Table 4.
Anthropometry, body composition and cardiovascular results
| Follow-up study | Weight difference (z scores) | % Underweight (< –2 z scores) | Height difference (z scores) | % Stunted (< –2 z scores) | Weight-for-height/length or BMI for age | % Wasted or low BMI (< –2 z scores) | Body composition and skin fold thickness | Body circumferences | Blood pressure | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh MINIMat | Khan et al. [42] Anthroa |
Calculated difference: 0 (–0.114 to 0.114) | Calculated difference: –0.01 (–0.13 to 0.11) | 4.8 % (0.8–8.9) more stunting across all measurements | Calculated difference: Wt-for-ht z score, 0.01 (–0.09 to 0.11) | ||||||
| Khan et al. [45] Body compa |
Lean mass, 0.000 kg (–0.123 to 0.125 kg); fat mass, 0.001 kg (–0.058 to 0.061 kg); no difference in biceps, triceps, subscap or suprailiac skinfold thicknesses | Calculated difference: head, 0.02 cm (–0.20 to 0.24) MUAC, 0.11 cm (–0.04 to 0.26 cm) |
|||||||||
| Hawkesworth et al. [46] | Compared to 30 mg iron control adjusted for iron intervention dummy and food intervention variables: Systolic, 0.05 (–0.71 to 0.81); Diastolic, 0.55 (–0.10 to 1.20) | No difference in kidney volumes compared to 30 mg iron | |||||||||
| Burkina Faso | Roberfroid et al. [35] | 0.13 (–0.01 to 0.27)b | Hazard ratio in 1st year of life 0.84 (0.70, 1.02) c | –0.02 (–0.18 to 0.14)b Length for age was significantly higher in the first year, but this disappeared by 30 months | Hazard ratio in 1st year of life, 0.73 (0.60–0.87)c | 0.20 (0.06–0.34)b Wt-for-ht was lower initially but higher in MMN from ≥ 10 months | Hazard ratio in 1st year of life, 1.10 (0.90–1.35)c | MUAC for age z, 0.18 (–2.93 to 3.29)b | |||
| China | Wang et al. [41] | Pooled (1–30 months) adjusted difference: 0.03 (–0.05 to 0.10)d | Pooled (1-30 months) adjusted. OR 0.95 (0.71, 1.29) d | Pooled (1–30 months) adjusted difference, 0.02 (–0.07 to 0.10)d | Pooled (1–30 months) adjusted; OR, 0.82 (0.63–1.07)d | Pooled wt-for-length (1–30 months) adjusted difference, 0.03 (–0.05 to 0.11)d | Pooled wt-for-length (1–30 months) adjusted; OR, 0.89 (0.58–1.36)d | ||||
| Mexico | Ramakrishnan et al. [38] | Calculated difference: –0.1 (–0.34 to 0.14) | Calculated difference: 0.2 (–0.08 to 0.48) | Calculated difference: Wt-for-ht –0.2 (–0.42 to 0.02) | Calculated difference: head, 0.2 cm (–0.42 to 0.82) | ||||||
| Nepal Janakpur | Vaidya et al. [43] | 0.14 (0.00–0.27) | 37.8 % in control, 36.6 % in MMN | 0.08 (–0.06 to 0.22) | 60 % in control, 56.7 % in MMN | Wt-for-ht 0.12 (–0.02 to 0.26) | 5.5 % in control, 6.3 % in MMN | Triceps, 0.20 mm (0.00–0.40 mm) | Head, 0.24 cm (0.06–0.43 cm); MUAC, 0.24 cm (0.11–0.37 cm) | Systolic, –2.5 mmHg (0.47–4.55 mmHg); Diastolic, –1.5 mmHg (–3.1 to 0.4 mmHg) | |
| Devakumar et al. [39] | 0.05 (–0.09 to 0.19) | Not recorded by trial group | 0.02 (–0.10 to 0.15) | Not recorded by trial group | BMI for age 0.04 (–0.09 to 0.18) | Not recorded by trial group | Lean mass, –0.05 kg (–0.43 to 0.34 kg); fat mass, –0.07 kg (–0.32 to 0.18 kg); no difference in biceps, triceps, subscapular and suprailiac skinfold thicknesses | Head, 0.18 cm (–0.02 to 0.38); MUAC, 0.04 (–0.15 to 0.23 cm) | Systolic, 0.02 mmHg (–1.02 to 1.05 mmHg); Diastolic, 0.13 mmHg (–0.93 to 1.19 mmHg) | No difference in kidney dimensions; exclusion of children with chronic or major illness made no difference | |
| Nepal Sarlahi | Stewart et al. [44] | Calculated difference: –0.04 (95 % CI, –0.15 to 0.07)e | Calculated difference: 0.3 % (95 % CI, –5.4 to 6.0)e | Calculated difference: –0.02 (–0.13 to 0.09)e | Calculated difference: 3.7 % (–2.0–9.4)e | BMI for age calculated difference: –0.04 (–0.14 to 0.06)e | Triceps: FeFol + vit A, 5.84 mm; MMN, 5.9 mm; Subscap: MMN, 4.81 mm; FeFol + vit A 4.75 mm | MUAC: FeFol + vit A, 15.4 cm; MMN, 15.4 cm | |||
| Stewart et al. [47] | Waist: FeFol + vita A, 51.27 cm; MMN, 51.22 cm | Systolic: FeFol + vit A, 95.2 mmHg; MMN, 95.5 mmHg; calculated difference, 0.29 mmHg (95 % CI, –0.65 to 1.23)d
Diastolic: FeFol + vit A, 63.9 mmHg; MMN, 64.4 mmHg; calculated difference, 0.56 mmHg (95 % CI, –0.38 to 1.50)d |
Non-fasting glucose: FeFol + vit A, 3.91 mmol/L; MMN, 3.86 mmol/L; LDL: FeFol + vit A, 1.89 mmol/L; MMN, 1.84 mmol/L; HDL: FeFol + vit A, 0.72 mmol/L; MMN, 0.70 mmol/L; at risk for metabolic syndrome: FeFol + vit A, 12.2 %; MMN, 11.9 % |
Results are unadjusted differences unless otherwise stated. Calculated differences use results given in the paper to calculate the difference (intervention – control) in outcome and confidence intervals
HDL high density lipoprotein, LDL low density lipoprotein, FeFol iron and folic acid, MMN multiple micronutrient supplement
aComparisons were made with the 60 mg iron, 400 μg folic acid group and “usual” food supplementation
bParity, gestation, age at measurement, age at delivery, malaria treatment, health centre
cMalaria, health centre, parity, gestational age
dMixed linear models. Fixed effects: treatment, age, gender, birth weight, preterm, parity, feed methods, time of stay at outdoor, illness or health in last month before the interview, mother’s height, educational level, occupation, number of supplement tablets consumed, and family socioeconomic status; random effects: village and individual subject
eWe have adjusted for cluster randomized controlled trial, assuming a design effect of 1.20