The development of the ICD-11 CDDG over the past decade, based on the principles of clinical utility and global applicability, has been the most broadly international, multilingual, multidisciplinary and participative revision process ever implemented for a classification of mental disorders. Innovations in the ICD-11 include the provision of consistent and systematically characterized information, the adoption of a lifespan approach, and culture-related guidance for each disorder. Dimensional approaches have been incorporated into the classification, particularly for personality disorders and primary psychotic disorders, in ways that are consistent with current evidence, are more compatible with recovery-based approaches, eliminate artificial comorbidity, and more effectively capture changes over time. Here we describe major changes to the structure of the ICD-11 classification of mental disorders as compared to the ICD-10, and the development of two new ICD-11 chapters relevant to mental health practice. We illustrate a set of new categories that have been added to the ICD-11 and present the rationale for their inclusion. Finally, we provide a description of the important changes that have been made in each ICD-11 disorder grouping. This information is intended to be useful for both clinicians and researchers in orienting themselves to the ICD-11 and in preparing for implementation in their own professional contexts.

This Seminar adds to the previous Lancet Seminar about eating disorders, published in 2003, with an emphasis on the biological contributions to illness onset and maintenance. The diagnostic criteria are in the process of review, and the probable four new categories are: anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, and eating disorder not otherwise specified. These categories will also be broader than they were previously, which will affect the population prevalence; the present lifetime prevalence of all eating disorders is about 5%. Eating disorders can be associated with profound and protracted physical and psychosocial morbidity. The causal factors underpinning eating disorders have been clarified by understanding about the central control of appetite. Cultural, social, and interpersonal elements can trigger onset, and changes in neural networks can sustain the illness. Overall, apart from studies reporting pharmacological treatments for binge eating disorder, advances in treatment for adults have been scarce, other than interest in new forms of treatment delivery.

Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a psychiatric condition characterized by severe weight loss and secondary problems associated with malnutrition. AN predominantly develops in adolescence in the peripubertal period. Without early effective treatment, the course is protracted with physical, psychological and social morbidity and high mortality. Despite these effects, patients are noted to value the beliefs and behaviours that contribute to their illness rather than regarding them as problematic, which interferes with screening, prevention and early intervention. Involving the family to support interventions early in the course of the illness can produce sustained changes; however, those with a severe and/or protracted illness might require inpatient nursing support and/or outpatient psychotherapy. Prevention programmes aim to moderate the overvaluation of 'thinness' and body dissatisfaction as one of the proximal risk factors. The low prevalence of AN limits the ability to identify risk factors and to study the timing and sex distribution of the condition. However, genetic profiles, premorbid features, and brain structures and functions of patients with AN show similarities with other psychiatric disorders and contrast with obesity and metabolic disorders. Such studies are informing approaches to address the neuroadaptation to starvation and the other various physical and psychosocial deficits associated with AN. This Primer describes the epidemiology, diagnosis, screening and prevention, aetiology, treatment and quality of life of patients with AN.

No abstract

Sibutramine is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of obese patients with BED. Its effects address 3 main domains of the BED syndrome, ie, binge eating, weight, and related depressive symptoms.

No abstract

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) is used globally by 194 WHO member nations. It is used for assigning clinical diagnoses, providing the framework for reporting public health data, and to inform the organization and reimbursement of health services. Guided by overarching principles of increasing clinical utility and global applicability, the 11th revision of the ICD proposes major changes that incorporate empirical advances since the previous revision in 1992. To test recommended changes in the Mental, Behavioral, and Neurodevelopmental Disorders chapter, multiple vignette-based case-controlled field studies have been conducted which examine clinicians’ ability to accurately and consistently use the new guidelines and assess their overall clinical utility. This manuscript reports on the results from the study of the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for feeding and eating disorders (FEDs). Method Participants were 2288 mental health professionals registered with WHO’s Global Clinical Practice Network. The study was conducted in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, and Spanish. Clinicians were randomly assigned to apply either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines for FEDs to a pair of case vignettes designed to test specific clinical questions. Clinicians selected the diagnosis they thought was correct for each vignette, evaluated the presence of each essential feature of the selected diagnosis, and the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines. Results The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines significantly improved accuracy for all FEDs tested relative to ICD-10 and attained higher clinical utility ratings; similar results were obtained across all five languages. The inclusion of binge eating disorder and avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder reduced the use of residual diagnoses. Areas needing further refinement were identified. Conclusions The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines consistently outperformed ICD-10 in distinguishing cases of eating disorders and showed global applicability and appropriate clinical utility. These results suggest that the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for FEDs will help increase accuracy of public health data, improve clinical diagnosis, and enhance health service organization and provision. This is the first time in the revision of the ICD that data from large-scale, empirical research examining proposed guidelines is completed in time to inform the final diagnostic guidelines.

In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the 5th edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM‐5). In 2019, the World Health Assembly approved the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD‐11). It has often been suggested that the field would benefit from a single, unified classification of mental disorders, although the priorities and constituencies of the two sponsoring organizations are quite different. During the development of the ICD‐11 and DSM‐5, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the APA made efforts toward harmonizing the two systems, including the appointment of an ICD‐DSM Harmonization Group. This paper evaluates the success of these harmonization efforts and provides a guide for practitioners, researchers and policy makers describing the differences between the two systems at both the organizational and the disorder level. The organization of the two classifications of mental disorders is substantially similar. There are nineteen ICD‐11 disorder categories that do not appear in DSM‐5, and seven DSM‐5 disorder categories that do not appear in the ICD‐11. We compared the Essential Features section of the ICD‐11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) with the DSM‐5 criteria sets for 103 diagnostic entities that appear in both systems. We rated 20 disorders (19.4%) as having major differences, 42 disorders (40.8%) as having minor definitional differences, 10 disorders (9.7%) as having minor differences due to greater degree of specification in DSM‐5, and 31 disorders (30.1%) as essentially identical. Detailed descriptions of the major differences and some of the most important minor differences, with their rationale and related evidence, are provided. The ICD and DSM are now closer than at any time since the ICD‐8 and DSM‐II. Differences are largely based on the differing priorities and uses of the two diagnostic systems and on differing interpretations of the evidence. Substantively divergent approaches allow for empirical comparisons of validity and utility and can contribute to advances in the field.