International audience ; BACKGROUND: Global access to acute malnutrition treatment is low. Different programmes using different nutritional products manage cases of severe acute malnutrition and moderate acute malnutrition separately. We aimed to assess whether integrating severe acute malnutrition and moderate acute malnutrition treatment into one programme, using a single nutritional product and reducing the dose as the child improves, could achieve similar or higher individual efficacy, increase coverage, and minimise costs compared with the current programmes.METHODS: We conducted an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Acutely malnourished children aged 6-59 months with a mid-upper-arm circumference (MUAC) of less than 125 mm or oedema were randomly assigned (1:1), using specially developed software and random blocks (size was kept confidential), to either the current standard strategy (one programme for severe acute malnutrition using ready-to-use therapeutic food [RUTF] at an increasing dose as weight increased, another for moderate acute malnutrition using a fixed dose of ready-to-use supplementary food [RUSF]) or the OptiMA strategy (a single programme for both severe acute malnutrition and moderate acute malnutrition using RUTF at a decreasing dose as MUAC and weight increased). The primary endpoint was a favourable outcome at 6 months, defined as being alive, not acutely malnourished as per the definition applied at inclusion, and with no further episodes of acute malnutrition throughout the 6-month observation period; the endpoint was analysed in the intention-to-treat (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, or were prescribed RUSF rations for a minimum of 4 weeks [ie, minimum of 28 RUSF sachets], and had a maximum interval of 6 weeks between any two visits in the 6-month ...
International audience ; BACKGROUND: Global access to acute malnutrition treatment is low. Different programmes using different nutritional products manage cases of severe acute malnutrition and moderate acute malnutrition separately. We aimed to assess whether integrating severe acute malnutrition and moderate acute malnutrition treatment into one programme, using a single nutritional product and reducing the dose as the child improves, could achieve similar or higher individual efficacy, increase coverage, and minimise costs compared with the current programmes.METHODS: We conducted an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Acutely malnourished children aged 6-59 months with a mid-upper-arm circumference (MUAC) of less than 125 mm or oedema were randomly assigned (1:1), using specially developed software and random blocks (size was kept confidential), to either the current standard strategy (one programme for severe acute malnutrition using ready-to-use therapeutic food [RUTF] at an increasing dose as weight increased, another for moderate acute malnutrition using a fixed dose of ready-to-use supplementary food [RUSF]) or the OptiMA strategy (a single programme for both severe acute malnutrition and moderate acute malnutrition using RUTF at a decreasing dose as MUAC and weight increased). The primary endpoint was a favourable outcome at 6 months, defined as being alive, not acutely malnourished as per the definition applied at inclusion, and with no further episodes of acute malnutrition throughout the 6-month observation period; the endpoint was analysed in the intention-to-treat (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, or were prescribed RUSF rations for a minimum of 4 weeks [ie, minimum of 28 RUSF sachets], and had a maximum interval of 6 weeks between any two visits in the 6-month ...
