zscore (WHZ)< −3 or oedema and without medical complication were randomized to either the OptiMA or standard arm and followed for 6 months.. Recovery was defined as MUAC > 125 mm for OptiMA and MUAC > 125 mm or WHZ >−1.5 for the standard arm, and absence of oedema, for two consecutive weeks in treatment with a 4-week minimum stay, and at any time during 6-months post-inclusion. Non-inferiority was shown if the upper-bound of the 95%CI of the difference of proportion of recovery between the two strategies was less than 10% in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Superiority (upper-bound of the 95%CI of this difference lower than 0%) was considered if non-inferiority was shown.

Results

Overall, 482 children with uncomplicated SAM were included in ITT analysis (242 OptiMA, 240 standard). At 6 months, 231 (95·5%) children recovered under OptiMA versus 234 (97·5%) under standard protocol (difference −2·0%, 95%CI: −1·96% to 6·4%). PP analysis was similar. There was no difference in hospitalization (11% OptiMA, 12% standard, P = 0·887) or mortality rates (0·2% both arms). Under OptiMA, weight and MUAC gains in recovered children (N = 465) were greater (median weight gain, 1400g versus 1200g, P< 0·001; median MUAC gain, 14 mm versus 11 mm, P < 0·001) and RUTF consumption (sachets) was lower (median 74 versus 112, P < 0·001).

Conclusions

Children with uncomplicated SAM recovered as well under OptiMA as under the DRC standard protocol. Gradual RUTF reduction may allow for increased nutrition program coverage by better allocating available resources.

Funding Sources

Innocent Foundation (London) European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (Brussels).

Optimising Malnutrition Treatment in Children 6–59 Months-OptiMA-DRC: Primary Outcome of a Randomised Control Trial in Democratic Republic of Congo

Objectives

The main objective was to compare the OptiMA strategy- ie.supplementing with ready-to-use therapeutic food at a gradually reduced doses- with the current national standard protocol.

Methods

This non-inferiority, individually randomised controlled clinical trial was conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Children 6–59 months with MUAC < 125 mm or weight-for-height Zscore< −3 or oedema and without medical complication were randomized to either OptiMA or standard arm and followed for 6 months. The main outcome was a binary composite indicator at 6-months post inclusion: child alive, not acutely malnourished per the study definition, and without an additional episode of acute malnutrition throughout the observation period. Non-inferiority was shown if the upper-bound of the 95% CI of the difference of proportion of favourable outcome between the two strategies was less than 10% in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Superiority (upper-bound of the 95% CI of this difference lower than 0%) was considered if non-inferiority was shown.

Results

Between July 2019 and July 2020, 981 children were enrolled. 896 children were included in the ITT analysis (450 OptiMA and 446 standard), 792 in the PP analysis. All children under OptiMA and 200 children in the standard arm were eligible for RUTF. ITT analysis showed 325 (72·2%) children had a favourable outcome under OptiMA versus 282 (63·2%) in the standard arm (difference: −9·2%, 95% CI: −15·9% to −2·0%). PP analysis was similar. Under OptiMA, weight and MUAC gain were greater (median weight gain, 1700 g versus 1600 g, P = 0·003 and median MUAC gain, 13 mm versus 12 mm, P = 0·012), and RUTF consumption was lower (median of 64 sachets versus 102 sachets, P = 0·018). There was no difference in hospitalization (10% OptiMA, 7% standard, P = 0·228) or mortality rates (0·2% in both arms).

Conclusions

OptiMA was superior to the DRC standard protocol. It expanded access to RUTF, promoted improved anthropometry with lower RUTF consumption during treatment, and led to better outcomes at 6-months post inclusion. These results suggest benefits in giving smaller rations of RUTF at an earlier stage of malnutrition rather than larger rations only when children become severely malnourished.

Funding Sources

Innocent Foundation (London) European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (Brussels).

Simplifying and optimising management of acute malnutrition in children aged 6 to 59 months: study protocol for a community-based individually randomised controlled trial in Kasaï, Democratic Republic of Congo

INTRODUCTION

Acute malnutrition (AM) is a continuum condition, arbitrarily divided into moderate and severe AM (SAM) categories, funded and managed in separate programmes under different protocols. Optimising acute MAlnutrition (OptiMA) treatment aims to simplify and optimise AM management by treating children with mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) <125 mm or oedema with one product-ready-to-use therapeutic food-at a gradually tapered dose. Our main objective was to compare the OptiMA strategy with the standard nutritional protocol in children 6-59 months presenting with MUAC <125 mm or oedema without additional complications, as well as in children classified as uncomplicated SAM (ie, MUAC <115 mm or weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ) <-3 or with oedema).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study was a non-inferiority, individually randomised controlled clinical trial conducted at community level in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Children 6-59 months presenting with MUAC <125 mm or WHZ <-3 or with bipedal oedema and without medical complication were included after signed informed consent in outpatient health facilities. All participants were followed for 6 months. Success in both arms was defined at 6 months post inclusion as being alive, not acutely malnourished per the definition applied at inclusion and without an additional episode of AM throughout the 6-month observation period. Recovery among children with uncomplicated SAM was the main secondary outcome. For the primary objective, 890 participants were needed, and 480 children with SAM were needed for the main secondary objective. We will perform non-inferiority analyses in per-protocol and intention-to-treat basis for both outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approvals were obtained from the National Health Ethics Committee of the Democratic Republic of Congo and from the Ethics Evaluation Committee of Inserm, the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Paris, France). We will submit results for publication to a peer-reviewed journal and disseminate findings in international and national conferences and meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03751475. Registered 19 September 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03751475.