Re-thinking “non-response” to wasting treatment: Exploratory analysis from 14 studies

Children who receive therapeutic feeding for wasting treatment but do not reach the anthropometric definitions of recovery (usually within 12-16 weeks) are categorised as 'non-responders' and considered as treatment failures. We conducted a pooled analysis to explore the growth trajectories of non-responders and the appropriateness of the definition of 'non-response'. We pooled 14 studies of children aged 6-59 months receiving treatment for wasting. We included children classified by their studies as recovered or as non-responders. Observing the pooled data of non-responders' mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), weight, weight-for-age z-score, weight-for-height z-score and daily weight gain rate, we found that the first quartile differentiated those who did not grow at all versus those that demonstrated some growth. We therefore defined 'low growth non-responders' as < 25th percentile anthropometric gain between admission and exit using the non-responders' pooled study data, and 'high growth non-responders' as ≥ 25th percentile gain. We plotted the growth trajectories of MUAC-, weight- and height-related indices of the recovered, high growth and low growth non-responder groups over time using mixed effects generalised additive models. We compared age, sex and anthropometric characteristics of the three groups and explored predictors of non-response category using a multivariate multinomial logistic regression model. For all outcomes, the high growth non-responders started with a worse anthropometric status compared to those who recovered, but then tracked along a near-parallel growth trajectory. The low growth non-responders showed limited growth throughout treatment. High growth non-responders are better viewed as 'delayed responders' and may need to be kept longer under treatment to recover and reduce the risks from early discharge. Low growth non-responders are the true treatment failures and should be referred for further investigations as quickly as possible. In conclusion, non-responders are not a homogenous group; ~75% of them respond well to treatment and ~25% are treatment failures.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLOS Global Public Health
Published
2025-02-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0003741
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.47

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Re-thinking “non-response” to wasting treatment: Exploratory analysis from 14 studies

André Briend, Paul Binns, Erin Boyd, Martha Mwangome et al.
1 citations
PLOS Global Public Health
Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
1.47
article

Re-thinking “non-response” to wasting treatment: Exploratory analysis from 14 studies

André Briend, Paul Binns, Erin Boyd, Martha Mwangome, Mark Myatt, Sheila Isanaka, Tanya Khara, Natasha Lelijveld, Heather Stobaugh, Indi Trehan, Paluku Bahwere, Cécile Cazes, Suvi T. Kangas, Philip James, Gloria Odei Obeng-Amoako, Robert E. Black
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Children who receive therapeutic feeding for wasting treatment but do not reach the anthropometric definitions of recovery (usually within 12-16 weeks) are categorised as 'non-responders' and considered as treatment failures. We conducted a pooled analysis to explore the growth trajectories of non-responders and the appropriateness of the definition of 'non-response'. We pooled 14 studies of children aged 6-59 months receiving treatment for wasting. We included children classified by their studies as recovered or as non-responders. Observing the pooled data of non-responders' mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), weight, weight-for-age z-score, weight-for-height z-score and daily weight gain rate, we found that the first quartile differentiated those who did not grow at all versus those that demonstrated some growth. We therefore defined 'low growth non-responders' as < 25th percentile anthropometric gain between admission and exit using the non-responders' pooled study data, and 'high growth non-responders' as ≥ 25th percentile gain. We plotted the growth trajectories of MUAC-, weight- and height-related indices of the recovered, high growth and low growth non-responder groups over time using mixed effects generalised additive models. We compared age, sex and anthropometric characteristics of the three groups and explored predictors of non-response category using a multivariate multinomial logistic regression model. For all outcomes, the high growth non-responders started with a worse anthropometric status compared to those who recovered, but then tracked along a near-parallel growth trajectory. The low growth non-responders showed limited growth throughout treatment. High growth non-responders are better viewed as 'delayed responders' and may need to be kept longer under treatment to recover and reduce the risks from early discharge. Low growth non-responders are the true treatment failures and should be referred for further investigations as quickly as possible. In conclusion, non-responders are not a homogenous group; ~75% of them respond well to treatment and ~25% are treatment failures.

PLOS Global Public HealthVol. 5(2)
Tufts University (US), University of Copenhagen (DK), ActionAid (US), Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE), Harvard University (US), University of Ghana (GH), Johns Hopkins University (US), Université de Bordeaux (FR), University of Washington (US), United States Agency for International Development (US), Kenya Medical Research Institute (KE), Bordeaux Population Health (FR), Tampere University Hospital (FI), Tampere University (FI), International Rescue Committee (US), Gwynedd Council (GB)
Washington University in St. Louis, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ireland, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Université de Bordeaux
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
1.47
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.