TY - JOUR
T1 - Fortification of staple foods with vitamin a for vitamin a deficiency
AU - Hombali, Aditi S.
AU - Solon, Juan Antonio
AU - Venkatesh, Bhumika T.
AU - Nair, N. Sreekumaran
AU - Peña-Rosas, Juan Pablo
N1 - Funding Information:
Change in serum retinol concentration (vitamin A status); serum ferritin concentration and transferrin receptor concentration (iron status) and haemoglobin concentration at 3 and 6 months Mean and SEs reported Total number of clusters was 43 (intervention group = 22; control group = 21). The average cluster size was 8.7, and the ICC was 0.13. The corresponding design effect was 1.923. Therefore, the effective sample size for intervention group was 105 (from n = 203) and control group was 77 (from n = 149). The details of the analysis is provided in Appendix 5. • Trial protocol: not available • Sample size estimation: reported Source of funding: this study was funded by a grant from the MOST project (Contract No. HRN-AA-00-98-00047-00) and by support to the Mirsarai field area by USAID Cooperation Agreement number 388-A-00-97-00032-00 Dates of the study: not reported Declarations of interest among primary researchers (or state where this information is not reported by the trial authors): there are no conflicts of interest disclosed
Funding Information:
We are grateful to Ingrid Harboe, at the Norwegian Knowledge Centre, for her help in devising the search strategy. We also would like to thank Joanne Abbott for her support in the updated and de-duplicated search results for this review. We are grateful to Cochrane Public Health for their editorial support in the preparation of this review. Five peers (an information specialist, methods editor, statistical editor and two referees who are external to the editorial team) commented on the protocol and the review as part of the pre-publication editorial process. We thank Public Health Evidence South Asia, Manipal University for providing the support to carry out this review. The World Health Organization retains copyright and all other rights in the manuscript of this Review as submitted for publication, including any revisions or updates to the manuscript which WHO may make from time to time.
Funding Information:
The studies included in this review took place either in community or controlled settings and were funded by various sources. Most of the studies were funded by mixed combinations of government agencies, the private sector, non-governmental organisations, and academic institutions. One study (Candelaria 2005) received funding from the Bureau of Agricultural Research of the Department of Agriculture, Philippines (government); Winichagoon 2006 combined support from the Micronutrient Initiative (a nongovernmental organization) and the University of Otago Fund (academia); Vinod Kumar 2014 (C) from the Sunder Serendipity Foundation, India (a non-governmental organization); Vinod Kumar 2009a (C) from the Task Force Sight and Life, Switzerland (a non-governmental organization); and one study (Rahman 2015 (C)) from the MOST project, a US Agency for International Development subcontractor (government). The following studies received fortified food and financial support from the food industry in combination with other sources of funding: Solon 1996 received fortified food from Procter & Gamble company, Manila, Philippines (private sector), and the study was supported by US Agency for International Development (government); Lopez-Teros 2013 received fortified powdered milk from Lincosa (private sector), and the study was funded by International Atomic Energy Research, Austria (United Nations agency) and fellowship from CONACyT, Mexico (government); Solon 2000 received wheat flour fortified by Hoffman La Roche, Switzerland (private sector), and received funds for this study from the Center for Human Nutrition, Johns Hopkins University, USA (academia), the Nutrition Center of the Philippines (non-governmental organization), Helen Keller International (non-governmental organization), and US Agency for International Development (government); Trinidad 2015 was supported by Nestle, Philippines (private sector) and; Wang 2017 (C) received fortified milk from Future star, Mengniu Dairy Company Limited, Hohhot, China (private sector) and unfortified milk from Milk Deluxe, China Mingniu Dairy Company Limited, Hohhot, China (private sector) and was funded by a grant from National Natural Science Foundation of China (government) and China Medical Board (philanthropic foundation).
Funding Information:
• Nutrition International, Canada. WHO acknowledges Nutrition International for their financial support to the Evidence and Programme Guidance Unit for conducting systematic reviews on micronutrient interventions • Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Switzerland. WHO acknowledges the financial support of GAIN for the commissioning of systematic reviews on the effects of nutrition interventions. • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA. WHO acknowledges the financial support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the commissioning of systematic reviews on the effects of nutrition interventions • Evidence and Programme Guidance, Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization, Switzerland. WHO provided partial financial support for some of the authors for the finalization of this systematic review.
