RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos de Alimentación y de la Ingestión de Alimentos , Enfermedades Gastrointestinales , Humanos , Trastornos de Alimentación y de la Ingestión de Alimentos/diagnóstico , Trastornos de Alimentación y de la Ingestión de Alimentos/epidemiología , Femenino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Masculino , Enfermedades Gastrointestinales/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Gastrointestinales/epidemiología , Adulto , Adulto Joven , Adolescente , Estudios de Cohortes , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DBGI), also known as functional gastrointestinal disorders, are common in individuals with eating disorders, and may precede or perpetuate disordered eating. Understanding the pathophysiology of common gastrointestinal symptoms in DGBI can be important for the care of many patients with eating disorders. In this review, we summarize the literature to date on the complex relationship between DBGI and eating disorders and provide guidance on the assessment and management of the most common symptoms of DBGI by anatomic region: esophageal symptoms (globus and functional dysphagia), gastroduodenal symptoms (functional dyspepsia and nausea), and bowel symptoms (abdominal pain, bloating and constipation).
Disorders of gutbrain interaction, also known as functional gastrointestinal disorders, are common in individuals with eating disorders and can cause symptoms that affect all parts of the gastrointestinal system. In this review, we describe common symptoms of disorders of gutbrain interaction and recommendations for their assessment and management.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Exclusion diets for gastrointestinal symptom management have been hypothesized to be a risk factor for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID; a non-body image-based eating disorder). In a retrospective study of pediatric and adult neurogastroenterology patients, we aimed to (1) identify the prevalence and characteristics of an exclusion diet history and (2) evaluate if an exclusion diet history was concurrently associated with the presence of ARFID symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a chart review of 539 consecutive referrals (ages 6-90, 69% female) to adult (n = 410; January-December 2016) and pediatric (n = 129; January 2016-December 2018) neurogastroenterology clinics. Masked coders (n = 4) retrospectively applied DSM-5 criteria for ARFID and a separate coder assessed documentation of exclusion diet history. We excluded patients with no documentation of diet in the chart (n = 35) or who were not orally fed (n = 9). RESULTS: Of 495 patients included, 194 (39%) had an exclusion diet history, and 118 (24%) had symptoms of ARFID. Of reported diets, dairy-free was the most frequent (45%), followed by gluten-free (36%). Where documented, exclusion diets were self-initiated by patients/parents in 66% of cases, and recommended by gastroenterology providers in 30%. Exclusion diet history was significantly associated with the presence of ARFID symptoms (OR = 3.12[95% CI 1.92-5.14], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: History of following an exclusion diet was common and was most often patient-initiated among pediatric and adult neurogastroenterology patients. As patients with self-reported exclusion diet history were over three times as likely to have ARFID symptoms, providers should be cognizant of this potential association when considering dietary interventions.
Asunto(s)
Trastorno de la Ingesta Alimentaria Evitativa/Restrictiva , Trastornos de Alimentación y de la Ingestión de Alimentos , Adulto , Humanos , Niño , Femenino , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Masculino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Ingestión de AlimentosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of psychiatric comorbidity on pharmacologic treatment outcomes, including neuromodulators (medications targeting the gut-brain axis), among adult patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). Accordingly, we aimed to examine associations between psychiatric comorbidity and DGBI pharmacologic treatment outcomes. METHODS: In a retrospective study of consecutively referred new patients (N = 410; ages 18-90; 73% female) to a tertiary neurogastroenterology clinic in 2016 with follow-up through 2018, relationships between psychiatric illness (any psychiatric illness, anxiety disorders, depressive disorders) and pharmacologic treatment selection (any medication, neuromodulating medication) and treatment outcomes, respectively, were examined using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for demographics, gastrointestinal (GI) diagnoses, and pre-existing neuromodulator use. KEY RESULTS: Anxiety disorders (35%) were the most common psychiatric comorbidity, followed by depressive disorders (29%). Patients with anxiety disorders were more likely to be prescribed a neuromodulator by their gastroenterologist (OR = 1.72 [95% CI 1.10-2.75]) yet less likely to respond to neuromodulators (OR = 0.43 [0.21-0.90]) or any GI medication (OR = 0.24 [0.12-0.50]) in fully adjusted analyses. In contrast, depressive disorders were not associated with neuromodulator prescription or response. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Anxiety disorders are common among patients with DGBI and significantly reduce the likelihood of GI pharmacologic treatment response to any medication prescribed, including neuromodulators.
Asunto(s)
Encéfalo , Neurotransmisores , Humanos , Adulto , Femenino , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Masculino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Prevalencia , Comorbilidad , Resultado del TratamientoAsunto(s)
Alérgenos/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/inmunología , Inmunoglobulina E/inmunología , Proteínas de la Leche/inmunología , Proctocolitis/inmunología , Preescolar , Intervalos de Confianza , Eccema/diagnóstico , Eccema/inmunología , Femenino , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Humanos , Masculino , Análisis de Regresión , Factores SexualesRESUMEN
Objectives. To examine effects of unmet social needs on adherence to pediatric weight management intervention (PWMI).Methods. We examined individual associations of positive screens for parental stress, parental depression, food insecurity, and housing insecurity with intervention adherence, and associations of 0, 1 or 2, and 3 or 4 unmet social needs with adherence, among children enrolled in a 2017-2019 comparative effectiveness trial for 2 high-intensity PWMIs in Massachusetts. Models were adjusted for child age, body mass index (BMI), parent BMI, and intervention arm.Results. Families with versus without housing insecurity received a mean of 5.3 (SD = 8.0) versus 8.3 (SD = 10.9) contact hours (P < .01). There were no statistically significant differences in adherence for families reporting other unmet social needs. Children with 3 to 4 unmet social needs versus without received a mean of 5.2 (SD = 8.1) versus 9.2 (SD = 11.8) contact hours (P < .01). In fully adjusted models, those with housing insecurity attended a mean difference of -3.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -5.41, -0.88) hours versus those without. Those with 3 or 4 unmet social needs attended -3.74 (95% CI = -6.64, -0.84) hours less than those with none.Conclusions. Adherence to PWMIs was lower among children with housing insecurity and in families with 3 or 4 unmet social needs. Addressing social needs should be a priority of PWMIs to improve intervention adherence and reduce disparities in childhood obesity.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03012126.