Conference Coverage

ARFID or reasonable food restriction? The jury is out



Screening measures

To get a better sense of the prevalence of ARFID, compared with reasonable responses to digestive diseases, Dr. Taft and colleagues conducted their cross-sectional study in 289 adults with achalasia, celiac, eosinophilic esophagitis, or IBD.

They found that 51.3% of the total sample met the diagnostic criteria for ARFID based on the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (NIAS), including 75.7 % of patients with achalasia. But Dr. Taft had cautions

“I can tell you, working with achalasia patients, 75% do not have ARFID,” Dr. Taft said.

She noted that the 51.3% of patients with IBD identified by NIAS or the 53% identified by the ARFID+ scale as having ARFID was also highly doubtful.

Dr. Taft and colleagues determined that nearly half of the variance in the NIAS could be accounted for by GI symptoms rather than psychosocial factors, making it less than ideal for use in the clinic or by researchers.

She also noted, however, that she received an email from one of the creators of NIAS, Hana F. Zickgraf, PhD, from the University of South Alabama, Mobile. Dr. Zickgraf agreed that the scale had drawbacks when applied to patients with GI disease, and pointed instead to the Fear of Food Questionnaire, a newly developed 18-item GI disease-specific instrument. Dr. Taft recommended the new questionnaire for research purposes, and expressed hope that a shorter version could be made available for screening patients in clinic.

Dr. Burton Murray said that while the Fear of Food Questionnaire, perhaps in combination with NIAS, has the potential to be a useful screening tool, cutoffs for it have yet to be established.

“At the end of the day, the diagnosis would be made by a clinician who is able to determine whether the life impairment or if the nutritional impairment or restricted food intake are reasonable in the realm of their digestive disease, or could a treatment for ARFID be warranted to help them to make changes to improve their quality of life and nutrition,” she said.

Check biases at the door

Before arriving at a diagnosis of ARFID, clinicians should also consider biases, Dr. Taft said.

“Eating disorders are highly stigmatized and stereotyped diagnoses,” more often attributed to young White women than to either men or to people of racial or ethnic minorities, she said.

Cultural background may contribute to food restrictions, and the risk may increase with age, with 68% of patients with later-onset IBD restricting diets to control the disease. It’s also possible that beliefs about food and “clean and healthy” eating may influence food and eating choices after a patient receives an IBD diagnosis.

Dr. Taft also pointed out that clinicians and patients may have different ideas about what constitutes significant food avoidance. Clinicians may expect patients with IBD to eat despite feeling nauseated, having abdominal pains, or diarrhea, for example, when the same food avoidance might be deemed reasonable in patients with short-term GI infections.

“Severe IBD symptoms are a significant predictor of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, and PTSD is hallmarked by avoidance behaviors,” she added.

She emphasized the need for clinicians to ask the right questions of patients to get at the roots of their nutritional deficiency or eating behavior, and to refer patients to mental health professionals with expertise in disordered eating or GI psychology.

Dr. Taft and Dr. Burton Murray reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

This article was updated on Feb. 4, 2022.


Next Article: