Latent profile analysis reveals overlapping ARFID and shape/weight motivations for restriction in eating disorders.

BACKGROUND: DSM-5 differentiates avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) from other eating disorders (EDs) by a lack of overvaluation of body weight/shape driving restrictive eating. However, clinical observations and research demonstrate ARFID and shape/weight motivations sometimes co-occur. To inform classification, we: (1) derived profiles underlying restriction motivation and examined their validity and (2) described diagnostic characterizations of individuals in each profile to explore whether findings support current diagnostic schemes. We expected, consistent with DSM-5, that profiles would comprise individuals endorsing solely ARFID or restraint (i.e. trying to eat less to control shape/weight) motivations. METHODS: We applied latent profile analysis to 202 treatment-seeking individuals (ages 10-79 years [M = 26, s.d. = 14], 76% female) with ARFID or a non-ARFID ED, using the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (Picky, Appetite, and Fear subscales) and the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire Restraint subscale as indicators. RESULTS: A 5-profile solution emerged: Restraint/ARFID-Mixed (n = 24; 8% [n = 2] with ARFID diagnosis); ARFID-2 (with Picky/Appetite; n = 56; 82% ARFID); ARFID-3 (with Picky/Appetite/Fear; n = 40; 68% ARFID); Restraint (n = 45; 11% ARFID); and Non-Endorsers (n = 37; 2% ARFID). Two profiles comprised individuals endorsing solely ARFID motivations (ARFID-2, ARFID-3) and one comprising solely restraint motivations (Restraint), consistent with DSM-5. However, Restraint/ARFID-Mixed (92% non-ARFID ED diagnoses, comprising 18% of those with non-ARFID ED diagnoses in the full sample) endorsed ARFID and restraint motivations. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneous profiles identified suggest ARFID and restraint motivations for dietary restriction may overlap somewhat and that individuals with non-ARFID EDs can also endorse high ARFID symptoms. Future research should clarify diagnostic boundaries between ARFID and non-ARFID EDs.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: A proof-of-concept for mechanisms of change and target engagement.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive-behavioral therapy for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID; CBT-AR) theoretically targets three prototypic motivations (sensory sensitivity, lack of interest/low appetite, fear of aversive consequences), aligned with three modularized interventions. As an exploratory investigation, we: (1) evaluated change in candidate mechanisms in relationship to change in ARFID severity, and (2) tested if assignment (vs. not) to a module resulted in larger improvements in the corresponding mechanism. METHOD: Males and females (N = 42; 10-55 years) participated in an open trial of CBT-AR. RESULTS: Decreases in scaled scores for each candidate mechanism had medium to large correlations with decreases in ARFID severity-sensory sensitivity: -0.7 decrease (r = .42, p = .01); lack of interest/low appetite: -0.3 decrease (r = .60, p < .0001); and fear of aversive consequences: -1.1 decrease (r = .33, p = .05). Linear mixed models revealed significant weekly improvements for each candidate mechanism across the full sample (ps < .0001). There were significant interactions for the sensory and fear of aversive consequences modules-for each, participants who received the corresponding module had significantly larger decreases in the candidate mechanism than those who did not receive the module. DISCUSSION: Sensory sensitivity and fear of aversive consequences improved more if the CBT-AR module was received, but lack of interest/low appetite may improve regardless of receipt of the corresponding module. Future research is needed to test target engagement in CBT-AR with adaptive treatment designs, and to identify valid and sensitive measures of candidate mechanisms. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: The mechanisms through which components of CBT-AR work have yet to be elucidated. We conducted an exploratory investigation to test if assignment (vs. not) to a CBT-AR module resulted in larger improvements in the corresponding prototypic ARFID motivation that the module intended to target. Measures of the sensory sensitivity and the fear of aversive consequences motivations improved more in those who received the corresponding treatment module, whereas the lack of interest/low appetite measure improved regardless of if the corresponding module was received.

