Skip to main content
BMJ Clinical Evidence logoLink to BMJ Clinical Evidence
. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Bulimia nervosa

Phillipa J Hay 1,#, Josue Bacaltchuk 2,#
PMCID: PMC2907970  PMID: 19450294

Abstract

Introduction

Up to 1% of young women may have bulimia nervosa, characterised by an intense preoccupation with body weight, uncontrolled binge-eating episodes, and use of extreme measures to counteract the feared effects of overeating. People with bulimia nervosa may be of normal weight, making it difficult to diagnose. After ten years, about half of people with bulimia nervosa will have recovered fully, a third will have made a partial recovery, and 10-20% will still have symptoms.

Methods and outcomes

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for bulimia nervosa in adults? What are the effects of discontinuing treatment in people with bulimia nervosa in remission? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to June 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Results

We found 26 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

Conclusions

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: cognitive behavioural therapy (alone or plus exposure response prevention enhancement); cognitive orientation therapy; dialectical behavioural therapy; discontinuing fluoxetine in people with remission; guided self-help cognitive behavioural therapy; hypnobehavioural therapy; interpersonal psychotherapy; mirtazapine; monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs); motivational enhancement therapy; pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy; pure or unguided self-help cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT); reboxetine; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); topiramate; tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs); and venlafaxine.

Key Points

Up to 1% of young women may have bulimia nervosa, characterised by an intense preoccupation with body weight, uncontrolled binge-eating episodes, and use of extreme measures to counteract the feared effects of overeating.

  • People with bulimia nervosa may be of normal weight, making it difficult to diagnose.

  • Obesity has been associated with both an increased risk of bulimia nervosa and a worse prognosis, as have personality disorders and substance misuse.

  • After ten years, about half of people with bulimia nervosa will have recovered fully, a third will have made a partial recovery, and 10-20% will still have symptoms.

CBT may improve clinical problems of bulimia nervosa compared with no treatment, and may be as effective in reducing symptoms as interpersonal psychotherapy, other psychological treatments, or antidepressants.

Some antidepressant drugs (fluoxetine, citalopram, desipramine, and imipramine) may improve symptoms in people with bulimia nervosa compared with placebo.

  • MAOIs may increase remission rates compared with placebo, but may not reduce bulimic symptoms or depression scores.

  • We don't know whether other antidepressants can improve symptoms or remission in people with bulimia nervosa.

We do not know whethercontinuation of antidepressant treatment may maintain a reduction in vomiting frequency compared with withdrawing treatment in people in remission.

About this condition

Definition

Bulimia nervosa is an intense preoccupation with body weight and shape, with regular episodes of uncontrolled overeating (binge eating) associated with extreme measures to counteract the feared effects of the overeating. If a person also meets the diagnostic criteria for anorexia nervosa, then the diagnosis of anorexia nervosa takes precedence. Bulimia nervosa can be difficult to identify because of extreme secrecy about binge eating and purgative behaviour. Weight may be normal, but there is often a history of anorexia nervosa or of restrictive dieting. Some people alternate between anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Nearly all cases of bulimia nervosa identified in a recent national community survey featured an additional psychiatric disorder, and common co-morbidities were mood, anxiety, impulse control, and substance misuse disorders. Some RCTs included people with subthreshold bulimia nervosa, or a related eating disorder, binge eating disorder. Where possible, only results relevant to bulimia nervosa are reported in this review.

Incidence/ Prevalence

In community-based studies, the prevalence of bulimia nervosa is between 0.5-1.0% in young women, with an even social-class distribution. About 90% of people diagnosed with bulimia nervosa are women. The numbers presenting with bulimia nervosa in industrialised countries increased during the decade after its recognition in the late 1970s, although the incidence has plateaued or even fallen since then, with an incidence of new diagnoses at 6.6 per 100,000 in 2000.A "cohort effect", with an increasing incidence, has been reported in community surveys. The prevalence of eating disorders such as bulimia nervosa is lower in non-industrialised populations, and varies across ethnic groups. African-American women have a lower rate of restrictive dieting compared with white American women, but they have a similar rate of recurrent binge eating.

