Table 3.
Effect of RUTF supplementation on mortality and morbidity
| Non-intervention | Intervention | |
|---|---|---|
| Mortality | ||
| N1 | 1,862 | 1,671 |
| No events / child-year | 18 / 1,099 | 7 / 986 |
| Incidence rate / child year2 | 0.016 (0.011, 0.026) | 0.007 (0.003, 0.015) |
| Incidence rate ratio (95% CI) | 1.00 | 0.43 (0.18, 1.04) |
| Adjusted Hazard Ratio3 (95% CI) | 1.00 | 0.51 (0.25, 1.05) |
| Malaria | ||
| N1 | 1,862 | 1,671 |
| No. visits with diagnosis / Total no. of visits | 721 / 12,789 | 330 / 11,542 |
| Prevalence4 (%) | 5.64 (1.53, 9.74) | 2.86 (0.78, 4.94) |
| Prevalence ratio (95% CI) | 1.00 | 0.51 (0.45, 0.58) |
| Adjusted OR (95% CI)5 | 1.00 | 0.76 (0.51, 1.13) |
| Diarrhea | ||
| N1 | 1,862 | 1,671 |
| No. visits with diagnosis / Total no. of visits | 170 / 12,789 | 156 / 11,542 |
| Prevalence4 (%) | 1.33 (1.03, 1.63) | 1.35 (0.74, 1.96) |
| Prevalence ratio (95% CI) | 1.00 | 1.02 (0.82, 1.26) |
| Adjusted OR (95% CI) 5 | 1.00 | 1.07 (0.88, 1.28) |
| Respiratory Infection | ||
| N1 | 1,862 | 1,671 |
| No. visits with diagnosis / Total no. of visits | 114 / 12,789 | 117 / 11,542 |
| Prevalence4 (%) | 0.89 (0.37, 1.41) | 1.01 (0.44, 1.59) |
| Prevalence ratio (95% CI) | 1.00 | 1.14 (0.88, 1.47) |
| Adjusted OR (95% CI)5 | 1.00 | 1.21 (0.89, 1.63) |
Number of children contributing to crude analysis.
Incidence rates by intervention group were estimated by taking the mean of the corresponding village incidence rates, weighted by the person-months of observation from each village that contributed to the mean.
Adjusted hazard ratios estimated from a marginal Cox proportional hazards model with time from recruitment to the event as the outcome and predictors that included intervention group, child age at recruitment, sex, baseline HAZ, and district.
Prevalence was calculated by summing the number of visits the child had the morbidity diagnosis divided by the number of visits. Mean prevalence is calculated by taking the mean of the village prevalence weighted by the person-months of observation from each village.
Adjusted odds ratios estimated from generalized linear mixed effect models with presence of the morbidity as the outcome and predictors included intervention group, child age at recruitment, sex, baseline HAZ score, district, and calendar month.