Medical Comorbidities, Nutritional Markers, and Cardiovascular Risk Markers in Youth With ARFID.

OBJECTIVE: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) is common among populations with nutrition-related medical conditions. Less is known about the medical comorbidity/complication frequencies in youth with ARFID. We evaluated the medical comorbidities and metabolic/nutritional markers among female and male youth with full/subthreshold ARFID across the weight spectrum compared with healthy controls (HC). METHOD: In youth with full/subthreshold ARFID (n = 100; 49% female) and HC (n = 58; 78% female), we assessed self-reported medical comorbidities via clinician interview and explored abnormalities in metabolic (lipid panel and high-sensitive C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]) and nutritional (25[OH] vitamin D, vitamin B12, and folate) markers. RESULTS: Youth with ARFID, compared with HC, were over 10 times as likely to have self-reported gastrointestinal conditions (37% vs. 3%; OR = 21.2; 95% CI = 6.2-112.1) and over two times as likely to have self-reported immune-mediated conditions (42% vs. 24%; OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.1-4.9). ARFID, compared with HC, had a four to five times higher frequency of elevated triglycerides (28% vs. 12%; OR = 4.0; 95% CI = 1.7-10.5) and hs-CRP (17% vs. 4%; OR = 5.0; 95% CI = 1.4-27.0) levels. DISCUSSION: Self-reported gastrointestinal and certain immune comorbidities were common in ARFID, suggestive of possible bidirectional risk/maintenance factors. Elevated cardiovascular risk markers in ARFID may be a consequence of limited dietary variety marked by high carbohydrate and sugar intake.

Preliminary data that psychological treatment and baseline anxiety are associated with a decrease in postprandial fullness and early satiation for individuals with bulimia nervosa and related other specified feeding or eating disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Gastrointestinal symptoms, particularly postprandial fullness, are frequently reported in eating disorders. Limited data exist evaluating how these symptoms change in response to outpatient psychological treatment. The current study sought to describe the course of postprandial fullness and early satiation across psychological treatment for adults with bulimia nervosa and related other specified feeding or eating disorders and to test if anxiety moderates treatment response. METHODS: Secondary data analysis was conducted on questionnaire data provided by 30 individuals (80% white, M(SD)age = 31.43(13.44) years; 90% female) throughout treatment and six-month follow-up in a pilot trial comparing mindfulness and acceptance-based treatment with cognitive-behavioral therapy for bulimia nervosa. Participants completed items from the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire for Adult Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. RESULTS: Postprandial fullness and early satiation both significantly decreased over time (ds = 1.23-1.54; p's < .001). Baseline trait anxiety moderated this outcome, such that greater decreases were observed for those with higher baseline anxiety (p = .02). DISCUSSION: Results extend prior work in inpatient samples by providing preliminary data that postprandial fullness and early satiation decrease with outpatient psychological treatment for bulimia nervosa. Baseline anxiety moderated this effect for postprandial fullness. Future work should replicate findings in a larger sample and test anxiety as a mechanism underlying postprandial fullness in eating disorders. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: The current study found that common gastrointestinal symptoms (postprandial fullness and early satiation) decrease over the course of outpatient psychotherapy for adults with full and subthreshold bulimia nervosa. Postprandial fullness decreased more across time for those high in anxiety.

