Comparison of a Two Ready-to-use Supplementary Foods of Differing Protein Quality for the Treatment of MAM.

Primary Investigator

  • Mark Manary

Study Period

June 2018 - March 2019

Study Description

This is a prospective, randomised, double-blinded, controlled clinical effectiveness trial of two supplementary foods in the treatment of MAM. The setting will be 21 rural sites in southern Malawi. The participants will be 1800 children 6-59 months old with MAM, defined as mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) ≥ 11.5 cm and < 12.5 cm and/or a weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ) between -2 and -3 without bipedal edema. Children will receive approximately 75 kcal/kg/d (314 kJ/kg/d) of one of two RUSFs in two-week rations for outpatient therapy of MAM. The two supplements will be a novel, locally produced peanut/dairy RUSFs, one with a high protein quality (HIPRO RUSF) or one with a standard protein quality, referred to as control RUSF (C-RUSF). The primary outcome measures will be recovery from MAM (achieving MUAC ≥ 12.5 cm by 12 weeks) or failure (death, development of severe acute malnutrition, transfer to hospital for inpatient care, failure to recover from MAM by 12 weeks, default). Secondary outcome measures include rates of weight, height, and mid-upper-arm circumference (MUAC) gain, time to graduation, and adverse effects from the supplementary foods.

HIPRO RUSF contains extruded soy flour, skimmed milk, peanut paste, sugar, soy oil, palm oil, a premix containing concentrated minerals and vitamins, an emulsifier and dicalcium phosphate or calcium carbonate. Standard RUSF contains whey permeate, WPC 80, peanut paste, sugar, soy oil, canola oil, a customized micronutrient premix to account for the minerals in whey permeate, and an emulsifier.

Study Arms

  • Active Comparator: C-RUSF
  • Active Comparator: HIPRO RUSF

Primary Outcomes

  • Recovery from Moderate Acute Malnutrition using Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) [ Time Frame: 12 weeks ]

Study Intervention

  • Standard Fortified Food Blends

Research Gaps

  • Effectiveness

    How well do different food compositions and interventions prevent or treat undernutrition, when implemented "on the ground"?

Study Population

1800