Schoonees Anel, Lombard Martani, Musekiwa Alfred, Nel Etienne, Volmink Jimmy
Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 6;2013(6):CD009000. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009000.pub2.
Malnourished children have a higher risk of death and illness. Treating severe acute malnourished children in hospitals is not always desirable or practical in rural settings, and home treatment may be better. Home treatment can be food prepared by the carer, such as flour porridge, or commercially manufactured food such as ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF). RUTF is made according to a standard, energy-rich composition defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). The benefits of RUTF include a low moisture content, long shelf life without needing refrigeration and that it requires no preparation.
To assess the effects of home-based RUTF on recovery, relapse and mortality in children with severe acute malnutrition.
We searched the following electronic databases up to April 2013: Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, African Index Medicus, LILACS, ZETOC and three trials registers. We also contacted researchers and clinicians in the field and handsearched bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews.
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials where children between six months and five years of age with severe acute malnutrition were treated at home with RUTF compared to a standard diet, or different regimens and formulations of RUTFs compared to each other. We assessed recovery, relapse and mortality as primary outcomes, and anthropometrical changes, time to recovery and adverse outcomes as secondary outcomes.
Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility using prespecified criteria, and three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial risk of bias.
We included four trials (three having a high risk of bias), all conducted in Malawi with the same contact author. One small trial included children infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We found the risk of bias to be high for the three quasi-randomised trials while the fourth trial had a low to moderate risk of bias. Because of the sparse data for HIV, we reported below the main results for all children together. RUTF meeting total daily requirements versus standard dietWhen comparing RUTF with standard diet (flour porridge), we found three quasi-randomised cluster trials (n = 599). RUTF may improve recovery slightly (risk ratio (RR) 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 1.50; low quality evidence), but we do not know whether RUTF improves relapse, mortality or weight gain (very low quality evidence). RUTF supplement versus RUTF meeting total daily requirementsWhen comparing RUTF supplement with RUTF that meets total daily nutritional requirements, we found two quasi-randomised cluster trials (n = 210). For recovery, relapse, mortality and weight gain the quality of evidence was very low; therefore, the effects of RUTF are unknown. RUTF containing less milk powder versus standard RUTFWhen comparing a cheaper RUTF containing less milk powder (10%) versus standard RUTF (25% milk powder), we found one trial that randomised 1874 children. For recovery, there was probably little or no difference between the groups (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.01; moderate quality evidence). RUTF containing less milk powder may lead to slightly more children relapsing (RR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.72; low quality evidence) and to less weight gain (mean difference (MD) -0.5 g/kg/day; 95% CI -0.75 to -0.25; low-quality evidence) than standard RUTF. We do not know whether the cheaper RUTF improved mortality (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the limited evidence base currently available, it is not possible to reach definitive conclusions regarding differences in clinical outcomes in children with severe acute malnutrition who were given home-based ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) compared to the standard diet, or who were treated with RUTF in different daily amounts or formulations. For this reason, either RUTF or flour porridge can be used to treat children at home depending on availability, affordability and practicality. Well-designed, adequately powered pragmatic randomised controlled trials of HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected children with severe acute malnutrition are needed.
营养不良的儿童死亡和患病风险更高。在农村地区,在医院治疗重度急性营养不良儿童并非总是可行或实际的,家庭治疗可能更好。家庭治疗可以是照料者准备的食物,如面粉粥,也可以是商业生产的食品,如即食治疗性食品(RUTF)。RUTF是根据世界卫生组织(WHO)定义的标准、能量丰富的配方制成的。RUTF的优点包括水分含量低、无需冷藏保质期长且无需准备。
评估家庭式RUTF对重度急性营养不良儿童康复、复发和死亡率的影响。
截至2013年4月,我们检索了以下电子数据库:Cochrane临床对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)、MEDLINE在研数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)、科学引文索引、非洲医学索引、拉丁美洲及加勒比地区卫生科学数据库(LILACS)、ZETOC以及三个试验注册库。我们还联系了该领域的研究人员和临床医生,并手工检索了纳入研究和相关综述的参考文献目录。
我们纳入了随机和半随机对照试验,其中6个月至5岁的重度急性营养不良儿童在家接受RUTF治疗,并与标准饮食进行比较,或者不同剂量和配方的RUTF相互比较。我们将康复、复发和死亡率作为主要结局,将人体测量变化、康复时间和不良结局作为次要结局。
两位综述作者使用预先设定的标准独立评估试验的合格性,三位综述作者独立提取数据并评估试验的偏倚风险。
我们纳入了四项试验(三项存在高偏倚风险),所有试验均在马拉维由同一通讯作者开展。一项小型试验纳入了感染人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)的儿童。我们发现三项半随机试验的偏倚风险较高,而第四项试验的偏倚风险为低到中度。由于HIV相关数据稀少,我们在下面报告所有儿童的主要结果。满足每日总需求的RUTF与标准饮食比较:当将RUTF与标准饮食(面粉粥)进行比较时,我们发现三项半随机整群试验(n = 599)。RUTF可能会略微提高康复率(风险比(RR)1.32;95%置信区间(CI)1.16至1.50;低质量证据),但我们不知道RUTF是否能改善复发率、死亡率或体重增加情况(极低质量证据)。RUTF补充剂与满足每日总需求的RUTF比较:当将RUTF补充剂与满足每日营养总需求的RUTF进行比较时,我们发现两项半随机整群试验(n = 210)。对于康复、复发、死亡率和体重增加,证据质量非常低;因此,RUTF的效果未知。含较少奶粉的RUTF与标准RUTF比较:当比较含较少奶粉(10%)的较便宜RUTF与标准RUTF(25%奶粉)时,我们发现一项对1874名儿童进行随机分组的试验。对于康复,两组之间可能几乎没有差异(RR 0.97;95% CI 0.93至1.01;中等质量证据)。与标准RUTF相比,含较少奶粉的RUTF可能导致更多儿童复发(RR 1.33;95% CI 1.03至1.72;低质量证据),体重增加较少(平均差(MD)-0.5 g/kg/天;95% CI -0.75至-0.25;低质量证据)。我们不知道较便宜的RUTF是否能改善死亡率(极低质量证据)。
鉴于目前可用的证据有限,对于接受家庭式即食治疗性食品(RUTF)的重度急性营养不良儿童与标准饮食相比,或接受不同每日剂量或配方的RUTF治疗的儿童,在临床结局差异方面无法得出明确结论。因此,根据可获得性、可承受性和实用性,RUTF或面粉粥均可用于在家治疗儿童。需要针对未感染HIV和感染HIV的重度急性营养不良儿童开展设计良好、样本量充足的实用随机对照试验。