Terminal anorexia nervosa is a dangerous term: it cannot, and should not, be defined

Discordant conceptualisations of eating disorder recovery and their influence on the construct of terminality

Eating disorders (EDs) are complex, multifaceted conditions that significantly impact quality-of-life, often co-occur with multiple medical and psychiatric diagnoses, and are associated with a high risk of medical sequelae and mortality. Fortunately, many people recover even after decades of illness, although there are different conceptualisations of recovery and understandings of how recovery is experienced. Differences in these conceptualisations influence categorisations of ED experiences (e.g., longstanding vs. short-duration EDs), prognoses, recommended treatment pathways, and research into treatment outcomes. Within recent years, the proposal of a 'terminal' illness stage for a subset of individuals with anorexia nervosa and arguments for the prescription of end-of-life pathways for such individuals has ignited debate. Semantic choices are influential in ED care, and it is critical to consider how conceptualisations of illness and recovery and power dynamics influence outcomes and the ED 'staging' discourse. Conceptually, 'terminality' interrelates with understandings of recovery, efficacy of available treatments, iatrogenic harm, and complex co-occurring diagnoses, as well as the functions of an individual's eating disorder, and the personal and symbolic meanings an individual may hold regarding suffering, self-starvation, death, health and life. Our authorship represents a wide range of lived and living experiences of EDs, treatment, and recovery, ranging from longstanding and severe EDs that may meet descriptors of a 'terminal' ED to a variety of definitions of 'recovery'. Our experiences have given rise to a shared motivation to analyse how existing discourses of terminality and recovery, as found in existing research literature and policy, may shape the conceptualisations, beliefs, and actions of individuals with EDs and the healthcare systems that seek to serve them.

"Terminal anorexia nervosa" may not be terminal: An empirical evaluation

Gaudiani et al. (2022) presented terminal anorexia nervosa (T-AN) as a potential new specifier to the anorexia nervosa (AN) diagnosis, with criteria including (a) AN diagnosis, (b) age > 30 years, (c) previously participated in high-quality care, and (d) the clear, consistent determination by a patient with decision-making capacity that additional treatment would be futile, knowing death will result. This study's purpose was to empirically examine a subgroup of participants with AN who met the first three criteria of T-AN-and a smaller subset who also met a proxy index of the fourth criterion involving death (TD-AN)-and compare them to an adult "not terminal" anorexia nervosa (NT-AN) group and to a "not terminal" subset 30 years of age or older (NTO-AN). Patients at U.S. eating disorder treatment facilities (N = 782; T-AN: n = 51, TD-AN: n = 16, NT-AN: n = 731, NTO-AN: n = 133), all of whom met criteria for a current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition diagnosis of AN, were compared regarding admission, discharge, and changes from admission to discharge on physiological indices (i.e., white blood cell counts, albumin levels, aspartate aminotransferase levels, and body mass index), as well as self-report measures (i.e., eating disorder, depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms). In contrast to the tight syndromal symptom interconnections of, and inevitable spiral toward death expected for, a terminal diagnosis, results suggest substantial variability within the T-AN group and TD-AN subset, and an overall trend of improvement across physiological and self-report measures. This study thus provides some empirical evidence against the specification of the T-AN diagnosis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

