| Literature DB >> 25873073 |
S Adam1, R Akroyd2, S Bernabei3, S Bollhalder4, S Boocock5, A Burlina6, T Coote2, K Corthouts7, J Dalmau8, S Dawson9, S Defourny10, A De Meyer11, A Desloovere12, Y Devlin13, M Diels7, K Dokoupil14, S Donald15, S Evans16, I Fasan6, C Ferguson13, S Ford17, M Forga18, G Gallo3, S C Grünert19, M Heddrich-Ellerbrok20, C Heidenborg21, C Jonkers22, K Lefebure23, K Luyten11, A MacDonald24, U Meyer25, A Micciche26, E Müller27, P Portnoi28, S Ripley29, M Robert10, L V Robertson5, S Rosenbaum-Fabian19, K Sahm27, S Schultz20, K Singleton30, E Sjöqvist31, L Stoelen32, A Terry33, S Thompson34, C Timmer35, K Vande Kerckhove7, L van der Ploeg36, M Van Driessche12, M van Rijn37, A van Teeffelen-Heithoff38, I Vitoria8, C Voillot39, J Wenz40, M Westbrook41, J Wildgoose42, H Zweers43.
Abstract
Dietary management of 418 adult patients with galactosaemia (from 39 centres/12 countries) was compared. All centres advised lactose restriction, 6 restricted galactose from galactosides ± fruits and vegetables and 12 offal. 38% (n=15) relaxed diet by: 1) allowing traces of lactose in manufactured foods (n=13) or 2) giving fruits, vegetables and galactosides (n=2). Only 15% (n=6) calculated dietary galactose. 32% of patients were lost to dietetic follow-up. In adult galactosaemia, there is limited diet relaxation.Entities:
Keywords: Diet; Galactosaemia; Galactose; Galactose-1-phosphate; Lactose; Monitoring
Mesh：
Substances：
Year: 2015 PMID： 25873073 DOI： 10.1016/j.ymgme.2015.03.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Genet Metab ISSN： 1096-7192 Impact factor: 4.797