Outcomes of Empirical Eating Disorder Phenotypes in a Clinical Female Sample: Results from a Latent Class AnalysisDechartres A.a, b · Huas C.a, b · Godart N.a–c · Pousset M.a, b · Pham A.a, b, d · Divac S.M.d · Rouillon F.a, b, d · Falissard B.a, b, e
aMaison des adolescents, PSIGIAM, U669, INSERM, bUMR S0669, Paris Sud and Paris Descartes University, cInstitut Mutualiste Montsouris, and dClinique des maladies mentales et de l’encéphale, Sainte Anne Hospital, Paris, and eDepartment of Public Health, Paul Brousse Hospital, APHP, Villejuif, France
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Background/Aims: To empirically classify phenotypes of eating disorders (ED) using latent class analysis (LCA), and to validate this classification based on clinical outcomes. Methods: LCA was applied to 968 inpatients. The resultant classes were validated by clinical outcomes including mortality. Results: A 5-class solution showed the best fit. The symptoms of latent class 1 (LC1; 26% of the sample) resembled anorexia nervosa (AN), bingeing-purging (AN-B/P) subtype; those of LC2 (23%) resembled bulimia nervosa; those of LC3 (11%) were close to AN-B/P without weight and body concerns; those of LC4 resembled restrictive anorexia nervosa (RAN) without weight and body concerns, and those of LC5 RAN. A history of hospitalization for ED was significantly more frequent for LC3 and LC4. The lowest BMI at admission were presented in LC4. LC1 showed the highest level of psychological disturbances and LC4 the lowest. LC3 and LC4 differed from LC1 and LC5 by higher percentages of treatment dropout (64.9 vs. 57.2 and 55.7 vs. 47.5%, respectively; overall p = 0.001). Survival rates tended to be different between the LC (p = 0.09). Conclusions: Subgroups of AN patients with low weight and body concerns seem more severe at hospitalization and more difficult to manage, with a higher rate of treatment dropout than the ‘typical’ AN patients.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.