RESUMO
Background: Avoidant restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) is a new eating disorder with a heterogeneous clinical presentation. It is unclear which patient characteristics contribute to its heterogeneity. Methods: To identify these patient characteristics, we performed symptom-level correlation and driver-level regression analyses in our cross-sectional study in up to 261 ARFID patients (51% female; median age = 12.7 years) who were assessed at the Maudsley Centre for Child and Adolescent Eating Disorders, London between November 2019 and July 2022. Findings: Symptoms across the three drivers 1) avoidance based on sensory characteristics of food; 2) apparent lack of interest in eating; and 3) concern about aversive consequences positively correlated with each other. Patients' anxiety traits showed the greatest positive correlations with symptoms of concern about aversive consequences of eating. Patient sex was not significantly associated with any of the three ARFID drivers. Patients with comorbid autism spectrum disorder (ASD; 28%) showed more food-related sensory sensitivities (RR = 1.26) and greater lack of interest in eating (RR = 1.18) than those of patients without ASD (49%). Interpretation: In our clinical sample, the ARFID drivers occurred together and did not show clinically meaningful differences between the sexes. ASD may accentuate food-related sensory sensitivities and lack of interest, but may not drive a completely different symptom presentation. ARFID is multi-faceted and heterogenous, requiring a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment to sufficiently understand the drivers of the restrictive eating behaviour. Results need replication in larger samples with more statistical power. Funding: None.
RESUMO
Background: ARFID (avoidant restrictive food intake disorder) is a relatively new diagnostic term covering a number of well-recognised, clinically significant disturbances in eating behaviour unrelated to body weight/shape concerns. Its phenotypic heterogeneity combined with much about the condition remaining unknown, can contribute to uncertainties about best practice. While other reviews of the evidence base for ARFID exist, few specifically target health care professionals and implications for clinical practice. Methods: A narrative review was conducted to synthesise the findings of ARFID papers in scientific journals focussing on four key areas relevant to clinical practice: prevalence, assessment and characterisation of clinical presentations, treatment, and service delivery. Freely available online databases were searched for case studies and series, research reports, review articles, and meta-analyses. Findings were reviewed and practice implications considered, resulting in proposed clinical recommendations and future research directions. Results: We discuss what is currently known about the four key areas included in this review. Based on available evidence as well as gaps identified in the literature, recommendations for clinical practice are derived and practice-related research priorities are proposed for each of the four of the areas explored. Conclusion: Prevalence studies highlight the need for referral and care pathways to be embedded across a range of health care services. While research into ARFID is increasing, further studies across all areas of ARFID are required and there remains a pressing need for guidance on systematic assessment, evidence-based management, and optimal service delivery models. Informed clinical practice is currently predominantly reliant on expert consensus and small-scale studies, with ongoing routine clinical data capture, robust treatment trials and evaluation of clinical pathways all required. Despite this, a number a positive practice points emerge.