Development of a brief cognitive-behavioral treatment for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder in the context of disorders of gut-brain interaction: Initial feasibility, acceptability, and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) symptoms are common (up to 40%) among adults with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), but treatments for this population (DGBI + ARFID) have yet to be evaluated. We aimed to identify initial feasibility, acceptability, and clinical effects of an exposure-based cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) for adults with DGBI + ARFID. METHODS: Patients (N = 14) received CBT as part of routine care in an outpatient gastroenterology clinic. A two-part investigation of the CBT included a retrospective evaluation of patients who were offered a flexible (8-10) session length and an observational prospective study of patients who were offered eight sessions. Feasibility benchmarks were ≥75% completion of sessions, quantitative measures (for treatment completers), and qualitative interviews. Acceptability was assessed with a benchmark of ≥70% patients reporting a posttreatment satisfaction scores ≥3 on 1-4 scale and with posttreatment qualitative interviews. Mixed model analysis explored signals of improvement in clinical outcomes. RESULTS: All feasibility and acceptability benchmarks were achieved (and qualitative feedback revealed high satisfaction with the treatment and outcomes). There were improvements in clinical outcomes across treatment (all p's < .0001) with large effects for ARFID fear (-52%; Hedge's g = 1.5; 95% CI = 0.6, 2.5) and gastrointestinal-specific anxiety (-42%; Hedge's g = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.5, 16). Among those who needed to gain weight (n = 10), 94%-103% of expected weight gain goals were achieved. DISCUSSION: Initial development and testing of a brief 8-session CBT protocol for DGBI + ARFID showed high feasibility, acceptability, and promising clinical improvements. Findings will inform an NIH Stage 1B randomized control trial. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: While cognitive-behavioral treatments (CBTs) for ARFID have been created in outpatient feeding and eating disorder clinics, they have yet to be developed and refined for other clinic settings or populations. In line with the recommendations for behavioral treatment development, we conducted a two-part investigation of an exposure-based CBT for a patient population with high rates of ARFID-adults with disorders of gut-brain interaction (also known as functional gastrointestinal disorders). We found patients had high satisfaction with treatment and there were promising improvements for both gastrointestinal and ARFID outcomes. The refined treatment includes eight sessions delivered by a behavioral health care provider and the findings reported in this article will be studied next in an NIH Stage 1B randomized controlled trial.

Assessing the presence and motivations of orthorexia nervosa among athletes and adults with eating disorders: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Orthorexia nervosa involves restricting diet based on quality rather than quantity. Although orthorexia is well reported in many at-risk populations, limited data addresses its presence in individuals with eating disorder history (EDs) or athletes. We aimed to identify the presence and potential drivers of orthorexia in adults with EDs and endurance athletes, compared to control subjects. METHODS: Participants ≥ 18y included: people with a diagnosed eating disorder (ED as per DSM-5); endurance athletes (training/competing ≥ 5 h/week); or control subjects. Participants (n = 197) completed an online survey assessing orthorexia (eating habits questionnaire, EHQ), eating motivations (TEMS-B) and compulsive exercise (CET). RESULTS: ED had the highest orthorexia symptom severity (92.0 ± 3.02, n = 32), followed by athletes (76.2 ± 2.74, n = 54) and controls (71.0 ± 1.80, n = 111) (F (2) = 18.2, p < 0.001). A strong positive correlation existed between weight control motives and higher orthorexia symptom severity (r = 0.54, 95% CI [1.35, 2.36], p < 0.001), while a weak negative association existed between Hunger and Pleasure motives and higher orthorexia symptom severity (r = 0.23, 95% CI [- 2.24, - 0.34], p = 0.008; r = 0.26, 95% CI [- 2.11, - 0.47], p = 0.002, respectively). A moderate positive relationship was found between CET and orthorexia symptom severity (95% CI [1.52, 3.12], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Adults with ED history and endurance athletes have greater orthorexia symptom severity compared to control. Clinicians working with at-risk populations should screen patients and be aware of red-flags of orthorexic traits, desire to control weight, and compulsive exercise behavior. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III: Evidence obtained from cohort studies.

Prefrontal cortex activation by binge-eating status in individuals with obesity while attempting to reappraise responses to food using functional near infrared spectroscopy.

