Global School Feeding Sourcebook : Lessons from 14 countries

This sourcebook documents and analyzes a range of government-led school meals programs to provide decision-makers and practitioners worldwide with the knowledge, evidence and good practice they need to strengthen their national school feeding efforts. The sourcebook includes a compilation of concise and comprehensive country case-studies. It highlights the trade-offs associated with alternative school feeding models and analyzes the overarching themes, trends and challenges which run across them

Re-Imagining School Feeding : A High-Return Investment in Human Capital and Local Economies

Analysis shows that a quality education, combined with a guaranteed package of health and nutrition interventions at school, such as school feeding, can contribute to child and adolescent development and build human capital. School feeding programs can help get children into school and help them stay there, increasing enrollment and reducing absenteeism. Once children are in the classroom, these programs can contribute to their learning by avoiding hunger and enhancing cognitive abilities. The benefits are especially great for the poorest and most disadvantaged children. As highlighted in the World Bank’s 2018 World Development Report (World Bank 2018), countries need to prioritize learning, not just schooling. Children must be healthy, not hungry, if they are to match learning opportunities with the ability to learn. In the most vulnerable communities, nutrition-sensitive school meals can offer children a regular source of nutrients that are essential for their mental and physical development. And for the growing number of countries with a “double burden” of undernutrition and emerging obesity problems, well-designed school meals can help set children on the path toward more healthy diets. In Latin America, for example, where there is a growing burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), school feeding programs are a key intervention in reducing undernutrition and promoting healthy diet choices. Mexico’s experience reducing sugary beverages in school cafeterias, for example, was found to be beneficial in advancing a healthy lifestyle. A large trial of school-based interventions in China also found that nutritional or physical activity interventions alone are not as effective as a joint program that combines nutritional and educational interventions. In poor communities, economic benefits from school feeding programs are also evident—reducing poverty by boosting income for households and communities as a whole. For families, the value of meals in school is equivalent to about 10 percent of a household’s income. For families with several children, that can mean substantial savings. As a result, school feeding programs are often part of social safety nets in poor countries, and they can be a stable way to reliably target pro-poor investments into communities, as well as a system that can be scaled up rapidly to respond to crises. There are also direct economic benefits for smallholder farmers in the community. Buying local food creates stable markets, boosting local agriculture, impacting rural transformation, and strengthening local food systems. In Brazil, for example, 30 percent of all purchases for school feeding come from smallholder agriculture (Drake and others 2016). These farmers are oftentimes parents with schoolchildren, helping them break intergenerational cycles of hunger and poverty. Notably, benefits to households and communities offer important synergies. The economic growth in poor communities helps provide stability and better-quality education and health systems that promote human capital. At the same time, children and adolescents grow up to enjoy better employment and social opportunities as their communities grow

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570