'Terminal anorexia': a lived experience perspective

Having suffered from longstanding anorexia nervosa (AN) for more than a decade, and after meeting many patients who have also been labelled as 'treatment-resistant', 'treatment-refractory', or similar terms, I feel a strong responsibility to express my deep fears and sadness about the more harmful new label of 'terminal anorexia'. This article is based on a reflective and private email that I emotionally wrote in Autumn 2022, soon after reading a thought-provoking paper (Guarda et al. in J Eat Disord 10:79, 2022) about the new term. When I wrote the email, I had not read the Gaudiani et al. (J Eat Disord 10:23, 2022) paper that proposed clinical characteristics for the new diagnosis. Hence, my email was not, and this article is not, a response to Gaudiani et al. (2022). Challenging the criteria that they proposed is beyond the scope of this article, which is just a lived experience reaction to the concept of 'terminal anorexia' (regardless of who created it and who tries to define it).Before learning about 'terminal anorexia' in 2022, I assumed that 'unconditional positive regard' included mental health professionals' unconditional hope for their patients' ability to live meaningful lives, irrespective of how severe or chronic their patients' conditions were. Therefore, I was very disheartened when the label 'terminal anorexia' was circulated by professionals. Research is not just read, seen, and heard about by the professionals who promote it. Vulnerable and conflicted eating disorder (ED) sufferers, and their families, can be victims of theoretical academic discourse that has real-world, life-or-death implications.The purpose of my article is not to suppress the arbitrary new term, which is sadly already commonly used in clinical practice and amongst very young ED sufferers, despite it having no agreed definition. I intend to outline some of the reasons why I believe that the term (not its hypothesised criteria, which are beyond the scope of my article) is harming ED sufferers, so that these harms can be addressed before it is too late. I have grouped these reasons into six key themes that inevitably overlap and cannot be perfectly separated. They are: [1] Hope and identity destruction; [2] Avoidance and collusion; [3] Self-diagnosis and misdiagnosis; [4] Comparisons; [5] Dangerous precedents; [6] Current and future treatments.

The integrated treatment of eating disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity: a commentary on the evolution of principles and guidelines

Psychiatric comorbidity is the norm in the assessment and treatment of eating disorders (EDs), and traumatic events and lifetime PTSD are often major drivers of these challenging complexities. Given that trauma, PTSD, and psychiatric comorbidity significantly influence ED outcomes, it is imperative that these problems be appropriately addressed in ED practice guidelines. The presence of associated psychiatric comorbidity is noted in some but not all sets of existing guidelines, but they mostly do little to address the problem other than referring to independent guidelines for other disorders. This disconnect perpetuates a "silo effect," in which each set of guidelines do not address the complexity of the other comorbidities. Although there are several published practice guidelines for the treatment of EDs, and likewise, there are several published practice guidelines for the treatment of PTSD, none of them specifically address ED + PTSD. The result is a lack of integration between ED and PTSD treatment providers, which often leads to fragmented, incomplete, uncoordinated and ineffective care of severely ill patients with ED + PTSD. This situation can inadvertently promote chronicity and multimorbidity and may be particularly relevant for patients treated in higher levels of care, where prevalence rates of concurrent PTSD reach as high as 50% with many more having subthreshold PTSD. Although there has been some progress in the recognition and treatment of ED + PTSD, recommendations for treating this common comorbidity remain undeveloped, particularly when there are other co-occurring psychiatric disorders, such as mood, anxiety, dissociative, substance use, impulse control, obsessive-compulsive, attention-deficit hyperactivity, and personality disorders, all of which may also be trauma-related. In this commentary, guidelines for assessing and treating patients with ED + PTSD and related comorbidity are critically reviewed. An integrated set of principles used in treatment planning of PTSD and trauma-related disorders is recommended in the context of intensive ED therapy. These principles and strategies are borrowed from several relevant evidence-based approaches. Evidence suggests that continuing with traditional single-disorder focused, sequential treatment models that do not prioritize integrated, trauma-focused treatment approaches are short-sighted and often inadvertently perpetuate this dangerous multimorbidity. Future ED practice guidelines would do well to address concurrent illness in more depth.

Inaccessibility of care and inequitable conceptions of suffering: a collective response to the construction of "terminal" anorexia nervosa

Informed by our lived experiences with eating disorders, our work providing direct support to communities underserved by existing healthcare structures, and our commitment to social justice, we are deeply troubled by several aspects of the proposed characteristics for "terminal" anorexia nervosa outlined by Gaudiani et al. in Journal of Eating Disorders (10:23, 2022). We have identified two substantial areas of concern in the proposed characteristics provided by Gaudiani et al. and the subsequent publication by Yager et al. (10:123, 2022). First, the original article and the subsequent publication fail to adequately address the widespread inaccessibility of eating disorder treatment, the lack of parameters for what constitutes "high quality care", and the prevalence of trauma experienced in treatment settings for those who do access treatment. Second, the characteristics proposed for "terminal" anorexia nervosa are constructed largely based on subjective and inconsistent valuations of suffering which build on and contribute to harmful and inaccurate eating disorder stereotypes. Overall, we believe these proposed characteristics in their current form stand to detract from, rather than assist, the ability of patients and providers to make informed, compassionate, and patient-centered decisions about safety and autonomy both for individuals with enduring eating disorders and for individuals with more recently diagnosed eating disorders.

