Dataset Information

Predictors and moderators of treatment outcome in a randomized clinical trial for binge-eating disorder.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The current study examined predictors and moderators of two interventions for binge-eating disorder (BED).

Method

Participants were 112 adults with BED (M_age = 39.7 ± 13.4 years; M_BMI = 35.1 ± 13.4 kg/m²; 82% female; 91% Caucasian) randomly assigned to integrative cognitive-affective therapy for BED (ICAT-BED) or guided self-help cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBTgsh). Generalized linear models examined predictors and moderators of objective binge-eating episode (OBE) frequency and OBE abstinence at end-of-treatment (EOT) and 6-month follow-up (FU).

Results

Lower levels of baseline dietary restraint and emotion regulation difficulties predicted greater reductions in OBE frequency at EOT and FU, respectively. At EOT, greater pretreatment self-control predicted greater reductions in OBE frequency in ICAT-BED than CBTgsh (ps < .05). In addition, low shape/weight overvaluation predicted greater reductions in OBE frequency in ICAT-BED than CBTgsh, whereas high shape/weight overvaluation predicted comparable reductions in OBE frequency across treatments at EOT (ps < .02). At EOT and FU, greater baseline actual-ideal self-discrepancy predicted significantly greater reductions in OBE frequency in ICAT-BED, than CBTgsh (ps < .02). No significant predictor or moderator effects were observed for models examining OBE abstinence.

Conclusion

This study identified two general predictors and four moderators of BED treatment response. However, only one predictor (actual-ideal self-discrepancy) interacted with treatment type to differentially predict OBE frequencies at both EOT and FU. Altogether, findings suggest that ICAT-BED may confer specific and durable improvements in OBE frequencies among individuals with high actual-ideal self-discrepancy. Therefore, patients demonstrating these characteristics may be more likely to benefit from ICAT-BED. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

SUBMITTER: Anderson LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7970631 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith few RCTs having compared active treatments for paediatric PTSD, little is known about whether or which baseline (i.e. pre-randomization) variables predict or moderate outcomes in the evaluated treatments.ObjectiveTo identify predictors and moderators of paediatric PTSD outcomes for Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy (EMDR) and Cognitive Behavioural Writing Therapy (CBWT).MethodData were obtained as part of a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial of up to six sessions (up to 45 minutes each) of either EMDR therapy, CBWT, or wait-list, involving 101 youth (aged 8-18 years) with a PTSD diagnosis (full/subthreshold) tied to a single event. The predictive and moderating effects of the child's baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and parent's psychopathology were evaluated using linear mixed models (LMM) from pre- to post-treatment and from pre- to 3- and 12-month follow-ups.ResultsAt post-treatment and 3-month follow-up, youth with an index trauma of sexual abuse, severe symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, depression, more comorbid disorders, negative posttraumatic beliefs, and with a parent with more severe psychopathology fared worse in both treatments. For children with more severe self-reported PTSD symptoms at baseline, the (exploratory) moderator analysis showed that the EMDR group improved more than the CBWT group, with the opposite being true for children and parents with a less severe clinical profile.ConclusionsThe most consistent finding from the predictor analyses was that parental symptomatology predicted poorer outcomes, suggesting that parents should be assessed, supported and referred for their own treatment where indicated. The effect of the significant moderator variables was time-limited, and given the large response rate (>90%) and brevity (<4 hours) of both treatments, the present findings suggest a focus on implementation and dissemination, rather than tailoring, of evidence-based trauma-focused treatments for paediatric PTSD tied to a single event.

Project description:Importance:The ability of pharmacotherapies to prevent relapse and maintain efficacy with long-term treatment in psychiatric conditions is important. Objective:To assess lisdexamfetamine dimesylate maintenance of efficacy in adults with moderate to severe binge-eating disorder. Design, Setting, and Participants:A multinational, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study including 418 participants was conducted at 49 clinical research study sites from January 27, 2014, to April 8, 2015. Eligible adults met DSM-IV-R binge-eating disorder criteria and had moderate to severe binge eating disorder (?3 binge-eating days per week for 14 days before open-label baseline; Clinical Global Impressions-Severity [CGI-S] scores ?4 [moderate severity] at screening and open-label baseline). Following a 12-week, open-label phase (dose optimization, 4 weeks [lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, 50 or 70 mg]; dose maintenance, 8 weeks), lisdexamfetamine responders (?1 binge eating day per week for 4 consecutive weeks and CGI-S scores ?2 at week 12) were randomized to placebo or continued lisdexamfetamine during a 26-week, double-blind, randomized withdrawal phase. Interventions:Lisdexamfetamine administration. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome variable, time to relapse (?2 binge-eating days per week for 2 consecutive weeks and ?2-point CGI-S score increases from randomized withdrawal baseline), was analyzed using a log-rank test (primary analysis); the analysis was stratified for dichotomized 4-week cessation status. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events. Results:Of the 418 participants enrolled in the open-label phase of the study, 411 (358 [87.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 38.3 [10.4] years) were included in the safety analysis set. Of 275 randomized lisdexamfetamine responders (placebo, n?=?138; lisdexamfetamine, n?=?137), the observed proportions of participants meeting relapse criteria were 3.7% (5 of 136) for lisdexamfetamine and 32.1% (42 of 131) for placebo. Lisdexamfetamine demonstrated superiority over placebo on the log-rank test (?21, 40.37; P?<?.001) for time to relapse; the hazard ratio, based on a Cox proportional hazards model for lisdexamfetamine vs placebo, was 0.09 (95% CI, 0.04-0.23). The treatment-emergent adverse events observed were generally consistent with the known profile of lisdexamfetamine. Conclusions and Relevance:Risk of binge-eating relapse over 6 months was lower in participants continuing lisdexamfetamine than in those randomized to placebo. The hazard for relapse was lower with lisdexamfetamine than placebo. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02009163.

Project description:IntroductionResearch on binge eating disorder continues to evolve and advance our understanding of recurrent binge eating.MethodsThis mixed-methods, cross-sectional survey aimed to collect information from experts in the field about clinical aspects of adult binge eating disorder pathology. Fourteen experts in binge eating disorder research and clinical care were identified based on receipt of relevant federal funding, PubMed-indexed publications, active practice in the field, leadership in relevant societies, and/or clinical and popular press distinction. Anonymously recorded semi-structured interviews were analyzed by ≥2 investigators using reflexive thematic analysis and quantification.ResultsIdentified themes included: (1) obesity (100%); (2) intentional/voluntary or unintentional/involuntary food/eating restriction (100%); (3) negative affect, emotional dysregulation, and negative urgency (100%); (4) diagnostic heterogeneity and validity (71%); (5) paradigm shifts in understanding binge eating disorder (29%); and (6) research gaps/future directives (29%).DiscussionOverall, experts call for a better understanding of the relationship between binge eating disorder and obesity, including a need for clarification around the extent to which the two health issues are separate vs. related/overlapping. Experts also commonly endorse food/eating restriction and emotion dysregulation as important components of binge eating disorder pathology, which aligns with two common models of binge eating disorder conceptualization (e.g., dietary restraint theory and emotion/affect regulation theory). A few experts spontaneously identified several paradigm shifts in our understanding of who can have an eating disorder (beyond the anorexi-centric "thin, White, affluent, cis-gendered neurotypical female" stereotype), and the various factors that can drive binge eating. Experts also identified several areas where classification issues may warrant future research. Overall, these results highlight the continual advancement of the field to better understand adult binge eating disorder as an autonomous eating disorder diagnosis.