Evidence Hub

Psychopharmacology of eating disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Fornaro M, Mondin AM, Billeci M, Fusco A, De Prisco M, Caiazza C, Micanti F, Calati R et al.

Journal of affective disorders, 2023

42 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The concurrent assessment of weight and affective psychopathology outcomes relevant to the psychopharmacology of major eating disorders (EDs), namely anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge eating disorder (BED), warrants systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were inquired from inception through August 31st, 2022, for RCTs documenting any psychopharmacological intervention for EDs diagnosed according to validated criteria and reporting weight and psychopathology changes. Adopted keywords were: "anorexia nervosa," "bulimia nervosa," "binge eating disorder," "antidepressant," "antipsychotic," and "mood stabilizer." No language restriction applied.

RESULTS

5122 records were identified, and 203 full-texts were reviewed. Sixty-two studies entered the qualitative synthesis (AN = 22, BN = 23, BED = 17), of which 22 entered the meta-analysis (AN = 9, BN = 10, BED = 3). Concerning BMI increase in AN, olanzapine outperformed placebo (Hedges'g = 0.283, 95%C·I. = 0.051-0.515, I2 = 0 %; p = .017), whereas fluoxetine failed (Hedges'g = 0.351, 95%C.I. = -0.248 to 0.95, I2 = 63.37 %; p = .251). Fluoxetine not significantly changed weight (Hedges'g = 0.147, 95%C.I. = -0.157-0.451, I2 = 0 %; p = .343), reducing binging (Hedges'g = 0.203, 95%C.I. = 0.007-0.399, I2 = 0 %; p = .042), and purging episodes (Hedges'g = 0.328, 95%C.I. = -0.061-0.717, I2 = 58.97 %; p = .099) in BN.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free