Psychotherapy for bulimia nervosa and binging

The STRATOB study: design of a randomized controlled clinical trial of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Brief Strategic Therapy with telecare in patients with obesity and binge-eating disorder referred to residential nutritional rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Overweight and obesity are linked with binge eating disorder (BED). Effective interventions to significantly reduce weight, maintain weight loss and manage associated pathologies like BED are typically combined treatment options (dietetic, nutritional, physical, behavioral, cognitive-behavioral, pharmacological, surgical). Significant difficulties with regard to availability, costs, treatment adherence and long-term efficacy are present. Particularly Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is the therapeutic approach indicated both in in-patient and in out-patient settings for BED. In recent years systemic and systemic-strategic psychotherapies have been implemented to treat patients with obesity and BED involved in familiar problems. Particularly a brief protocol for the systemic-strategic treatment of BED, using overall the strategic dialogue, has been recently developed. Moreover telemedicine, a new promising low cost method, has been used for obesity with BED in out-patient settings in order to avoid relapse after the in-patient step of treatment and to keep on a continuity of care with the involvement of the same clinical in-patient team.

METHODS

The comparison between CBT and Brief Strategic Therapy (BST) will be assessed in a two-arm randomized controlled clinical trial. Due to the novelty of the application of BST in BED treatment (no other RCTs including BST have been carried out), a pilot study will be carried out before conducting a large scale randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT). Both CBT and BST group will follow an in-hospital treatment (diet, physical activity, dietitian counseling, 8 psychological sessions) plus 8 out-patient telephone-based sessions of psychological support and monitoring with the same in-patient psychotherapists. Primary outcome measure of the randomized trial will be the change in the Global Index of the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.2). Secondary outcome measures will be the percentage of BED patients remitted considering the number of weekly binge episodes and the weight loss. Data will be collected at baseline, at discharge from the hospital (c.a. 1 month after) and after 6-12-24 months from the end of the in-hospital treatment. Data at follow-up time points will be collected through tele-sessions.

DISCUSSION

The STRATOB (Systemic and STRATegic psychotherapy for OBesity), a comprehensive two-phase stepped down program enhanced by telepsychology for the medium-term treatment of obese people with BED seeking intervention for weight loss, will shed light about the comparison of the effectiveness of the BST with the gold standard CBT and about the continuity of care at home using a low-level of telecare (mobile phones).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01096251

Brief Strategic Therapy vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for the Inpatient and Telephone-Based Outpatient Treatment of Binge Eating Disorder: The STRATOB Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

This paper describes the results of the STRATOB (Systemic and STRATegic psychotherapy for OBesity) study, a two-arm randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) comparing Brief Strategic Therapy (BST, Nardone or Arezzo model) with the gold standard CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) for the inpatient and telephone-based outpatient treatment of obese people with Binge Eating Disorder (BED) seeking treatment for weight reduction. Primary outcome measure of the randomized trial was change in the Global Index of the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ 45.2). Secondary outcome measures were BED remission (weekly binge episodes < 2) and weight loss. Data were collected at baseline, at discharge from the hospital (c.a. 1 month after) and after 6 months from discharge.. No significant difference between groups (BST vs CBT) was found in the primary outcome at discharge. However, a greater improvement was seen in the BST vs the CBT group (P<.01) in the primary outcome at 6 months. About secondary outcomes, no significant difference between groups were found in weight change both at discharge and at 6 months. Notably, a significant association emerged between treatment groups and BED remission at 6 months in favor of BST (only 20% of patients in BST group reported a number of weekly binge episodes > 2 vs 63.3% in CBT group).

Are anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa separate disorders? Challenging the 'transdiagnostic' theory of eating disorders

BACKGROUND

Anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN) are classified as separate and distinct clinical disorders. Recently, there has been support for a transdiagnostic theory of eating disorders, which would reclassify them as one disorder.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether AN and BN are a single disorder with one cause or separate disorders with different causes.

