Uniformity of Food Protein Interpretation Amongst Dietitians for Patients with Phenylketonuria (PKU): 2020 UK National Consensus Statements.

In phenylketonuria (PKU), variable dietary advice provided by health professionals and social media leads to uncertainty for patients/caregivers reliant on accurate, evidence based dietary information. Over four years, 112 consensus statements concerning the allocation of foods in a low phenylalanine diet for PKU were developed by the British Inherited Metabolic Disease Dietitians Group (BIMDG-DG) from 34 PKU treatment centres, utilising 10 rounds of Delphi consultation to gain a majority (≥75%) decision. A mean of 29 UK dietitians (range: 18-40) and 18 treatment centres (range: 13-23) contributed in each round. Statements encompassed all foods/food groups divided into four categories based on defined protein/phenylalanine content: (1) foods high in protein/phenylalanine (best avoided); (2) foods allowed without restriction including fruit/vegetables containing phenylalanine ≤75 mg/100 g and most foods containing protein ≤0.5 g/100 g; (3) foods that should be calculated/weighed as an exchange food if they contain protein exchange ingredients (categorized into foods with a protein content of: >0.1 g/100 g (milk/plant milks only), >0.5 g/100 g (bread/pasta/cereal/flours), >1 g/100 g (cook-in/table-top sauces/dressings), >1.5 g/100 g (soya sauces)); and (4) fruit/vegetables containing phenylalanine >75 mg/100 g allocated as part of the protein/phenylalanine exchange system. These statements have been endorsed and translated into practical dietary management advice by the medical advisory dietitians for the National Society for PKU (NSPKU).

Development of national consensus statements on food labelling interpretation and protein allocation in a low phenylalanine diet for PKU.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of phenylketonuria (PKU), there was disparity between UK dietitians regarding interpretation of how different foods should be allocated in a low phenylalanine diet (allowed without measurement, not allowed, or allowed as part of phenylalanine exchanges). This led to variable advice being given to patients. METHODOLOGY: In 2015, British Inherited Metabolic Disease Group (BIMDG) dietitians (n = 70) were sent a multiple-choice questionnaire on the interpretation of protein from food-labels and the allocation of different foods. Based on majority responses, 16 statements were developed. Over 18-months, using Delphi methodology, these statements were systematically reviewed and refined with a facilitator recording discussion until a clear majority was attained for each statement. In Phase 2 and 3 a further 7 statements were added. RESULTS: The statements incorporated controversial dietary topics including: a practical 'scale' for guiding calculation of protein from food-labels; a general definition for exchange-free foods; and guidance for specific foods. Responses were divided into paediatric and adult groups. Initially, there was majority consensus (≥86%) by paediatric dietitians (n = 29) for 14 of 16 statements; a further 2 structured discussions were required for 2 statements, with a final majority consensus of 72% (n = 26/36) and 64% (n = 16/25). In adult practice, 75% of dietitians agreed with all initial statements for adult patients and 40% advocated separate maternal-PKU guidelines. In Phase 2, 5 of 6 statements were agreed by ≥76% of respondents with one statement requiring a further round of discussion resulting in 2 agreed statements with a consensus of ≥71% by dietitians in both paediatric and adult practice. In Phase 3 one statement was added to elaborate further on an initial statement, and this received 94% acceptance by respondents. Statements were endorsed by the UK National Society for PKU. CONCLUSIONS: The BIMDG dietitians group have developed consensus dietetic statements that aim to harmonise dietary advice given to patients with PKU across the UK, but monitoring of statement adherence by health professionals and patients is required.