The concordance between component tests and clinical history in British adults with suspected pollen-food syndrome to peanut and hazelnut.

BACKGROUND: Mild oropharyngeal symptoms to peanut/hazelnut occur in ~30% of patients with pollen-food syndrome (PFS). Component tests are considered a useful adjunct to the diagnosis and may help differentiate PFS from those at a risk of anaphylaxis due to storage protein/lipid transfer protein (LTP) sensitisation. AIMS: To assess concordance between component tests and clinical history in suspected PFS to peanut/hazelnut in a specialist clinic. METHODS: Adult patients were classified into PFS (group 1, n=69) and PFS with mild systemic symptoms (group 2, n=45) based on clinical history. Specific IgE (sIgE) of ≥0.35 kUA/L was considered positive as per manufacturers' recommendation. Kappa (κ) inter-rater agreement was calculated for concordance between clinical classification and test profiles. RESULTS: Group 1 hazelnut: 85% monosensitised to Cor a1, 12% to storage protein/s or LTP and 3% negative to all components. Group 1 peanut: 41% monosensitised to Ara h8, 44% to storage protein/s or ±LTP and 15% negative to all components. Group 2 hazelnut: 67% monosensitised to Cor a1, 16% sensitised to storage protein/s and 17% negative to all components. Group 2 peanut: 19% monosensitised to Ara h8, 62% sensitised to storage protein/s and/or LTP and 19% negative to all components.SIgE to Ara h8 and Cor a1 were greater in group 1 versus group 2: (median (IQR) kUA/L; hazelnut: 12.1 (7.8-25.2) vs 2.4 (0.36-6.3), p<0.001; peanut: 2.4 (0.10-21.1) vs 0.3 (0-3), p<0.01)). CONCLUSION: Concordance between component tests and clinical history for adults with PFS was good for hazelnut (κ=0.63) but poor for peanut (κ=-0.12). Food challenges are warranted in discordant cases for an accurate diagnosis.

Nutrition assessment and counseling of the medically complex live kidney donor.

Kidney transplantation is the preferred option for patients with end-stage renal disease facing the need for dialysis because it provides maximum survival benefit. The number of people seeking kidney transplantation greatly exceeds available deceased donor organs. Organs from live donors provide a survival advantage over organs from deceased donors while also broadening the pool of available organs. The purpose of this review is to discuss the clinical guidelines that pertain to live kidney organ donation and to describe the nutrition evaluation and care of live kidney donors. The process for living kidney donation is dictated by policies centered on protecting the donor. In a perfect world, the living donor would present with a flawless medical examination and a benign family health history. The obesity epidemic has emerged as a major health concern. Live donor programs are faced with evaluating increasing numbers of obese candidates. These "medically complex donors" may present with obesity and its associated comorbid conditions, including hypertension, impaired glycemic control, and kidney stone disease. The dietitian's role in the live donor program is not well defined. Participation in the living donor selection meeting, where details of the evaluation are summarized, provides a platform for risk stratification and identification of donors who are at increased lifetime risk for poor personal health outcomes. Guiding the donor toward maintenance of a healthy weight through diet and lifestyle choices is a legitimate goal to minimize future health risks.