Aetiology/ Risk factors

The aetiology of bulimia nervosa is complex, but sociocultural pressures to be thin, and the promotion of dieting appear to increase risk. One community-based case control study compared 102 people with bulimia nervosa versus 204 healthy controls, and found higher rates of obesity, mood disorder, sexual and physical abuse, parental obesity, substance misuse, low self-esteem, perfectionism, disturbed family dynamics, parental weight/shape concern, and early menarche in people with the eating disorder. Heretibility is high, ranging from 28-83 % in one review; although it has been suggested that genotypic variations map onto intermediate phenotypes, such as traits of affective instability and impulsivity, rather than onto a ‘gross’ bulimia nervosa phenotype.

Prognosis

A 10-year follow-up study (50 people with bulimia nervosa from a placebo-controlled trial of mianserin treatment) found that 52% of people receiving placebo had fully recovered, and only 9% continued to experience full symptoms of bulimia nervosa. A larger study (222 people from a trial of antidepressants and structured, intensive group psychotherapy) found that, after a mean follow-up of 11.5 years, 11% still met criteria for bulimia nervosa, whereas 70% were in full or partial remission. Short-term studies found similar results: about 50% of people made a full recovery, 30% made a partial recovery, and 20% continued to be symptomatic.One study (102 women) of the natural course of bulimia nervosa found that 31% and 15% continued to have the disorder at 15 months and at 5 years respectively. Only 28% received treatment during the follow-up period. A 5-year naturalistic study of 23 people with bulimia nervosa found a 74% remission at 5 years, with a 47% probability of relapse within the 5-year follow-up study in those in remission.There are few consistent predictors of long-term outcome. Good prognosis has been associated with shorter illness duration, a younger age of onset, higher social class, and a family history of alcohol abuse. Poor prognosis has been associated with a history of substance misuse, premorbid and paternal obesity, and, in some studies, a personality disorder. In an evaluation of the response to CBT, outcome was best predicted by an early progress (reduction in purging of over 70% by session 6). However, a subsequent systematic review of the outcome literature found no consistent evidence to link early intervention with a better prognosis. A more recent systematic review evaluating the cost effectiveness of treatments and prognostic indicators found only four consistent pretreatment predictors of poor outcome for treatment of bulimia nervosa: features of borderline personality disorder, concurrent substance misuse, low motivation for change, and a history of obesity. A consistent post-treatment predictor of a better outcome is an early response to treatment.

Aims of intervention

To reduce symptoms of bulimia nervosa; to improve general psychiatric symptoms; to improve social functioning and quality of life; to minimise the adverse effects of treatment.

Outcomes

Frequency of binge eating or bingeing, abstinence from binge eating or bingeing, frequency of behaviours to reduce weight and counter the effects of binge eating, severity of extreme weight and shape preoccupation, severity of general psychiatric symptoms, severity of depression, improvement in social and adaptive functioning, remission rates, relapse rates, withdrawal rates, and adverse events.

Methods

BMJ Clinical Evidence search and appraisal June 2007. The following databases were used to identify studies for this systematic review: Medline 1966 to June 2007, Embase 1980 to June 2007, PsycInfo 1967 to date, and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials 2007, Issue 2. Additional searches were carried out using these websites: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), and NICE. We also searched for retractions of studies included in the review. Abstracts of the studies retrieved from the initial search were assessed by an information specialist. Selected studies were then sent to the author for additional assessment using pre-determined criteria to identify relevant studies. Study design criteria for inclusion in this review were: published systematic reviews and RCTs in any language containing more than 20 individuals of whom more than 80% were followed up. There was no minimum length of follow-up required to include studies. We included all studies described as "open", "open label", or not blinded for studies of psychotherapy but excluded drug treatment studies described as "open", "open label", or not blinded. We also searched for systematic reviews and RCTs on the harms of topiramate for eating disorders. We use a regular surveillance protocol to capture harms alerts from organisations such as the FDA and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which are added to the reviews as required. We have performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions included in this review, see table .

Table.

