RESUMO
Two decades have elapsed since our publication of 'What kind of illness is anorexia nervosa?'. The question remains whether our understanding of anorexia nervosa and its treatment thereof has evolved over this time. The verdict is disappointing at best. Our current gold standard treatments remain over-valued and clinical outcomes are modest at best. Those in our field are haunted by the constant reminder that anorexia nervosa carries the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder. This cannot continue and demands immediate action. In this essay, we tackle the myths that bedevil our field and explore a deeper phenotyping of anorexia nervosa. We argue that we can no longer declare agnostic views of the disorder or conceive treatments that are "brainless": it is incumbent upon us to challenge the prevailing zeitgeist and reconceptualise anorexia nervosa. Here we provide a roadmap for the future.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Family-based treatment (FBT) is an efficacious outpatient intervention for young people diagnosed with Anorexia Nervosa (AN). To date, treatment to protocol has relied on standard face-to-face delivery. Face-to-face therapy is subject to geographic, temporal and human factors, rendering it particularly susceptible to inequities and disruption. This has resulted in poorer service provision for rural and regional families, and recently a significant challenge to providing face-to-face services during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The present study examines whether FBT for AN can be successfully translated to a digital delivery platform to address these access issues. METHOD: Forty young people aged 12 to 18 years who meet DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for AN, and live in a rural or regional setting, will along with their family be recruited to the study. Trained therapists will provide 18 sessions of FBT over 9 months via telemedicine to the home of the young person and their family. The analysis will examine treatment effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The study addresses the treatment needs of families not able to attend face-to-face clinical services for evidence-based treatment for eating disorders. This might be due to several barriers, including a lack of local services or long travel distances to services. There has been a recent and unprecedented demand for telemedicine to facilitate the continuity of care during COVID-19 despite geographical circumstances. If delivering treatment in this modality is clinically and economically effective and feasible, it will facilitate access to potentially lifesaving, evidence-based treatments for families formerly unable to access such care and provide evidence for the continuity of services when and where face-to-face treatment is not feasible.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious disorder incurring high costs due to hospitalization. International treatments vary, with prolonged hospitalizations in Europe and shorter hospitalizations in the USA. Uncontrolled studies suggest that longer initial hospitalizations that normalize weight produce better outcomes and fewer admissions than shorter hospitalizations with lower discharge weights. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of hospitalization for weight restoration (WR) to medical stabilization (MS) in adolescent AN. METHOD: We performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 82 adolescents, aged 12-18 years, with a DSM-IV diagnosis of AN and medical instability, admitted to two pediatric units in Australia. Participants were randomized to shorter hospitalization for MS or longer hospitalization for WR to 90% expected body weight (EBW) for gender, age and height, both followed by 20 sessions of out-patient, manualized family-based treatment (FBT). RESULTS: The primary outcome was the number of hospital days, following initial admission, at the 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the total number of hospital days used up to 12 months and full remission, defined as healthy weight (>95% EBW) and a global Eating Disorder Examination (EDE) score within 1 standard deviation (s.d.) of published means. There was no significant difference between groups in hospital days following initial admission. There were significantly more total hospital days used and post-protocol FBT sessions in the WR group. There were no moderators of primary outcome but participants with higher eating psychopathology and compulsive features reported better clinical outcomes in the MS group. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes are similar with hospitalizations for MS or WR when combined with FBT. Cost savings would result from combining shorter hospitalization with FBT.