Funding Information:
• sex: males and females • duration of intervention: six months • type of food vehicle: milk • type if vitamin A added: no details • dose of vitamin A added: 78 mg RE per 100 ml of milk • Country: China • development status of the country: • Trial protocol: not available • sample size estimation: Source of funding: Grant from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no.81101333) and by China Medical Board (Grant no. 13-168-201608) Dates of the study: June 2015 and January 2016 Declaration of interest among primary researchers (or state where this information is not reported by trial authors): no conflict of interest disclosed
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
PY - 2019/5/10
Y1 - 2019/5/10
N2 - Background Vitamin A deficiency is a significant public health problem in many low-and middle-income countries, especially affecting young children, women of reproductive age, and pregnant women. Fortification of staple foods with vitamin A has been used to increase vitamin A consumption among these groups. Objectives To assess the effects of fortifying staple foods with vitamin A for reducing vitamin A deficiency and improving health-related outcomes in the general population older than two years of age. Search methods We searched the following international databases with no language or date restrictions: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process OVID; Embase OVID; CINAHL Ebsco; Web of Science (ISI) SCI, SSCI, CPCI-exp and CPCI-SSH; BIOSIS (ISI); POPLINE; Bibliomap; TRoPHI; ASSIA (Proquest); IBECS; SCIELO; Global Index Medicus-AFRO and EMRO; LILACS; PAHO; WHOLIS; WPRO; IMSEAR; IndMED; and Native Health Research Database. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. The date of the last search was 19 July 2018. Selection criteria We included individually or cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this review. The intervention included fortification of staple foods (sugar, edible oils, edible fats, maize flour or corn meal, wheat flour, milk and dairy products, and condiments and seasonings) with vitamin A alone or in combination with other vitamins and minerals. We included the general population older than two years of age (including pregnant and lactating women) from any country. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened and assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We used standard Cochrane methodology to carry out the review. Main results We included 10 randomised controlled trials involving 4455 participants. All the studies were conducted in low-and upper-middle income countries where vitamin A deficiency was a public health issue. One of the included trials did not contribute data to the outcomes of interest. Three trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A versus unfortified staple food, five trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus unfortified staple foods, and two trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus no intervention. No studies compared staple foods fortified with vitamin A alone versus no intervention. The duration of interventions ranged from three to nine months. We assessed six studies at high risk of bias overall. Government organisations, non-governmental organisations, the private sector, and academic institutions funded the included studies; funding source does not appear to have distorted the results. Staple food fortified with vitamin A versus unfortified staple food We are uncertain whether fortifying staple foods with vitamin A alone makes little or no difference for serum retinol concentration (mean difference (MD) 0.03 µmol/L, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.12; 3 studies, 1829 participants; I² = 90%, very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether vitamin A alone reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.05; 2 studies; 993 participants; I² = 33%, very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. It is uncertain whether vitamin A fortification reduces clinical vitamin A deficiency, defined as night blindness (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.98; 1 study, 581 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias. Staple foods fortified with vitamin A versus no intervention No studies provided data for this comparison. Staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus same unfortified staple foods Fortifying staple foods with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may not increase the serum retinol concentration (MD 0.08 µmol/ L, 95% CI-0.06 to 0.22; 4 studies; 1009 participants; I² = 95%, low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by serious inconsistency and risk of bias. In comparison to unfortified staple foods, fortification with vitamin A plus other micronutrients probably reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.49; 3 studies; 923 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by serious risk of bias. Staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus no intervention Fortification of staple foods with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may increase serum retinol concentration (MD 0.22 µmol/L, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.30; 2 studies; 318 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). When compared to no intervention, it is uncertain whether the intervention reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; 2 studies; 318 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) . The certainty of the evidence was affected mainly by serious imprecision and risk of bias. No trials reported on the outcomes of all-cause morbidity, all-cause mortality, adverse effects, food intake, congenital anomalies (for pregnant women), or breast milk concentration (for lactating women). Authors’ conclusions Fortifying staple foods with vitamin A alone may make little or no difference to serum retinol concentrations or the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency. In comparison with provision of unfortified foods, provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may not increase serum retinol concentration but probably reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency.