Emergency room presentations of people with anorexia nervosa

People with anorexia nervosa (AN) tend to shy away from engaging in typical primary care provider relationships in order to avoid detection. Therefore, they may seek care for their medical concerns through a local emergency department (ED). Inherently, AN is associated with a litany of medical complications, which become more prevalent as the severity of their eating disorder increases. Notwithstanding the typical young age at the onset of AN, no body system is immune to these medical complications. Thus, ED providers may need to pursue a medical diagnosis in order to explain presenting symptoms in people with AN. In addition to the medical issues, AN is also a serious mental illness with high mortality rates, including deaths by suicide. Therefore, ED providers also need to be familiar with relevant mental health issues for these people.

Untreatable or unable to treat? Creating more effective and accessible treatment for long-standing and severe eating disorders

The evidence base for the treatment of severe eating disorders is limited. In addition to improving access to early intervention, there is a need to develop more effective treatments for complex presentations of eating disorders. For patients with long-standing and severe illnesses, particular difficulties might exist with their engagement with treatment and achieving treatment outcomes. Alarmingly, there is an emerging international discourse about a concept labelled as terminal anorexia and about the withdrawal of treatment for people with severe eating disorders, resulting in the death of patients, as a legitimate option. This concept has arisen in the context of vastly overstretched specialist services and insufficient research and funding for new treatments. This Personal View combines multiple perspectives from carers, patients, and mental health professionals based in the UK, highlighting how the risks of current service provision are best alleviated by increasing resources, capacity, and training, and not by a narrowing of the criteria according to which patients with eating disorders are offered the care and support they need.

Eating disorders and palliative care specialists require definitional consensus and clinical guidance regarding terminal anorexia nervosa: addressing concerns and moving forward

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Premature deaths are estimated to occur in 5-20% of patients with anorexia nervosa (AN). Among them, some patients with severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) will die due to the medical complications of malnutrition or to suicide. Almost no literature provides guidance to patients, clinicians, and loved ones regarding clinical characteristics of those with SE-AN who recognize and accept the fact that they will not be able to survive their disease. Consistent with general medical literature on terminal illness and based on the authors' work with patients at this phase of life, we previously described four clinical characteristics of the small group of SE-AN patients who may be considered to have a terminal eating disorder. Following publication of this article, several opinions objecting to these formulations were published. The goals of this article are to respond to the key themes of concern posed by these objections, to extend our discussion of the palliative care and associated needs of these patients and their families, and to suggest ways in which the eating disorder and palliative care fields might develop more definitive criteria and consensus guidelines for the assessment and management of these patients.

METHODS

Based on a selective narrative review of the literature, our combined experiences with these patients, and clinical reasoning, we address critiques grouped around five major themes: that (1) labels such as terminal AN are dangerous; (2) since AN is a treatable disorder, no SE-AN patients should be considered terminal; (3) a terminal psychiatric condition cannot be defined; (4) the proposed definition is not specific enough; and (5) considerations regarding mental capacity in the proposed criteria do not sufficiently account for the psycho-cognitive impairments in AN.

RESULTS

Our analysis responds to the critiques of our original proposed clinical characteristics of those with terminal AN. While refuting many of these critiques, we also appreciate the opportunity to refine our discussion of this complex topic and identify that there are multiple stages of SE-AN that can result in good clinical outcomes. Only when all of these have failed to provide adequate amelioration of suffering do a low number of patients progress to terminal AN.

CONCLUSIONS

By further refining our discussion of terminal AN, we aim to encourage eating disorders and palliative care specialists to develop expert consensus definitions for terminal AN and to generate authoritative clinical guidance for management of this population. By validating terminal AN as a distinct condition, patients with this subcategory of SE-AN, their families, and their caregivers facing end-of-life concerns may be better able to access palliative and hospice care and related services to help improve their overall experiences at this phase of life.