THE USE OF ARM CIRCUMFERENCE FOR SIMPLIFIED SCREENING FOR MALNUTRITION BY MINIMALLY TRAINED HEALTH WORKERS

Because of its simplicity and low cost, arm circumference (AC) is being used increasingly in screening for protein energy malnutrition among pre-school children in many parts of the developing world, especially where minimally trained health workers are employed. The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) To determine the relationship of the AC measure with weight for age and weight for height in the detection of malnutrition among pre-school children in a Guatemalan Indian village. (2) To determine the performance of minimally trained promoters under field conditions in measuring AC, weight and height. (3) To describe the practical aspects of taking AC measures versus weight, age and height.^ The study was conducted in San Pablo La Laguna, one of four villages situated on the shores of Lake Atitlan, Guatemala, in which a program of simplified medical care was implemented by the Institute for Nutrition for Central America and Panama (INCAP). Weight, height, AC and age data were collected for 144 chronically malnourished children. The measurements obtained by the trained investigator under the controlled conditions of the health post were correlated against one another and AC was found to have a correlation with weight for age of 0.7127 and with weight for height of 0.7911, both well within the 0.65 to 0.80 range reported in the literature. False positive and false negative analysis showed that AC was more sensitive when compared with weight for height than with weight for age. This was fortunate since, especially in areas with widespread chronic malnutrition, weight for height detects those acute cases in immediate danger of complicating illness or death. Moreover, most of the cases identified as malnourished by AC, but not by weight for height (false positives), were either young or very stunted which made their selection by AC better than weight for height. The large number of cases detected by weight for age, but not by AC (false negative rate--40%) were, however, mostly beyond the critical age period and had normal weight for heights.^ The performance of AC, weight for height and weight for age under field conditions in the hands of minimally trained health workers was also analyzed by correlating these measurements against the same criterion measurements taken under ideally controlled conditions of the health post. AC had the highest correlation with itself indicating that it deteriorated the least in the move to the field. Moreover, there was a high correlation between AC in the field and criterion weight for height (0.7509); this correlation was almost as high as that for field weight for height versus the same measure in the health post (0.7588). The implication is that field errors are so great for the compounded weight for height variable that, in the field, AC is about as good a predictor of the ideal weight for height measure.^ Minimally trained health workers made more errors than the investigator as exemplified by their lower intra-observer correlation coefficients. They consistently measured larger than the investigator for all measures. Also there was a great deal of variability between these minimally trained workers indicating that careful training and followup is necessary for the success of the AC measure.^ AC has many practical advantages compared to the other anthropometric tools. It does not require age data, which are often unreliable in these settings, and does not require sophisticated subtraction and two dimensional table-handling skills that weight for age and weight for height require. The measure is also more easily applied with less disturbance to the child and the community. The AC tape is cheap and not easily damaged or jarred out of calibration while being transported in rugged settings, as is often the case with weight scales. Moreover, it can be kept in a health worker's pocket at all times for continual use in a widespread range of settings. ^

A simulation study of the standard design, the rolling six design, the CRM, and the modified CRM in Phase I clinical trials

The Phase I clinical trial is considered the "first in human" study in medical research to examine the toxicity of a new agent. It determines the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) of a new agent, i.e., the highest dose in which toxicity is still acceptable. Several phase I clinical trial designs have been proposed in the past 30 years. The well known standard method, so called the 3+3 design, is widely accepted by clinicians since it is the easiest to implement and it does not need a statistical calculation. Continual reassessment method (CRM), a design uses Bayesian method, has been rising in popularity in the last two decades. Several variants of the CRM design have also been suggested in numerous statistical literatures. Rolling six is a new method introduced in pediatric oncology in 2008, which claims to shorten the trial duration as compared to the 3+3 design. The goal of the present research was to simulate clinical trials and compare these phase I clinical trial designs. Patient population was created by discrete event simulation (DES) method. The characteristics of the patients were generated by several distributions with the parameters derived from a historical phase I clinical trial data review. Patients were then selected and enrolled in clinical trials, each of which uses the 3+3 design, the rolling six, or the CRM design. Five scenarios of dose-toxicity relationship were used to compare the performance of the phase I clinical trial designs. One thousand trials were simulated per phase I clinical trial design per dose-toxicity scenario. The results showed the rolling six design was not superior to the 3+3 design in terms of trial duration. The time to trial completion was comparable between the rolling six and the 3+3 design. However, they both shorten the duration as compared to the two CRM designs. Both CRMs were superior to the 3+3 design and the rolling six in accuracy of MTD estimation. The 3+3 design and rolling six tended to assign more patients to undesired lower dose levels. The toxicities were slightly greater in the CRMs.^