PURPOSE: Difficulty reappraising drives to consume palatable foods may promote poorer inhibition and binge eating (BE) in adults with obesity, but neural underpinnings of food-related reappraisal are underexamined. METHODS: To examine neural correlates of food-related reappraisal, adults with obesity with and without BE wore a portable neuroimaging tool, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). fNIRS measured activity in the prefrontal cortex while participants watched videos of food and attempt to "resist" the food stimuli (i.e., "consider the negative consequences of eating the food"). RESULTS: Participants (N = 32, 62.5% female; BMI 38.6 [Formula: see text] 7.1; 43.5 [Formula: see text] 13.4 y) had a BMI > 30 kg/m2. Eighteen adults (67.0% female; BMI 38.2 [Formula: see text] 7.6) reported BE (≥ 12 BE-episodes in preceding 3 months). The control group comprised 14 adults who denied BE (64.0% female; BMI 39.2 [Formula: see text] 6.6). Among the entire sample, mixed models showed significant, small hyperactivation during crave and resist compared to watch (relax) condition bilaterally in the medial superior frontal gyrus, dorsolateral areas, and middle frontal gyrus (optodes 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12) in the total sample. No statistically significant differences in neural activation were observed between the BE and control group. Moreover, there were no significant group by condition interactions on neural activation. CONCLUSION: Among adults with obesity, BE status was not linked to differential activation in inhibitory prefrontal cortex areas during a food-related reappraisal task. Future research is needed with larger samples, adults without obesity, and inhibition paradigms with both behavioral and cognitive components. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: # NCT03113669, date April 13, 2017.

Food neophobia as a mechanism of change in video-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: A case study.

OBJECTIVE: The mechanisms through which cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBTs) for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) may work have yet to be elucidated. To inform future treatment revisions to increase parsimony and potency of CBT for ARFID (CBT-AR), we evaluated change in food neophobia during CBT-AR treatment of a sensory sensitivity ARFID presentation via a single case study. METHOD: An adolescent male completed 21, twice-weekly sessions of CBT-AR via live video delivery. From pre- to mid- to post-treatment and at 2-month follow-up, we calculated percent change in food neophobia and ARFID symptom severity measures. Via visual inspection, we explored trajectories of week-by-week food neophobia in relation to clinical improvements (e.g., when the patient incorporated foods into daily life). RESULTS: By post-treatment, the patient achieved reductions across food neophobia (45%), and ARFID severity (53-57%) measures and no longer met criteria for ARFID, with sustained improvement at 2-month follow-up. Via visual inspection of week-by-week food neophobia trajectories, we identified that decreases occurred after mid-treatment and were associated with incorporation of a food directly tied to the patient's main treatment motivation. DISCUSSION: This study provides hypothesis-generating findings on candidate CBT-AR mechanisms, showing that changes in food neophobia were related to food exposures most connected to the patient's treatment motivations. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBTs) can be effective for treating avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). However, we do not yet have evidence to show how they work. This report of a single patient shows that willingness to try new foods (i.e., food neophobia), changed the most when the patient experienced a clinical improvement most relevant to his motivation for seeking treatment.

Validation of the food craving Acceptance and action questionnaire (FAAQ) in a weight loss-seeking sample.

OBJECTIVE: The Food Craving Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (FAAQ) was developed to measure psychological flexibility around food-related internal experiences (e.g., thoughts, feelings, urges) and has two subscales, acceptance and willingness. However, the FAAQ factor structure has not yet been systematically validated with a clinically relevant sample. METHODS: Two weight-loss treatment seeking samples (total N = 462; 80.4% female) ages 18 to 70 (M = 52.6, SD = 9.8) completed the FAAQ before and after group-based treatment of overweight or obesity. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis on the FAAQ's previously observed two-factor model produced poor model fit. An alternative 7-item model removing specific items that contributed to poor fit and were conceptually relevant to remove provided good model fit. The resulting revised 7-item FAAQ (items 1,3,6 removed) had adequate internal consistency and significant predictive validity for the Total score and subscales, and showed initial construct validity for the Total score. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest researchers and clinicians should now use the 7-item FAAQ-II, which retains the Willingness and Acceptance subscales. Future research is needed with other relevant samples to confirm the FAAQ-II's factor structure and psychometric properties.