AB - Background Vitamin A deficiency is a significant public health problem in many low-and middle-income countries, especially affecting young children, women of reproductive age, and pregnant women. Fortification of staple foods with vitamin A has been used to increase vitamin A consumption among these groups. Objectives To assess the effects of fortifying staple foods with vitamin A for reducing vitamin A deficiency and improving health-related outcomes in the general population older than two years of age. Search methods We searched the following international databases with no language or date restrictions: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process OVID; Embase OVID; CINAHL Ebsco; Web of Science (ISI) SCI, SSCI, CPCI-exp and CPCI-SSH; BIOSIS (ISI); POPLINE; Bibliomap; TRoPHI; ASSIA (Proquest); IBECS; SCIELO; Global Index Medicus-AFRO and EMRO; LILACS; PAHO; WHOLIS; WPRO; IMSEAR; IndMED; and Native Health Research Database. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. The date of the last search was 19 July 2018. Selection criteria We included individually or cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this review. The intervention included fortification of staple foods (sugar, edible oils, edible fats, maize flour or corn meal, wheat flour, milk and dairy products, and condiments and seasonings) with vitamin A alone or in combination with other vitamins and minerals. We included the general population older than two years of age (including pregnant and lactating women) from any country. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened and assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We used standard Cochrane methodology to carry out the review. Main results We included 10 randomised controlled trials involving 4455 participants. All the studies were conducted in low-and upper-middle income countries where vitamin A deficiency was a public health issue. One of the included trials did not contribute data to the outcomes of interest. Three trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A versus unfortified staple food, five trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus unfortified staple foods, and two trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus no intervention. No studies compared staple foods fortified with vitamin A alone versus no intervention. The duration of interventions ranged from three to nine months. We assessed six studies at high risk of bias overall. Government organisations, non-governmental organisations, the private sector, and academic institutions funded the included studies; funding source does not appear to have distorted the results. Staple food fortified with vitamin A versus unfortified staple food We are uncertain whether fortifying staple foods with vitamin A alone makes little or no difference for serum retinol concentration (mean difference (MD) 0.03 µmol/L, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.12; 3 studies, 1829 participants; I² = 90%, very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether vitamin A alone reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.05; 2 studies; 993 participants; I² = 33%, very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. It is uncertain whether vitamin A fortification reduces clinical vitamin A deficiency, defined as night blindness (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.98; 1 study, 581 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias. Staple foods fortified with vitamin A versus no intervention No studies provided data for this comparison. Staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus same unfortified staple foods Fortifying staple foods with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may not increase the serum retinol concentration (MD 0.08 µmol/ L, 95% CI-0.06 to 0.22; 4 studies; 1009 participants; I² = 95%, low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by serious inconsistency and risk of bias. In comparison to unfortified staple foods, fortification with vitamin A plus other micronutrients probably reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.49; 3 studies; 923 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by serious risk of bias. Staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus no intervention Fortification of staple foods with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may increase serum retinol concentration (MD 0.22 µmol/L, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.30; 2 studies; 318 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). When compared to no intervention, it is uncertain whether the intervention reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; 2 studies; 318 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) . The certainty of the evidence was affected mainly by serious imprecision and risk of bias. No trials reported on the outcomes of all-cause morbidity, all-cause mortality, adverse effects, food intake, congenital anomalies (for pregnant women), or breast milk concentration (for lactating women). Authors’ conclusions Fortifying staple foods with vitamin A alone may make little or no difference to serum retinol concentrations or the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency. In comparison with provision of unfortified foods, provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may not increase serum retinol concentration but probably reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065844925&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065844925&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD010068.pub2
DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD010068.pub2
M3 - Review article
C2 - 31074495
AN - SCOPUS:85065844925
SN - 1361-6137
VL - 2019
JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
IS - 5
M1 - CD010068
ER -