METHOD

Hill's Criteria of Causation were used to test the hypothesis that AN and BN are one disorder with a single cause. Hill's Criteria of Causation demand that the minimal conditions are needed to establish a causal relationship between two items which include all of the following: strength of association, consistency, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experimental evidence and analogy.

RESULTS

The hypothesis that AN and BN have a single cause did not meet all of Hill's Criteria of Causation. Strength of association, plausibility, analogy and some experimental evidence were met, but not consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, coherence and most experimental evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesis that AN and BN are a single disorder with a common cause is not supported by Hill's Criteria of Causation. This argues against the notion of a transdiagnostic theory of eating disorders.

Estimates of Quality and Reliability With the Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database Scale to Assess the Methodology of Randomized Controlled Trials of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions

Background and Purpose. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses often include an evaluation of the methodological quality of the individual studies that have been included, and are usually conducted by at least 2 individuals. The objective of this study was to assess the methodological quality and reliability of a series of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions by use of the 10-item Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database (PEDro) Scale. Methods. Two abstractors independently reviewed 81 RCTs assessing a variety of interventions. The Cohen kappa statistic and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to assess agreement between abstractors. Results. The average total PEDro scores were 5.94 (SD=1.43) for all studies combined, 6.88 (SD=1.2) for pharmacological studies, and 5.29 (SD=1.26) for nonpharmacological studies. The median score for pharmacological studies was significantly higher than that for nonpharmacological studies (7 versus 5). Pair-wise kappa scores ranged from a low of .452 for concealed allocation among drug trials to perfect agreement (1.00) for randomization and reporting of results from between-group comparisons. The ICCs associated with the cumulative PEDro score were .91 (95% confidence interval [CI]=.83–.94) for all studies, .89 (95% CI=.78–.95) for pharmacological studies, and .91 (95% CI=.84–.952) for nonpharmacological studies. Discussion and Conclusion. The methodological quality for pharmacological interventions was significantly higher than that for nonpharmacological interventions. There was good agreement between raters at an individual item level and in total PEDro scores. A lack of reporting clarity, poor organization of the report, or the failure to include salient details contributed to less-than-perfect agreement between raters. [Foley NC, Bhogal SK, Teasell RW, et al. Estimates of quality and reliability with the Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database Scale to assess the methodology of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions.Phys Ther. 2006;86:817 – 824.]

An open trial of outpatient group therapy for bulimic disorders: combination program of cognitive behavioral therapy with assertive training and self-esteem enhancement

The purposes of this study were to examine the therapeutic efficacy of combined group cognitive behavioral therapy (CGCBT) and to explore the characteristics of the patients who failed to complete it. Our group cognitive behavioral therapy combined with assertiveness training for alexithymia and self-esteem enhancement therapy were attended over a 10-week period. Twenty-five participants were enrolled in the study. The clinical symptoms were assessed before and after treatment, using rating scales including the Eating Disorder Inventory-2, the Bulimic Investigatory Test, Edinburgh, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and Global Assessment of Functioning. Sixteen participants (64%) completed the CGCBT program. Completion of the CGCBT resulted in significant improvements in reducing binge-eating behavior and improving social functioning. Eight patients (32%) significantly improved using the Clinical Global Impression Change (CGI-C). Stepwise logistic regression analysis of the results indicated that a lower age (P=0.04) and psychiatric comorbidity (P=0.06) were predictors of dropout from the CGCBT program. Our CGCBT program is a promising first-line treatment for bulimic outpatients. Lower age and the presence of comorbidity had effects on dropout rates.

