Kiruthika Selvaraj1, Raja Sriswan Mamidi1, Rajini Peter1, Bharati Kulkarni2. 1. Clinical Division, ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500007, India. 2. Clinical Division, ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500007, India. dr.bharatikulkarni@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptability of a locally produced ready-to-use therapeutic food (L-RUTF) with the standard ready-to-use therapeutic food (S-RUTF). METHODS: It was a single-center, randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover study. The participants were 6-59-mo-old children residing in an urban slum, with weight-for-height z score (WHZ) < -2SD. The study had two intervention periods of feeding with two types of RUTF- L-RUTF and S-RUTF-for a period of 24 h, separated by a wash-out period of 7 d. The outcome measures were the acceptability measured as consumption of more than two-thirds of the total calories offered (150 kcal/kg/24 h) and the degree of liking of the food measured by organoleptic evaluation. RESULT: Both types of RUTF did not qualify as acceptable. L-RUTF was preferred over S-RUTF in organoleptic evaluation. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that RUTF products are not suitable for use as a single therapeutic food during nutrition rehabilitation of children with acute malnutrition. The study was registered in the clinical registry of India; Reg. No: CTRI/2018/04/012967.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptability of a locally produced ready-to-use therapeutic food (L-RUTF) with the standard ready-to-use therapeutic food (S-RUTF). METHODS: It was a single-center, randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover study. The participants were 6-59-mo-old children residing in an urban slum, with weight-for-height z score (WHZ) < -2SD. The study had two intervention periods of feeding with two types of RUTF- L-RUTF and S-RUTF-for a period of 24 h, separated by a wash-out period of 7 d. The outcome measures were the acceptability measured as consumption of more than two-thirds of the total calories offered (150 kcal/kg/24 h) and the degree of liking of the food measured by organoleptic evaluation. RESULT: Both types of RUTF did not qualify as acceptable. L-RUTF was preferred over S-RUTF in organoleptic evaluation. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that RUTF products are not suitable for use as a single therapeutic food during nutrition rehabilitation of children with acute malnutrition. The study was registered in the clinical registry of India; Reg. No: CTRI/2018/04/012967.