Identification of State Markers in Anorexia Nervosa: Replication and Extension of Inflammation-Associated Biomarkers Using Multiplex Profiling.

Background: Proteomics offers potential for detecting and monitoring anorexia nervosa (AN) and its variant, atypical AN (atyp-AN). However, research has been limited by small protein panels, a focus on adult AN, and lack of replication. Methods: In this study, we performed Olink multiplex profiling of 92 inflammation-related proteins in females with AN/atyp-AN (n = 64), all of whom were ≤90% of expected body weight, and age-matched healthy control individuals (n = 44). Results: Five proteins differed significantly between the primary AN/atyp-AN group and the healthy control group (lower levels: HGF, IL-18R1, TRANCE; higher levels: CCL23, LIF-R). The expression levels of 3 proteins (lower IL-18R1, TRANCE; higher LIF-R) were uniquely disrupted in participants with AN in our primary model. No unique expression levels emerged for atyp-AN. In the total sample, 12 proteins (ADA, CD5, CD6, CXCL1, FGF-21, HGF, IL-12B, IL18, IL-18R1, SIRT2, TNFSF14, TRANCE) were positively correlated with body mass index and 5 proteins (CCL11, FGF-19, IL8, LIF-R, OPG) were negatively correlated with body mass index in our primary models. Conclusions: Our results replicate the results of a previous study that demonstrated a dysregulated inflammatory status in AN and extend those results to atyp-AN. Of the 17 proteins correlated with body mass index, 11 were replicated from a previous study that used similar methods, highlighting the promise of inflammatory protein expression levels as biomarkers of AN disease monitoring. Our findings underscore the complexity of AN and atyp-AN by highlighting the inability of the identified proteins to differentiate between these 2 subtypes, thereby emphasizing the heterogeneous nature of these disorders.

We examined 73 inflammation proteins in adolescent girls with anorexia nervosa (AN) and atypical AN and compared them with age-matched healthy control girls. Significant differences were found, driven by 5 key proteins (lower: HGF, IL-18R1, TRANCE; higher: CCL23, LIF-R). Three proteins (TRANCE, LIF-R, IL-18R1) uniquely distinguished low-weight participants with AN from control participants. Our study reveals distinct inflammation patterns in AN and atypical AN and sheds light on potential state-specific factors that underlie these disorders.

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.

Trajectory of ghrelin and PYY around a test meal in males and females with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder versus healthy controls.

Disruptions in appetite-regulating hormones may contribute to the development and/or maintenance of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). No study has previously assessed fasting levels of orexigenic ghrelin or anorexigenic peptide YY (PYY), nor their trajectory in response to food intake among youth with ARFID across the weight spectrum. We measured fasting and postprandial (30, 60, 120 minutes post-meal) levels of ghrelin and PYY among 127 males and females with full and subthreshold ARFID (n = 95) and healthy controls (HC; n = 32). We used latent growth curve analyses to examine differences in the trajectories of ghrelin and PYY between ARFID and HC. Fasting levels of ghrelin did not differ in ARFID compared to HC. Among ARFID, ghrelin levels declined more gradually than among HC in the first hour post meal (p =.005), but continued to decline between 60 and 120 minutes post meal, whereas HC plateaued (p =.005). Fasting and PYY trajectory did not differ by group. Findings did not change after adjusting for BMI percentile (M(SD)ARFID = 37(35); M(SD)HC = 53(26); p =.006) or calories consumed during the test meal (M(SD)ARFID = 294(118); M(SD)HC = 384 (48); p <.001). These data highlight a distinct trajectory of ghrelin following a test meal in youth with ARFID. Future research should examine ghrelin dysfunction as an etiological or maintenance factor of ARFID.

Prospective 2-Year Course and Predictors of Outcome in Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 2-year course and outcomes of full and subthreshold avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) in youth aged 9 to 23 years at baseline using a prospective longitudinal design to characterize the remission and persistence of ARFID, evaluate diagnostic crossover, and identify predictors of outcome. Greater severity in each ARFID profile-sensory sensitivity, fear of aversive consequences, and lack of interest-was hypothesized to predict greater likelihood of illness persistence, controlling for age, sex, body mass index percentile, ARFID treatment status, and baseline diagnosis. METHOD: Participants (N = 100; age range, 9-23 years; 49% female; 91% White) were followed over 2 years. The Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview was used across 3 time points (baseline, year 1, year 2) to measure the severity of each ARFID profile and evaluate illness persistence or remission, and the Eating Disorder Assessment for DSM-5 was used to evaluate diagnostic crossover. RESULTS: Across the 2-year follow-up period, half the participants persisted with their original diagnosis, and 3% of participants experienced a diagnostic shift to anorexia nervosa. Greater severity in the sensory sensitivity and lack of interest profiles was associated with higher likelihood of ARFID persistence at year 1 only; greater severity in the fear of aversive consequences profile was associated with higher likelihood of ARFID remission at year 2 only. CONCLUSION: Findings underscore the distinctiveness of ARFID from other eating disorders and emphasize its persistence over 2 years. Results also highlight the predictive validity and prognostic value of the ARFID profiles (ie, sensory sensitivity, fear of aversive consequences, lack of interest).

