Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Protein quality in ready‐to‐use supplementary foods for moderate wasting

Bibliographic Data

ID15536665
AuthorsRebecca Roediger (0000-0001-8175-2703, Washington University in St. Louis), Hans H Stein (0000-0002-4855-661X, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign), Meghan Callaghan‐Gillespie (0000-0002-5307-8616, Washington University in St. Louis), Jeffrey Kahn Blackman (Washington University in St. Louis), Kristin Kohlmann (0000-0003-0959-563X, Washington University in St. Louis), Kenneth Maleta (0000-0002-2536-3938, University of Malawi), Mark J Manary (0000-0003-2733-9568, University of Malawi, corresponding author)
Year2020
Volume16
Issue4
Pagese13019-e13019
Publication date2020-05-19
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueMaternal and Child Nutrition (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1740-8695 • E-ISSN: 1740-8709
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/mcn.13019
PMID32426949
OpenAlexW3027935880
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited23

There are no guidelines for the optimal protein quality of ready-to-supplementary food (RUSF) for moderate acute malnutrition (MAM). This randomized, controlled, double-blinded, clinical effectiveness trial evaluated two RUSFs in the treatment of MAM. Both foods contained greater than 7% dairy protein, but the protein-optimized RUSF had a calculated digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) of 95%, whereas the control RUSF had a calculated DIAAS of 63%. There were 1,737 rural Malawian children 6-59 months of age treated with 75 kcal/kg/day of either control or protein quality-optimized RUSF for up to 12 weeks. There was no difference in the proportion of children who recovered from MAM between the group that received protein-optimized RUSF (759/860, 88%) and the group that received control RUSF (766/877, 87%, difference 1%, 95% CI, -2.1 to 4.1, p = 0.61). There were no differences in time to recovery or average weight gain; nor were adverse effects reported. Both RUSFs showed indistinguishable clinical outcomes, with recovery rates higher than typically seen in treatment for MAM. The DIAAS of these two RUSFs was measured using a pig model. Unexpectedly, the protein quality of the optimized RUSF was inferior to the control RUSF: DIAAS = 82% for the protein quality optimized RUSF and 96% for control RUSF. The controlled conditions of this trial suggest that in supplementary food products for MAM, protein quality is not an independent predictor of clinical effectiveness

Adverse effect · Animal science · Biology · Pathology · Protein quality · Randomized controlled trial · Wasting · Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues · Child Nutrition and Water Access · Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations · Medicine · Internal Medicine

  • Protein quality in ready‐to‐use supplementary foods for moderate wasting

    Open Access•Rebecca Roediger, Hans H Stein et al.•Maternal and Child Nutrition•2020

  • Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide: Version 3

    Jennifer Coates, Anne Swindale et al.•PsycEXTRA Dataset•2007

  • Protein quality in ready‐to‐use supplementary foods for moderate wasting

    Open Access•Rebecca Roediger, Hans H Stein et al.•Maternal and Child Nutrition•2020

Citations per year0.17
Citation span2020 - 2020 (1)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae