Integrated enhanced cognitive behavioural (I-CBTE) therapy significantly improves effectiveness of inpatient treatment of anorexia nervosa in real life settings

BACKGROUND: Inpatient treatment of anorexia nervosa can be lifesaving but is associated with high rates of relapse and poor outcomes. To address this, the Oxford service has adapted the enhanced cognitive behavioural treatment (CBTE) model, first developed for inpatients in Italy to a UK national health service (NHS) setting. In this study, we compared the outcomes from treatment as usual (TAU), integrated CBTE (I-CBTE), and alternative treatment models in routine UK clinical practice. METHODS: This is a longitudinal cohort study, using routinely collected data between 2017 and 2020 involving all adults with anorexia nervosa admitted to specialist units from a large geographical area in England covering a total population of 3.5 million. We compared TAU with (1) I-CBTE (13 weeks inpatient CBTE, restoration to a healthy weight, combined with 7 weeks day treatment followed by 20 weeks of outpatient CBTE; (2) standalone inpatient CBTE (due to insufficient resources since the pandemic; and (3) 6-8 weeks admission with partial weight restoration as crisis management. Primary outcome measures (min. 1 year after discharge from hospital) were defined as: (1) good outcome: Body Mass Index (BMI) > 19.5 and no abnormal eating or compensatory behaviours; (2) poor outcome: BMI < 19.5 and/or ongoing eating disorder behaviours; (3) readmission; or (4) deceased. Secondary outcomes were BMI on discharge, and length of stay. RESULTS: 212 patients were admitted to 15 specialist units in the UK depending on bed availability. The mean age was 28.9 (18-60) years, mean admission BMI was 14.1 (10-18.3), 80% were voluntary. At minimum 1-year follow up after discharge, 70% of patients receiving I-CBTE and 29% standalone inpatient CBTE maintained good outcomes, in contrast with < 5% TAU and crisis management admission. Readmission rates of I-CBTE were 14.3% vs ~ 50% (χ2 < 0.0001) in the other groups. The main predictors of good outcome were reaching healthy BMI by discharge, I-CBTE and voluntary status. Age, psychiatric comorbidity and length of stay did not predict outcomes. BMI on discharge and length of stay were significantly better in the CBTE groups than in TAU. CONCLUSIONS: Our main finding is that in a real-life setting, I-CBTE has superior short- and minimum 1 year outcomes as compared with alternative inpatient treatment models. Dissemination of I-CBTE across the care pathway has the potential to transform outcomes of inpatient treatment for this high-risk patient population and reduce personal and societal costs

Confirmatory factor analysis for two questionnaires of caregiving in eating disorders

Objective: Caring for someone diagnosed with an eating disorder (ED) is associated with a high level of burden and psychological distress which can inadvertently contribute to the maintenance of the illness. The Eating Disorders Symptom Impact Scale (EDSIS) and Accommodation and Enabling Scale for Eating Disorders (AESED) are self-report scales to assess elements of caregiving theorised to contribute to the maintenance of an ED. Further validation and confirmation of the factor structures for these scales are necessary for rigorous evaluation of complex interventions which target these modifiable elements of caregiving. Method: EDSIS and AESED data from 268 carers of people with anorexia nervosa (AN), recruited from consecutive admissions to 15 UK inpatient or day patient hospital units, were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis to test model fit by applying the existing factor structures: (a) four-factor structure for the EDSIS and (b) five-factor structure for the AESED. Results: Confirmatory factor analytic results support the existing four-factor and five-factor structures for the EDSIS and the AESED, respectively. Discussion: The present findings provide further validation of the EDSIS and the AESED as tools to assess modifiable elements of caregiving for someone with an ED

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field