Search

Background: To investigate Feeding and Eating Disorders (FED) heterogeneity based on the co-occurrence of FED symptoms and personality psychopathology, on the hypothesis that empirical profiles would not confirm current FED categories but identify unique phenotypes carrying different levels of clinical complexity., Methods: Latent Profile Analysis profiled FED patients based on the assessment of both FED symptoms, through the Eating Disorders Inventory, third version (EDI-3), and personality characteristics, through the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. Then, profiles were compared across socio-demographic and clinical characteristics., Results: Among 109 eligible patients, three FED profiles were identified: (i) FED simplex (low eating symptoms, absence of dysfunctional personality); (ii) FED simplex-severe (high eating symptoms only); and (iii) FED complex-severe (high eating symptoms and dysfunctional personality). Despite an uneven distribution (χ 2 (6) = 15.20, adjusted-p = 0.029), FED profiles did not unequivocally confirm clinical diagnoses (e.g., Anorexia Nervosa). A difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) was observed (K(2) = 15.06, adjusted-p = 0.001), but lower BMI did not identify the most severe group. Profiles differed in EDI-3 overall scores (e.g., Eating Disorder Risk Composite: K(2) = 43.08, adjusted-p < 0.001), Body Uneasiness Test Global Severity Index (GSI: K(2) = 29.33, adjusted-p < 0.001), Binge Eating Scale severity (K(2) = 25.49, adjusted-p < 0.001), number of psychiatric (K(2) = 8.79, adjusted-p = 0.021) and personality diagnoses (K(2) = 11.86, adjusted-p = 0.005), and Symptom Checklist-90-Revised GSI (F(2,103) = 37.68, adjusted-p < 0.001), with FED complex-severe patients being generally the most severely impaired in terms of FED symptoms, body concerns, depersonalization, and psychiatric comorbidities., Conclusions: Findings support the hypothesis of distinguishing FED simplex and complex phenotypes, based on the co-occurrence of dysfunctional personality, with implications for FED severity and clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Department of Medicine (DMED) at the University of Udine (133/2023). Participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Competing interests: Marco Colizzi has been a consultant/advisor to GW Pharma Limited, GW Pharma Italy SRL, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Limited, outside of this work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aims: Women face many sources of stress throughout their lives, and some periods are particularly sensitive; pregnancy is one of them. The COVID-19 pandemic is a likely source of additional stress for pregnant women. Moreover, there is evidence that pregnant women have experienced high levels of anxiety and depression symptoms during the pandemic. Our study aimed to evaluate the association of pregnancy-specific stress, pandemic-related stress, and coping strategies with anxiety, depressive and obsessive-compulsive symptomatology in Italian women during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (December 2020-June 2021). We also investigated whether there were differences in these levels of psychopathology compared to a prior study conducted during the first pandemic wave (April-August 2020) in Italian pregnant women. Methods: We assessed 325 pregnant women receiving outpatient prenatal care, using the Revised Prenatal Distress Questionnaire (NuPDQ), Pandemic-Related Pregnancy Stress Scale (PREPS), the Revised Prenatal Coping Inventory (NuPCI), General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) screening. The main analysis was conducted comparing multiple logistic regression models predicting each psychopathological outcome from specific covariates and NuPDQ, PREPS, and NuPCI scores. Results: 42.8% of the sample reported significant levels of anxiety, while 10.3% was positive on depression screening and 13.1% on OCD screening. No significant difference was found in the prevalence of high anxiety, depression, or OCD screening scores compared with the first pandemic wave. Controlling for covariates, we found that GAD-7 and PHQ-2 scores were predicted by pregnancy-specific stress; positive OCD screening was not. The model of high anxiety was improved by adding pandemic-related stress as a predictor (in particular, feeling unprepared for delivery and postpartum). Finally, coping strategies (avoidance, spiritual coping, and planning-preparation) significantly improved prediction of all three psychopathological outcomes. Conclusions: The present study suggests the importance of pregnancy-related stress, COVID-19 pandemic stress, and of coping strategies in counteracting or contributing to psychiatric symptomatology during the current pandemic., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Penengo, Colli, Cesco, Croccia, Degano, Ferreghini, Garzitto, Lobel, Preis, Sala, Driul and Balestrieri.)