Validation of the nine item ARFID screen (NIAS) subscales for distinguishing ARFID presentations and screening for ARFID.

OBJECTIVE: The Nine Item Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) Screen (NIAS) has three subscales aligned with ARFID presentations but clinically validated cutoff scores have not been identified. We aimed to examine NIAS subscale (picky eating, appetite, fear) validity to: (1) capture clinically-diagnosed ARFID presentations; (2) differentiate ARFID from other eating disorders (other-ED); and (3) capture ARFID symptoms among individuals with ARFID, individuals with other-ED, and nonclinical participants. METHOD: Participants included outpatients (ages 10-76 years; 75% female) diagnosed with ARFID (n = 49) or other-ED (n = 77), and nonclinical participants (ages 22-68 years; 38% female, n = 40). We evaluated criterion-related concurrent validity by conducting receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses to identify potential subscale cutoffs and by testing if cutoffs could capture ARFID with and without use of the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q). RESULTS: Each NIAS subscale had high AUC for capturing those who fit versus do not fit each ARFID presentation, resulting in proposed cutoffs of ≥10 (sensitivity = .97, specificity = .63), ≥9 (sensitivity = .86, specificity = .70), and ≥ 10 (sensitivity = .68, specificity = .89) on the NIAS-picky eating, NIAS-appetite, and NIAS-fear subscales, respectively. ARFID versus other-ED had high AUC on the NIAS-picky eating (≥10 proposed cutoff), but not NIAS-appetite or NIAS-fear subscales. NIAS subscale cutoffs had a high association with ARFID diagnosis, but only correctly classified other-ED in combination with EDE-Q Global <2.3. DISCUSSION: To screen for ARFID, we recommend using a screening tool for other-ED (e.g., EDE-Q) in combination with a positive score on any NIAS subscale (i.e., ≥10, ≥9, and/or ≥10 on the NIAS-picky eating, NIAS-appetite, and NIAS-fear subscales, respectively).

Validation of a measure of hypervigilance and anxiety about gastrointestinal symptoms for individuals with elevated eating pathology.

Gastrointestinal symptoms are common within eating disorders and gastrointestinal-specific anxiety is a posited maintenance factor. The present study sought to validate a modified version of an existing measure of gastrointestinal-specific anxiety and hypervigilance in a sample with elevated eating pathology. Esophageal-specific terms in the Esophageal Hypervigilance and Anxiety Scale were modified to measure any gastrointestinal symptoms as a general measure of gastrointestinal-specific anxiety and hypervigilance. Three hundred eighty-two undergraduate students (83.5% female, 87.4% White) with elevated eating pathology completed a questionnaire battery that also measured gastrointestinal symptoms, general anxiety sensitivity, and lower gastrointestinal-specific anxiety on two occasions. Analyses were preregistered at Open Science Framework. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a two-factor solution (anxiety and hypervigilance) fit the data best. Internal consistency and 2-week test-retest reliability were good for subscale scores. Subscale scores exhibited large associations with a measure of lower gastrointestinal-specific anxiety but did not exhibit the hypothesized relationships with general anxiety sensitivity. Subscale scores were at least moderately correlated with measures of gastrointestinal symptoms and somatic symptom severity, with some exceptions (hypervigilance with nausea/vomiting, postprandial fullness/early satiety, bloating). Subscale scores exhibited negligible associations with discriminant validity measures. Results suggest that gastrointestinal-specific anxiety and hypervigilance are separable in samples with elevated eating pathology. The Anxiety and Hypervigilance subscale scores showed good reliability in a sample with elevated eating pathology. Correlations with measures of gastrointestinal symptoms and gastrointestinal-specific anxiety generally demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity. We recommend researchers use subscale scores, rather than total score, in future research on gastrointestinal symptoms associated with eating pathology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Presence and characteristics of disordered eating and orthorexia in irritable bowel syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Orthorexia, a harmful obsession with eating healthily, may develop from illnesses characterized by dietary restriction, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and eating disorders (ED). Evidence of disordered eating in IBS exists, but orthorexia has not been assessed. This cross-sectional study in adults (≥18 years) assessed presence and characteristics of disordered eating and orthorexia in IBS, compared to control subjects (CS) and ED. METHODS: IBS participants met Rome IV, and ED participants met DSM-5 criteria. Disordered eating was assessed using "sick, control, one-stone, fat, food" (SCOFF, ≥2 indicating disordered eating), and orthorexia by the eating habits questionnaire (EHQ). Secondary measures included stress (PSS); anxiety (HADS-A); food-related quality of life (Fr-QoL), and dietary intake (CNAQ). KEY RESULTS: In 202 IBS (192 female), 34 ED (34 female), and 109 CS (90 female), more IBS (33%) and ED (47%) scored SCOFF≥2 compared to CS (16%, p < 0.001, chi-square). IBS and ED had higher orthorexia symptom severity compared to CS (EHQ IBS 82.9 ± 18.1, ED 90.1 ± 19.6, and CS 73.5 ± 16.9, p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA). IBS and ED did not differ for SCOFF or EHQ (p > 0.05). Those with IBS and disordered eating had higher orthorexia symptom severity (EHQ 78.2 ± 16.6 vs. 92.4 ± 17.5, p < 0.001, independent t-test), worse symptoms (IBS-SSS 211.0 ± 78.4 vs. 244.4 ± 62.5, p = 0.008, Mann-Whitney U test), higher stress (p < 0.001, independent t-test), higher anxiety (p = 0.002, independent t-test), and worse FR-QoL (p < 0.001, independent t-test). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Disordered eating and orthorexia symptoms occur frequently in IBS, particularly in those with worse gastrointestinal symptoms, higher stress, and anxiety. Clinicians could consider these characteristics when prescribing dietary therapies.