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.

Lower region-specific gray matter volume in females with atypical anorexia nervosa and anorexia nervosa.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have focused on brain structure in atypical anorexia nervosa (atypical AN). This study investigates differences in gray matter volume (GMV) between females with anorexia nervosa (AN) and atypical AN, and healthy controls (HC). METHOD: Structural magnetic resonance imaging data were acquired for 37 AN, 23 atypical AN, and 41 HC female participants. Freesurfer was used to extract GMV, cortical thickness, and surface area for six brain lobes and associated cortical regions of interest (ROI). Primary analyses employed linear mixed-effects models to compare group differences in lobar GMV, followed by secondary analyses on ROIs within significant lobes. We also explored relationships between cortical gray matter and both body mass index (BMI) and symptom severity. RESULTS: Our primary analyses revealed significant lower GMV in frontal, temporal and parietal areas (FDR < .05) in AN and atypical AN when compared to HC. Lobar GMV comparisons were non-significant between atypical AN and AN. The parietal lobe exhibited the greatest proportion of affected cortical ROIs in both AN versus HC and atypical AN versus HC. BMI, but not symptom severity, was found to be associated with cortical GMV in the parietal, frontal, temporal, and cingulate lobes. No significant differences were observed in cortical thickness or surface area. DISCUSSION: We observed lower GMV in frontal, temporal, and parietal areas, when compared to HC, but no differences between AN and atypical AN. This indicates potentially overlapping structural phenotypes between these disorders and evidence of brain changes among those who are not below the clinical underweight threshold. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Despite individuals with atypical anorexia nervosa presenting above the clinical weight threshold, lower cortical gray matter volume was observed in partial, temporal, and frontal cortices, compared to healthy individuals. No significant differences were found in cortical gray matter volume between anorexia nervosa and atypical anorexia nervosa. This underscores the importance of continuing to assess and target weight gain in clinical care, even for those who are presenting above the low-weight clinical criteria.

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.

Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder differs from anorexia nervosa in delay discounting.

BACKGROUND: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) are the two primary restrictive eating disorders; however, they are driven by differing motives for inadequate dietary intake. Despite overlap in restrictive eating behaviors and subsequent malnutrition, it remains unknown if ARFID and AN also share commonalities in their cognitive profiles, with cognitive alterations being a key identifier of AN. Discounting the present value of future outcomes with increasing delay to their expected receipt represents a core cognitive process guiding human decision-making. A hallmark cognitive characteristic of individuals with AN (vs. healthy controls [HC]) is reduced discounting of future outcomes, resulting in reduced impulsivity and higher likelihood of favoring delayed gratification. Whether individuals with ARFID display a similar reduction in delay discounting as those with AN (vs. an opposing bias towards increased delay discounting or no bias) is important in informing transdiagnostic versus disorder-specific cognitive characteristics and optimizing future intervention strategies. METHOD: To address this research question, 104 participants (ARFID: n = 57, AN: n = 28, HC: n = 19) completed a computerized Delay Discounting Task. Groups were compared by their delay discounting parameter (ln)k. RESULTS: Individuals with ARFID displayed a larger delay discounting parameter than those with AN, indicating steeper delay discounting (M ± SD = -6.10 ± 2.00 vs. -7.26 ± 1.73, p = 0.026 [age-adjusted], Hedges' g = 0.59), with no difference from HC (p = 0.514, Hedges' g = -0.35). CONCLUSION: Our findings provide a first indication of distinct cognitive profiles among the two primary restrictive eating disorders. The present results, together with future research spanning additional cognitive domains and including larger and more diverse samples of individuals with ARFID (vs. AN), will contribute to identifying maintenance mechanisms that are unique to each disorder as well as contribute to the optimization and tailoring of treatment strategies across the spectrum of restrictive eating disorders.

Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) are both restrictive eating disorders. However, the reasons for restricting food intake differ between the two diagnoses. A key question in further understanding similarities and differences between ARFID and AN is to understand whether individuals with these disorders process information and make decisions in similar or distinct ways. When humans decide between two different outcomes (e.g., a smaller immediate or a larger delayed reward), outcomes decrease in their value the farther in the future we expect to receive them (delay discounting). Individuals with AN exhibit a reduced discounting of future outcomes, which makes them more likely to forego immediate gratification for later rewards. However, whether this holds true for individuals with ARFID too (or whether they show the opposite or no bias) is unknown. Our investigation is the first to compare delay discounting between individuals with ARFID, AN, and healthy controls (HC). Our results show that individuals with ARFID show more delay discounting than those with AN, with no difference from HC. Knowing how rewards are being chosen and decisions made (and knowing differences between diagnoses) will be helpful in further optimizing and tailoring treatments for restrictive eating disorders.