GRADE evaluation of interventions for bulimia nervosa

Important outcomes Symptom improvement, quality of life, adverse effects.
Number of studies (participants) Outcome Comparison Type of evidence Quality Consistency Directness Effect size GRADE Comment
What are the effects of treatments for bulimia nervosa in adults?
1 (77) Symptom improvement CBT-BN v waiting list control, no treatment, or placebo 4 –3 0 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data, no intention-to-treat analysis, and incomplete reporting of results
1 (77) Symptom improvement CBT-BN v CBT-ERP 4 –3 0 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data, no intention-to-treat analysis, and incomplete reporting of results
2 (143) Symptom improvement CBT-BN v guided self-help CBT 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results
2 (295) Symptom improvement CBT-BN v IPT 4 –1 –1 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Consistency point deducted for different results for different outcomes
1 (78) Symptom improvement CBT-BN v HBT 4 –3 0 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data, unbalanced groups at baseline, and incomplete reporting of results
1(68) Symptom improvement CBT-BN v motivational enhancement therapy 4 –3 0 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data, short-term follow-up, and no intention-to-treat analysis
2 (211) Symptom improvement CBT-BN v TCAs 4 –1 –1 –1 0 Very low Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Consistency point deducted for conflicting results. Directness point deducted for different regimens between studies
2 (111) Symptom improvement CBT-BN v SSRIs 4 –3 0 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data, incomplete reporting of results, and no intention-to-treat analysis
2 (242), Symptom improvement CBT-BN plus TCAs v CBT-BN alone 4 –1 0 0 0 Moderate Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results
1(76) Symptom improvement CBT plus fluoxetine v CBT-BN alone 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results
1 (77) Symptom improvement CBT-ERP v waiting list control 4 –3 0 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data, no intention-to-treat analysis, and incomplete reporting of results
2 (129) Symptom improvement Pure or unguided self-help CBT v waiting list, no treatment, or placbeo 4 –2 0 –1 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data and baseline differences in purging between groups. Directness point deducted for inclusion of co-intervention (contact with health professionals)
1 (48) Symptom improvement Pure or unguided self-help CBT v fluoxetine 4 –1 0 –1 0 Low Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for inclusion of co-intervention (contact with health professionals)
1 (91) Symptom improvement Pure or unguided self-help CBT plus fluoxetine v self-help CBT alone 4 –3 0 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data, incomplete reporting of results, and inclusion of co-intervention (contact with health professionals)
1 (78) Symptom improvement HBT v no treatment, placebo, or waiting list control 4 –3 0 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data, incomplete reporting of results, and significant differences between groups at baseline
1 (31) Symptom improvement Dialectical behavioural therapy v placebo, no treatment, or waiting list control 4 –3 0 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data, incomplete reporting of results, and unclear measurement of outcomes
10 (at least 706) Symptom improvement SSRIs v placebo or no treatment 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for incomplete reporting of results and for different results for different outcomes
1 (76) . Symptom improvement SSRI alone v CBT-BN plus SSRI 4 –2 0 0 0 Low Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results
1 (91) Symptom improvement SSRI alone v pure self-help CBT plus SSRI 4 –3 0 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data, incomplete reporting of results, and inclusion of co-intervention (contact with health professionals)
4 (156) Symptom improvement MAOIs v placebo 4 –2 –1 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results. Consistency point deducted for different results for different outcomes
3 (132) Symptom improvement TCAs v placebo 4 –2 –1 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results. Consistency point deducted for different results for different outcomes
2 (242) Symptom improvement TCA plus CBT-BN v TCA alone 4 –2 0 –1 0 Very low Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting and no statistical test between groups. Directness point deducted for conflicting results
1 (60) Symptom improvement Topiramate v placebo 4 –2 0 –1 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data and short-term follow-up. Directness point deducted for composite outcome
1 (60) Quality of life Topiramate v placebo 4 –3 0 0 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data, short-term follow-up, and incomplete reporting of results

Type of evidence: 4 = RCT; 2 = Observational; 1 = Non-analytical/expert opinion. Consistency: similarity of results across studies Directness: generalisability of population or outcomes Effect size: based on relative risk or odds ratio

Glossary

Binge eating

Modified from DSM-IV. Eating, in a discrete period (e.g. hours), a large amount of food, accompanied by a lack of control over eating during the episode.

Bulimia nervosa

The DSM-IV criteria include recurrent episodes of binge eating; recurrent inappropriate compensatory behaviour to prevent weight gain; frequency of binge eating and inappropriate compensatory behaviour, with both occurring, on average, at least twice a week for 3 months; self-evaluation unduly influenced by body shape and weight; and disturbance occurring not exclusively during episodes of anorexia nervosa. Types of bulimia nervosa, modified from DSM-IV, are purging (using self-induced vomiting, laxatives, diuretics, or enemas) and non-purging (fasting, exercise, but not vomiting or other abuse as for the purging type). However, many studies evaluate efficacy for samples that may include people with subthreshold bulimia nervosa or binge eating disorder. Where possible, only data for bulimia nervosa participants are reported in this review.