Binge eating disorder in obesity: comparison of different therapeutic strategies

The aim of this study (duration: 12 months) was to compare different integrated therapeutic approaches for the therapy of Binge Eating Disorder (BED). A sample of 65 female severely obese BED was randomly divided into 3 groups: the first one was treated by Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) alone; the second one was treated by SSRI antidepressant therapy (fluoxetine) alone; the remaining was treated by a combination of CBT plus fluoxetine. All groups received group nutritional training and individual dietary counselling. The initial fluoxetine dose (20 mg/day) was adjusted (up to 60 mg/day) according to frequency of binge eating. During the first 4 weeks, all subjects underwent an in-patient dietary treatment aimed to achieve at least a 5% weight loss, which was continued during the out-patient treatment phase. At the beginning and at the end of the therapy the patients were evaluated by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality - 2 and by the Eating Disorder Inventory - 2. The results showed that the two groups which underwent psychotherapy resulted in a better outcome - in terms of number of bingeing episodes, maintenance of weight loss reduction from baseline and psychological well being - than the group treated with pharmacological therapy alone. Finally, the study underlines the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of Binge Eating Disorder.

Antidepressants versus psychological treatments and their combination for bulimia nervosa

BACKGROUND

Psychotherapeutic approaches, mainly cognitive behavior therapy, and antidepressant medication are the two treatment modalities that have received most support in controlled outcome studies of bulimia nervosa.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to conduct a systematic review of all RCTs comparing antidepressants with psychological approaches or comparing their combination with each single approach for the treatment of bulimia nervosa.

SEARCH STRATEGY

(1) electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 to December 2000), EMBASE (1980-December 2000), PsycLIT (to December 2000), LILACS & SCISEARCH (to 1999) (2) the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register - ongoing (3) handsearches of the references of all identified trials (4) contact with the pharmaceutical companies and the principal investigator of each included trial (5) handsearch of the International Journal of Eating Disorders - ongoing

INCLUSION CRITERIA

every randomized controlled trial in which antidepressants were compared with psychological treatments or the combination of antidepressants with psychological approaches was compared to each treatment alone, to reduce the symptoms of bulimia nervosa in patients of any age or gender. Quality criteria: reports were considered adequate if they were classified as A or B according to the Cochrane Manual.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two reviewers for each included trial. The main outcome for efficacy was full remission of bulimic symptoms, defined as 100% reduction in binge or purge episodes from baseline to endpoint. Dichotomous data was evaluated by the relative risks and 95% confidence intervals around this measure, based on the random effects model; continuous data was evaluated by the average difference and the 95% confidence interval. Number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) were calculated using the inverse of the absolute risk reduction.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials were included in comparison one (antidepressants versus psychological treatments), five in comparison two (antidepressants versus the combination) and seven in comparison three (psychological treatments versus the combination). Remission rates were 20% for single antidepressants compared to 39% for single psychotherapy (DerSimonian-Laird Relative Risk = 1.28; 95% Confidence Interval = 0.98;1.67). Dropout rates were higher for antidepressants than for psychotherapy (DerSimonian-Laird Relative Risk = 2.18; 95% Confidence Interval = 1.09;4.35). The NNH for a mean treatment duration of 17.5 weeks was 4 (95% confidence interval = 3;11). Comparison two found remission rates of 42% for the combination versus 23% for antidepressants (DerSimonian-Laird Relative Risk = 1.38; 95% Confidence Interval = 0.98;1.93). Comparison three showed a 36% pooled remission rate for psychological approaches compared to 49% for the combination (DerSimonian-Laird Relative Risk = 1.21; 95% Confidence Interval = 1.02;1.45). The NNT for a mean treatment duration of 15 weeks was 8 (95% Confidence Interval = 4;320). Dropout rates were higher for the combination compared to single psychological treatments (DerSimonian-Laird Relative Risk = 0.57; 95% Confidence Interval = 0.38;0.88). The NNH was 7 (95% Confidence Interval = 4;21).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Using a more conservative statistical approach, combination treatments were superior to single psychotherapy. This was the only statistically significant difference between treatments. The number of trials might be insufficient to show the statistical significance of a 19% absolute risk reduction in efficacy favouring psychotherapy or combination treatments over single antidepressants. Psychotherapy appeared to be more acceptable to subjects. When antidepressants were combined to psychological treatments, acceptability of the latter was significantly reduced.