Other
Beyond Weight Gain in Family-Based Treatment for Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder: A Response to Lock et al. (2026)
Cobbaert L ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This is a commentary article responding to a clinical trial about family-based treatment for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) in children. The author argues that while the treatment showed benefits for weight gain, it did not consistently demonstrate advantages across broader measures of eating disorder symptoms and psychological wellbeing. The commentary calls for future research to measure more comprehensive outcomes including child experiences, treatment burden, and quality of life rather than focusing solely on weight restoration.
Key points
- Family-based treatment for ARFID showed clearest advantage for weight restoration in the primary randomized trial
- Broader domains of ARFID symptomatology and psychological functioning did not consistently show between-group superiority
- High treatment completion and absence of serious adverse events do not establish psychological, relational, sensory, or autonomy-related safety without systematic assessment
- Future trials should incorporate child-reported outcomes, treatment burden, agency, sensory distress, and durability of change
- ARFID treatment needs may be shaped by sensory processing differences, neurodivergence, and fear-based responses that require comprehensive evaluation
Limitations
This is a commentary on another study rather than a primary research report, so it cannot provide direct evidence about treatment effectiveness. It does not present new data or conduct its own evaluation, only critiques the design and scope of previous research.
Abstract
Family-based treatment for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (FBT-ARFID) has recently been defended as addressing more than weight gain. This Commentary argues that therapeutic intent should be distinguished from demonstrated comparative benefit. In the primary randomized trial, FBT-ARFID showed its clearest advantage for weight restoration, while broader domains of ARFID symptomatology and psychological functioning did not consistently show between-group superiority. High treatment completion and absence of serious adverse events likewise cannot establish psychological, relational, sensory, or autonomy-related safety when these outcomes are not systematically assessed. These limitations are particularly consequential in ARFID, where sensory processing differences, fear of aversive consequences, low interest in eating, and neurodivergence may shape treatment needs and experiences. Future trials should incorporate direct child-reported outcomes, treatment burden, agency and participation, sensory distress, psychosocial functioning, adverse effects, reasons for discontinuation, and durability of change. If FBT-ARFID is to be understood as more than weight gain, its evaluation should be broader than weight gain too.