Cognitive behavioural therapy

A specific form of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been developed for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN), which uses three overlapping phases for 19 sessions over 20 weeks. Phase one aims to educate the person about bulimia nervosa. People are helped to increase the regularity of eating and resist the urge to binge or purge. Phase two introduces procedures to reduce dietary restraint (e.g. broadening food choices). In addition, cognitive procedures supplemented by behavioural experiments are used to identify and correct dysfunctional attitudes, beliefs, and avoidance behaviours. Phase three is the maintenance phase. Relapse-prevention strategies are used to prepare for possible future setbacks. Although many studies have used variants of CBT for bulimia nervosa, for the purposes of this review only those that resemble CBT-BN are cited unless otherwise specified. In this review, CBT-BN refers to all treatments that closely resemble CBT-BN.

Cognitive orientation therapy

The cognitive orientation theory aims to generate a systematic procedure for exploring the meaning of a behaviour around themes, such as avoiding certain emotions. Therapy for modifying behaviour focuses on systematically changing beliefs related to themes, rather than beliefs referring directly to eating behaviour. No attempt is made to persuade the people that their beliefs are incorrect or maladaptive.

Dialectical behavioural therapy

A type of behavioural therapy that views emotional dysregulation as the core problem in bulimia nervosa, with binge eating and purging understood as attempts to influence, change, or control painful emotional states. People are taught a repertoire of skills to replace dysfunctional behaviours.

Exposure therapy

In bulimia nervosa, this is a modification of the exposure and response prevention therapy developed for obsessive compulsive disorder. It involves, for example, exposure to food, and then psychological prevention strategies to control weight behaviour, such as vomiting after eating, until the urge or compulsion to vomit has receded.

Guided self-help cognitive behavioural therapy

A modified form of cognitive behavioural therapy, in which a treatment manual is provided with support, usually from a non-professional or professional without specialist expertise in eating disorders. A good discussion of the development and types of self-help can be found in Williams (2003).

Hypnobehavioural psychotherapy

uses a combination of behavioural techniques, such as self-monitoring, to change maladaptive eating disorders, and hypnotic techniques to reinforce and encourage behaviour change.

Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT)

In bulimia nervosa, this is a three-phase treatment. Phase one analyses in detail the interpersonal context of the eating disorder. This leads to the formulation of an interpersonal problem area, which forms the focus of the second stage; this is aimed at helping the person to make interpersonal changes. Phase three is devoted to the person's progress and an exploration of ways to handle future interpersonal difficulties. At no stage is attention paid to eating habits or body attitudes.

Low-quality evidence

Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Moderate-quality evidence

Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.

Remission

Sustained abstinence (longer than 1 month) from binge eating.

Short-Form Health Survey-36 items (SF-36)

A scale that assesses health-related quality of life across eight domains: limitations in physical activities (physical component); limitations in social activities; limitations in usual role activities due to physical problems; pain; psychological distress and wellbeing (mental health component); limitations in usual role activities because of emotional problems; energy and fatigue; and general health perceptions.

Very low-quality evidence

Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this publication is intended for medical professionals. Categories presented in Clinical Evidence indicate a judgement about the strength of the evidence available to our contributors prior to publication and the relevant importance of benefit and harms. We rely on our contributors to confirm the accuracy of the information presented and to adhere to describe accepted practices. Readers should be aware that professionals in the field may have different opinions. Because of this and regular advances in medical research we strongly recommend that readers' independently verify specified treatments and drugs including manufacturers' guidance. Also, the categories do not indicate whether a particular treatment is generally appropriate or whether it is suitable for a particular individual. Ultimately it is the readers' responsibility to make their own professional judgements, so to appropriately advise and treat their patients.To the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ Publishing Group Limited and its editors are not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, products liability or otherwise) whether they be direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the application of the information in this publication.

Contributor Information

Prof Phillipa J Hay, School of Medicine, Campbelltown Campus, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.