Latent profile analysis reveals the central role of psychological symptoms in driving disease severity in chronic constipation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic constipation (CC) is defined by symptom criteria reflecting heterogenous physiology. However, many patients with CC have significant psychological comorbidities-an alternative definition using a biopsychosocial classification model could be warranted to inform future treatments. We sought to: (1) empirically derive psychological symptom profiles of patients with CC using latent profile analysis and (2) validate these profiles by comparing them on symptom severity, GI-specific anxiety, body mass index (BMI), and anorectal manometry findings. METHODS: Participants included adults presenting for anorectal manometry for CC (N = 468, 82% female, Mage = 47). Depression/anxiety symptoms and eating disorder (ED) symptoms (EAT-26) were used as indicators (i.e., variables used to derive profiles) representing unique psychological constructs. Constipation symptoms, GI-specific anxiety, BMI, and anorectal manometry results were used as validators (i.e., variables used to examine the clinical utility of the resulting profiles). KEY RESULTS: A 5-profile solution provided the best statistical fit, comprising the following latent profiles (LPs): LP1 termed "high dieting, low bulimia;" LP2 termed "high ED symptoms;" LP3 termed "moderate ED symptoms;" LP4 termed "high anxiety and depression, low ED symptoms;" and LP5 termed "low psychological symptoms." The low psychological symptom profile (61% of the sample) had lower abdominal and overall constipation severity and lower GI-specific anxiety compared to the four profiles characterized by higher psychological symptoms (of any type). Profiles did not significantly differ on BMI or anorectal manometry results. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Profiles with high psychological symptoms had increased constipation symptom severity and GI-specific anxiety in adults with CC. Future research should test whether these profiles predict differential treatment outcomes.

Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder symptoms are not as frequent as other eating disorder symptoms when ulcerative colitis is in remission.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Recent studies have shown that up to 53% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) screen positive for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). There is however concern that ARFID screening rates are over-inflated in patients with active disease. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and characteristics of ARFID symptoms using the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS), and to use another eating disorder measure, the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire 8 (EDE-Q8), to rule-out/characterize other eating disorder cognitive and behavioral symptoms. METHODS: Participants included adults with UC who are enrolled in an in an ongoing cohort study with quiescent UC (SCCAI ≤2 or fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g with corticosteroid-free clinical remission for ≥ 3 months) at baseline. We used self-reported data on demographics, gastrointestinal medications, medical comorbidities, NIAS scores, and other eating disorder symptom scores (8-item Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire; EDE-Q-8). RESULTS: We included 101 participants who completed the NIAS at their baseline cohort assessment (age 49.9±16.5 years; 55% female). Eleven participants (11%) screened positively for ARFID on at least one NIAS subscale (n=8 male). Up to thirty participants (30%) screened positive for other eating disorder symptoms (EDE-Q-8 Global ≥2.3). Overall score distributions on the EDE-Q-8 showed that participants scored highest on the Weight Concern and Shape Concern subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with UC in remission, we found a low rate of ARFID symptoms by the NIAS but a high rate of positive screens for other eating disorder symptoms.

Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder prevalence is high in children with gastroparesis and functional dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) prevalence in children with gastroparesis (Gp) and/or functional dyspepsia (FD) is unknown. We aimed to identify ARFID prevalence and trajectory over 2 months in children with Gp, FD, and healthy children (HC) using two screening questionnaires. We also explored the frequency of a positive ARFID screen between those with/without delayed gastric emptying or abnormal fundic accommodation. METHODS: In this prospective longitudinal study conducted at an urban tertiary care hospital, patients ages 10-17 years with Gp or FD and age- and gender-matched HC completed two validated ARFID screening tools at baseline and 2-month follow-up: the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS) and the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview-ARFID Questionnaire (PARDI-AR-Q). Gastric retention and fundic accommodation (for Gp and FD) were determined from gastric emptying scintigraphy. KEY RESULTS: At baseline, the proportion of children screening positive for ARFID on the NIAS versus PARDI-AR-Q was Gp: 48.5% versus 63.6%, FD: 66.7% versus 65.2%, HC: 15.3% versus 9.7%, respectively; p < 0.0001 across groups. Of children who screened positive at baseline and participated in the follow-up, 71.9% and 53.3% were positive 2 months later (NIAS versus PARDI-AR-Q, respectively). A positive ARFID screen in Gp or FD was not related to the presence/absence of delayed gastric retention or abnormal fundic accommodation. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: ARFID detected from screening questionnaires is highly prevalent among children with Gp and FD and persists for at least 2 months in a substantial proportion of children. Children with these disorders should be screened for ARFID.

Gastrointestinal diagnoses in patients with eating disorders: A retrospective cohort study 2010-2020.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders are common in patients with eating disorders. However, the temporal relationship between GI and eating disorder symptoms has not been explored. We aimed to evaluate GI disorders among patients with eating disorders, their relative timing, and the relationship between GI diagnoses and eating disorder remission. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with an eating disorder diagnosis who had a GI encounter from 2010 to 2020. GI diagnoses and timing of eating disorder onset were abstracted from chart review. Coders applied DSM-5 criteria for eating disorders at the time of GI consult to determine eating disorder remission status. RESULTS: Of 344 patients with an eating disorder diagnosis and GI consult, the majority (255/344, 74.2%) were diagnosed with an eating disorder prior to GI consult (preexisting eating disorder). GI diagnoses categorized as functional/motility disorders were most common among the cohort (57.3%), particularly in those with preexisting eating disorders (62.5%). 113 (44.3%) patients with preexisting eating disorders were not in remission at GI consult, which was associated with being underweight (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.46, p < 0.001) and increasing number of GI diagnoses (OR 0.47 per diagnosis, 95% CI 0.26-0.85, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Eating disorder symptoms precede GI consult for most patients, particularly in functional/motility disorders. As almost half of eating disorder patients are not in remission at GI consult. GI providers have an important role in screening for eating disorders. Further prospective research is needed to understand the complex relationship between eating disorders and GI symptoms.