Ani C. Keshishian

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize the current and lifetime prevalence of comorbid psychiatric diagnoses and suicidality in treatment- and nontreatment-seeking individuals with full and subthreshold avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). We also sought to examine unique associations between the three DSM-5 ARFID profiles (i.e., sensory sensitivity, fear of aversive consequences, and lack of interest in food or eating) and specific categories of psychiatric diagnoses and suicidality. METHOD: We conducted structured clinical interviews with 74 children and adolescents with full or sub threshold ARFID to assess the presence of comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, suicidality, and the severity of each of the three ARFID profiles. RESULTS: Nearly half of the sample (45%) met criteria for a current comorbid psychiatric diagnosis, and over half (53%) met criteria for a lifetime comorbid diagnosis. A total of 8% endorsed current suicidality and 14% endorsed lifetime suicidality. Severity in the sensory sensitivity profile was uniquely associated with greater odds of comorbid disorders in the neurodevelopmental, disruptive, and conduct disorders category; the anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and trauma-related disorders category; and the depressive and bipolar-related disorders category. Severity in the fear of aversive consequences profile was associated with greater odds of disorders in the anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and trauma-related disorders category. DISCUSSION: Our findings underscore the severity of psychopathology among individuals with ARFID and related presentations, and also highlight the potential that shared psychopathology between specific ARFID profiles and other psychiatric disorders represent transdiagnostic constructs (e.g., avoidant behavior) that may be relevant treatment targets.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the optimal treatment of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). The purpose of this study was to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and proof-of-concept for cognitive-behavioral therapy for ARFID (CBT-AR) in children and adolescents. METHOD: Males and females (ages 10-17 years) were offered 20-30 sessions of CBT-AR delivered in a family-based or individual format. RESULTS: Of 25 eligible individuals, 20 initiated treatment, including 17 completers and 3 dropouts. Using intent-to-treat analyses, clinicians rated 17 patients (85%) as "much improved" or "very much improved." ARFID severity scores (on the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview) significantly decreased per both patient and parent report. Patients incorporated a mean of 16.7 (SD = 12.1) new foods from pre- to post-treatment. The underweight subgroup showed a significant weight gain of 11.5 (SD = 6.0) pounds, moving from the 10th to the 20th percentile for body mass index. At post-treatment, 70% of patients no longer met criteria for ARFID. DISCUSSION: This is the first study of an outpatient manualized psychosocial treatment for ARFID in older adolescents. Findings provide evidence of feasibility, acceptability, and proof-of-concept for CBT-AR. Randomized controlled trials are needed.

BACKGROUND: Eating disorders (EDs) are severe mental illnesses, with high morbidity, mortality, and societal burden. EDs are extremely heterogenous, and only 50% of patients currently respond to first-line treatments. Personalized and effective treatments for EDs are drastically needed. METHODS: The current study (N = 34 participants with an ED diagnosis collected throughout the United States) aimed to investigate best methods informing how to select personalized treatment targets utilizing idiographic network analysis, which could then be used for evidence based personalized treatment development. We present initial data collected via experience sampling (i.e., ecological momentary assessment) over the course of 15 days, 5 times a day (75 total measurement points) that were used to select treatment targets for a personalized treatment for EDs. RESULTS: Overall, we found that treatment targets were highly variable, with less than 50% of individuals endorsing central symptoms related to weight and shape, consistent with current treatment response rates for treatments designed to target those symptoms. We also found that different aspects of selection methods (e.g., number of items, type of centrality measure) impacted treatment target selection. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss implications of these data, how to use idiographic network analysis to personalize treatment, and identify areas that need future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04183894. Registered 3 December 2019-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04183894 . NCT04183894 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

OBJECTIVE: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) are restrictive eating disorders. There is a proposal before the American Psychiatric Association to broaden the current DSM-5 criteria for ARFID, which currently require dietary intake that is inadequate to support energy or nutritional needs. We compared the clinical presentations of ARFID and AN in an outpatient sample to determine how a more inclusive definition of ARFID, heterogeneous for age and weight status, is distinct from AN. METHODS: As part of standard care, 138 individuals with AN or ARFID completed an online assessment battery and agreed to include their responses in research. RESULTS: Individuals with ARFID were younger, reported earlier age of onset, and had higher percent median BMI (%mBMI) than those with AN (all ps < .001). Individuals with ARFID scored lower on measures of eating pathology, depression, anxiety, and clinical impairment (all ps < .05), but did not differ from those with AN on restrictive eating (p = .52), and scored higher on food neophobia (p < .001). DISCUSSION: Allowing psychosocial impairment to be sufficient for an ARFID diagnosis resulted in a clinical picture of ARFID such that %mBMI was higher (and in the normal range) compared with AN. Differences in gender distribution, age, and age of onset remained consistent with previous research. Both groups reported similar levels of dietary restriction, although ARFID can be distinguished by relatively higher levels of food neophobia. Currently available measures of eating pathology may capture certain ARFID symptoms, but highlight the need for measures of impairment relative to ARFID.