Dr Josue Bacaltchuk, Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

References

  • 1.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th ed. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hudson JI, Hiripi E, Pope HG,Jr, et al. The prevalence and correlates of eating disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Biological Psychiatry 2007;61:348–358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bushnell JA, Wells JE, Hornblow AR, et al. Prevalence of three bulimic syndromes in the general population. Psychol Med 1990;20:671–680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Garfinkel PE, Lin B, Goering P, et al. Bulimia nervosa in a Canadian community sample: prevalence, co-morbidity, early experiences and psychosocial functioning. Am J Psychiatry 1995;152:1052–1058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gard MCE, Freeman CP. The dismantling of a myth: a review of eating disorders and socioeconomic status. Int J Eat Disord 1996;20:1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hay PJ. Quality of life and bulimic eating disorder behaviours: Findings from a community-based sample. Int J Eat Disord 2003;33:434–442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hoek HW, van Hoeken D. Review of the prevalence and incidence of eating disorders. Int J Eat Disord 2003;34:383–396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hoek HW. Incidence, prevalence mortality of anorexia nervosa and other eating disorders. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2006;19:389–394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hall A, Hay PJ. Eating disorder patient referrals from a population region 1977�1986. Psychol Med 1991;21:697–701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kendler KS, Maclean C, Neale M, et al. The genetic epidemiology of bulimia nervosa. Am J Psychiatry 1991;148:1627–1637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Choudry IY, Mumford DB. A pilot study of eating disorders in Mirpur (Pakistan) using an Urdu version of the Eating Attitude Test. Int J Eat Disord 1992;11:243–251. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Striegel-Moore RH, Wifley DE, Caldwell MB, et al. Weight-related attitudes and behaviors of women who diet to lose weight: a comparison for black dieters and white dieters. Obes Res 1996;4:109–116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Stice E. Risk and Maintenance factors for eating pathology: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 2002;128:825–848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fairburn CG, Welch SL, Doll HA, et al. Risk factors for bulimia nervosa. A community-based case-control study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997;54:509–517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Steiger H, Bruce KR. Phenotypes, endophenotypes, and genotypes in bulimia spectrum eating disorders. Can J Psychiatry 2007;52:220–227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bulik CM. Exploring the gene-environment nexus in eating disorders. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2005;30:335–339. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Collings S, King M. Ten year follow-up of 50 patients with bulimia nervosa. Br J Psychiatry 1994;164:80–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Keel PK, Mitchell JE, Davis TL, et al. Long-term impact of treatment in women diagnosed with bulimia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord 2002;31:151–158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Keel PK, Mitchell JE. Outcome in bulimia nervosa. Am J Psychiatry 1997;154:313–321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fairburn C, Cooper Z, Doll H, et al. The natural course of bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder in young women. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000;57:659–665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Grilo CM, Pagano ME, Skodol AE, et al. Natural course of bulimia nervosa and of eating disorder not otherwise specified: 5-year prospective study of remissions, relapses, and the effects of personality disorder psychopathology. J Clin Psychiatry 2007;68:738–746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Keel PK, Mitchell JE, Miller KB, et al. Long-term outcome of bulimia nervosa. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999;56:63–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fairburn CG, Norman PA, Welch SL, et al. A prospective study of outcome in bulimia nervosa and the long-term effects of three psychological treatments. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52:30–312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Coker S, Vize C, Wade T, et al. Patients with bulimia nervosa who fail to engage in cognitive behaviour therapy. Int J Eat Disord 1993;13:35–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Fahy TA, Russell GFM. Outcome and prognostic variables in bulimia. Int J Eat Disord 1993;14:135–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rossiter EM, Agras WS, Telch CF, et al. Cluster B personality disorder characteristics predict outcome in the treatment of bulimia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord 1993;13:349–358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Johnson C, Tobin DL, Dennis A. Differences in treatment outcome between borderline and nonborderline bulimics at 1-year follow-up. Int J Eat Disord 1990;9:617–627. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Agras WS, Crow SJ, Halmi KA, et al. Outcome predictors for the cognitive behavior treatment of bulimia nervosa: data from a multisite study. Am J Psychiatry 2000;157:1302–1308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Reas DL, Schoemaker C, Zipfel S, et al. Prognostic value of duration of illness and early intervention in bulimia nervosa: a systematic review of the outcome literature. Int J Eat Disord 2001;30:1–10. Search date 1999; primary sources not reported. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Eating disorders: core interventions in the treatment and management of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and related disorders. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2004:35. Search date 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fairburn CG, Agras WS, Walsh BT, et al. Prediction of outcome in bulimia nervosa by early change in treatment. Am J Psychiatry 2004;161:2322–2324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Walsh BTimothy. Early Response to Desipramine among Women with Bulimia Nervosa. Int J Eat Disord 2006;39:72–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hay PJ, Bacaltchuk J, Stefano S. Psychotherapy for bulimia nervosa and binging. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shapiro JR, Berkman ND, Brownley KA, et al. Bulimia nervosa treatment: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Eati Disord 2007;40:321–336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Agras WS, Schneider JA, Arnow B, et al. Cognitive-behavioral and response-prevention treatments for bulimia nervosa. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989;57:215–221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wilson GT, Fairburn CG. Treatments for eating disorders. In: Nathan PE, Gorman JM, eds. A guide to treatments that work. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998:501–530. