Utilization patterns, outcomes and costs of a simplified acute malnutrition treatment programme in Burkina Faso

Ryoko Sato1, Maguy Daures2, Kevin Phelan3

  • 1Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Maternal & Child Nutrition
|December 27, 2021
PubMed

Insights

Simplified treatment for acute malnutrition in children shows high recovery rates. Integrated programs offering early, less severe case intervention can reduce costs and improve outcomes.

Area of Science:

  • Public Health and Nutrition
  • Pediatrics
  • Global Health

Background:

  • Fragmented treatment programs based on malnutrition severity hinder access.
  • Acute malnutrition in children requires effective and accessible interventions.
  • Optimizing treatment for acute Malnutrition (OptiMA) trial in Burkina Faso.

Purpose of the Study:

  • Evaluate utilization patterns, outcomes, and costs of acute malnutrition treatment.
  • Analyze factors influencing resource use in malnutrition treatment.
  • Assess the effectiveness of a simplified, integrated treatment approach.

Main Methods:

  • Secondary analysis of the OptiMA proof-of-concept trial (Burkina Faso, 2016).
  • Cohort of 4958 children with acute malnutrition treated with ready-to-use therapeutic foods (RUTF).
  • Evaluation of service utilization, patient outcomes, resource use, and variable costs.

Main Results:

  • Overall recovery rate of 84%, with higher recovery in less severe cases.
  • Children with lower initial mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) had longer recovery times and higher mortality/default rates.
  • Average variable cost per child was US$38.0, with RUTF comprising half the cost; cost per recovered case varied by severity (US$35.1-US$132.8).

Conclusions:

  • The simplified OptiMA approach achieved high recovery rates, particularly for less severe malnutrition.
  • Integrated programs with severity-based RUTF dosing can improve access and reduce the burden of severe malnutrition.
  • Early intervention in less severe malnutrition cases is more cost-effective and improves overall outcomes.