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wolk SL, Devlin MJ. Stage of change as a predictor of response to psychotherapy for bulimia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord 2001;30:96–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Thiels C, Schmidt U, Troop N, et al. Compliance with a self-care manual in guided self-change for bulimia nervosa. Eur Eat Disord Rev 2001;9:115–122. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Agras WS, Walsh BT, Fairburn CG, et al. A multicenter comparison of cognitive-behavioral therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000;54:459–465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Carter JC, Olmsted MP, Kaplan AS, et al. Self-help for bulimia nervosa: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:973–978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mitchell JE, Fletcher L, Hanson K, et al. The relative efficacy of fluoxetine and manual-based self-help in the treatment of outpatients with bulimia nervosa. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2001;21:298–304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Stefano SC, Bacaltchuk J, Blay SL, et al. Self-help treatments for disorders of recurrent binge eating: a systematic review. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2006;113:452–459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Perkins SJ, Murphy R, Schmidt U, et al. Self-help and guided self-help for eating disorders. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Search date 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Thiels C, Schmidt U, Treasure J, et al. Guided self-change for bulimia nervosa incorporating use of a self-care manual. Am J Psychiatry 1998;155:947–953. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bailer U, DeZwaan M, Leisch F, et al. Guided self-help versus cognitive-behavioural therapy in the treatment of bulimia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord 2004;35:522–537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Thiels C, Schmidt U, Treasure J, et al. Four-year follow-up of guided self-change for bulimia nervosa. Eat Weight Disord 2003;8:212–217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Palmer RL, Birchall H, McGrain L, et al. Self-help for bulimic disorders: a randomised controlled trial comparing minimal guidance with face-to-face or telephone guidance. Br J Psychiatry 2002;181:230–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Griffiths RA, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Channon-Little L. A controlled evaluation of hypnobehavioural treatment for bulimia-nervosa: immediate pre-post-treatment effects. Eur Eat Disord Rev 1994;2:202–220. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Safer DL, Telch CF, Agras WS. Dialectical behavior therapy for bulimia nervosa. Am J Psychiatry 2001;158:632–634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Treasure JL, Katzman M, Schmidt U, et al. Engagement and outcome in the treatment of bulimia nervosa: first phase of a sequential design comparing motivation enhancement therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy. Behav Res Ther 1999;37:405–418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bacaltchuk J, Hay P. Antidepressants versus placebo for people with bulimia nervosa. In: The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Milano W, Petrella C, Capasso A. Treatment of bulimia nervosa with citalopram: a randomized controlled trial. Biomed Res 2005;16:85–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Milano W, Petrella C, Sabatino C, et al. Treatment of bulimia nervosa with sertraline: a randomized controlled trial. Adv Ther 2004;21:232–237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Bacaltchuk J, Hay P, Trefiglio R. Antidepressants versus psychological treatments and their combination for people with bulimia nervosa. In: The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Goldbloom DS, Olmsted M, Davies R, et al. A randomized controlled trial of fluoxetine and cognitive behavioural therapy for bulimia nervosa: short-term outcome. Behav Res Ther 1997;35:803–811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Jacobi C, Dahme B, Dittman R. Cognitive-behavioural, fluoxetine and combined treatment for bulimia nervosa: short- and long-term results. Eur Eat Disord Rev 2002;10:179–198. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Paroxetine (Seroxat) � safety in pregnancy: 6 December 2005. http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&useSecondary=true&ssDocName=CON2022698&ssT (last accessed 19 May 2008). [Google Scholar]
  • 58.US Food and Drug Administration. MedWatch: Paxil (paroxetine HCL). http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2005/safety05.htm#Paxil2 (last accessed 19 May 2008). [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Mitchell JE, Pyle RL, Eckert ED, et al. A comparison study of antidepressants and structured intensive group psychotherapy in the treatment of bulimia nervosa. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1990;47:149–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Agras WS, Rossiter EM, Arnow B, et al. Pharmacologic and cognitive-behavioral treatment for bulimia nervosa: a controlled comparison. Am J Psychiatry 1992;149:82–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Walsh BT, Hadigan CM, Wong LM. Increased pulse and blood pressure associated with desipramine treatment of bulimia nervosa. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1992;12:163–168. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Nickel C, Tritt K, Muehlbacher M, et al. Topiramate treatment in bulimia nervosa patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Int J Eat Disord 2005;38:295–300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Li Z, Maglione M, Tu W, et al. Meta-analysis: pharmacologic treatment of obesity. [summary for patients in Ann Intern Med 2005;142(7):I55]. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:532–546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Pharmalogical and surgical treatment of obesity. Evidence Report: Technology Assessment 2004;103. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.LaRoche SM. A new look at the second-generation antiepileptic drugs: A decade of experience. Neurologist 2007;13:133–139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Romano SJ, Halmi KA, Sarkar NP, et al. A placebo-controlled study of fluoxetine in continued treatment of bulimia nervosa after successful acute fluoxetine treatment. Am J Psychiatry 2002;159:96–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Fairburn CG, Marcus MD, Wilson GT. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for binge eating and bulimia nervosa: a comprehensive treatment manual. In: Fairburn CG, Wilson GT, eds. Binge eating: nature, assessment, and treatment. New York: Guilford Press, 1993:361–404. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Williams C. New technologies in self-help: another effective way to get better? Eur Eat Disord Rev 2003;11:170–182. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Leitenberg H, Rosen J, Gross J, et al. Exposure plus response-prevention treatment of bulimia nervosa. J Consult Clin Psychol 1988;56:535–541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Bachar E, Latzer Y, Kreitler S, et al. Empirical comparison of two psychological therapies. Self psychology and cognitive orientation in the treatment of anorexia and bulimia. J Psychother Pract Res 1999;8:115–128. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

CBT for bulimia nervosa

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT Compared with waiting list control, no treatment, or placebo: CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN) may be more effective at 4 months at improving binge eating remission, bulimic symptoms, and depression compared with waiting list control ( very low-quality evidence ). Compared with CBT plus exposure/response prevention therapy (CBT-ERP): We don't know whether CBT-BN is more effective at 4 months at improving binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, or depression score (very low-quality evidence). Compared with guided self-help CBT: We don't know whether CBT-BN is more effective at increasing remission of binge vomiting at 43 weeks, or at improving abstinence from binge eating at the end of treatment or at 1 year ( low-quality evidence ). Compared with interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT): CBT-BN may be more effective at increasing the proportion of people who abstain from binge eating and purging at the end of treatment, but not at 1 year. We don't know whether CBT-BN is more effective at improving the frequency of binge eating at the end of treatment or at 1 year (low-quality evidence). Compared with hypnobehavioural therapy (HBT): We don't know whether CBT-BN is more effective at increasing the proportion of people who abstain from bingeing and purging during the week after treatment (very low-quality evidence). Compared with motivational enhancement therapy: We don't know whether CBT-BN is more effective at achieving a clinically significant reduction in binge frequency at 4 weeks (very low-quality evidence). Compared with TCAs: Group-based CBT-BN may be more effective than imipramine at increasing binge eating remission rates at 10 weeks. We don't know whether CBT-BN (16 weekly sessions with 2 follow-up sessions) is more effective than desipramine at improving binge eating remission rates and bulimic symptoms (very low-quality evidence). Compared with SSRIs: We don't know whether CBT-BN is more effective than fluoxetine at improving binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, depression, or self-induced vomiting (very low quality evidence). CBT-BN plus TCAs compared with CBT-BN alone: CBT-BN alone seems as effective as CBT-BN plus TCAs at improving binge eating remission rates and bulimic symptoms ( moderate quality evidence ). CBT-BN plus fluoxetine compared with CBT-BN alone: CBT-BN alone may be as effective at improving binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, or depression scores (low-quality evidence).

Benefits

CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN) versus waiting list control, no treatment, or placebo:

We found two systematic reviews (search date 2004, and search date 2005). The first review included RCTs of other binge eating disorders, although most studies were of people with bulimia nervosa (32 of 40 RCTs in people with bulimia nervosa). It reported data separately for bulimia nervosa. The first review identified one RCT using a strict definition of CBT-BN as defined in this review, which compared four groups: CBT-BN, waiting list control, “self-monitoring” only, and CBT plus exposure/response prevention. The RCT found that CBT-BN increased binge eating remission, and improved bulimic symptoms and depression after 4 months of treatment compared with waiting list control (77 women with bulimia nervosa; binge eating remission: 46% with CBT-BN v 5% with control; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.86; bulimic symptoms SMD: –1.19, 95% CI –1.92 to –0.47; depression SMD: –1.43, 95% CI –2.18 to –0.67). The subsequent systematic review identified no new RCTs and provided a narrative summary of the RCTs with no meta-analyses. It found strong evidence for CBT-BN.

CBT-BN versus CBT plus exposure/response prevention:

See benefits of CBT plus exposure/response prevention therapy.

CBT-BN versus pure self-help CBT:

We found no RCTs.

CBT-BN versus guided self-help CBT:

See benefits of guided self-help CBT.

CBT-BN versus cognitive orientation therapy:

See benefits of cognitive orientation therapy.

CBT-BN versus interpersonal psychotherapy:

See benefits of interpersonal psychotherapy.

CBT-BN versus hypnobehavioural therapy:

See benefits of hypnobehavioural therapy.

CBT-BN versus dialectical behavioural therapy:

See benefits of dialectical behavioural therapy.

CBT-BN versus motivational enhancement therapy:

See benefits of motivational enhancement therapy.

CBT-BN versus TCAs:

See benefits of TCAs.

CBT-BN versus SSRIs:

See benefits of SSRIs.

CBT-BN versus other pharmacotherapy:

We found no RCTs comparing CBT versus MAOIs, mirtazapine, serotonin antagonists, or venlafaxine.

CBT-BN versus pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

See benefits of pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy.

Harms

CBT-BN versus waiting list control, no treatment, or placebo:

The RCTs included in the first and subsequent systematic reviews did not report details of adverse effects. The first review found no significant difference in completion rates between interventions in people with bulimia nervosa, suggesting no major difference in acceptability (9 RCTs, 70% with CBT v 88% with waiting list control: RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 4.30). However, it could not exclude infrequent serious adverse effects. The subsequent systematic review noted high attrition rates. An observational study found that group psychotherapy offered very soon after presentation was sometimes perceived as threatening.

CBT-BN versus CBT plus exposure/response prevention:

See harms of CBT plus exposure/response prevention therapy.

CBT-BN versus guided self-help CBT:

See harms of guided self-help CBT.

CBT-BN versus interpersonal psychotherapy:

See harms of interpersonal psychotherapy.

CBT-BN versus hypnobehavioural therapy:

See harms of hypnobehavioural therapy.

CBT-BN versus motivational enhancement therapy:

See harms of motivational enhancement therapy.

CBT-BN versus TCAs:

See harms of TCAs.

CBT-BN versus SSRIs:

See harms of SSRIs.

Comment

The first systematic review defined CBT as psychotherapy that uses the techniques and models specified by Wilson and Fairburn, but it did not specify therapist expertise, the number of sessions, or their content. Classical CBT-BN specifies 19 individual sessions over 20 weeks, conducted by trained therapists, and consists of specific structure and content. Effect sizes for CBT were large, but more than 50% of people were still binge eating at the end of treatment. Further research is needed to evaluate the specific and non-specific effects of CBT and other psychotherapies, to explore individual characteristics (such as readiness to change) that may predict response, and to explore the long-term effects of treatment. Waiting list or delayed-treatment control groups are subject to bias because it is not possible to “blind” someone to their allocation. It is difficult to interpret the clinical importance of the statistically significant changes in depression scores. The quality of trials in the systematic review was variable (e.g. 57% were not blinded and sample sizes were often small). Stricter inclusion criteria in the review removed previously included RCTs in people with binge eating disorders other than bulimia nervosa in supplementary analyses. In these supplementary analyses of bulimia, only results comparing classical CBT-BN versus variants have been presented in this review. The systematic review also performed a meta-analysis of all RCTs using a broader definition of CBT-BN than we examine in this option, and found an increased binge-free remission, improved bulimic symptoms, and improved depression when compared with waiting list control. The first RCT reported that 10/77 (13%) of people enrolled failed to complete treatment. Results were not analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Two further observational studies found limited evidence that motivation and compliance factors may influence outcomes. One study performed additional analyses of an RCT that compared CBT-BN versus interpersonal therapy. It found that “stage of change” or psychological motivation and greater readiness to change was not related to non-completion, but was associated with a good outcome in those who completed interpersonal therapy. The second study examined the effects of compliance on outcome in 62 people randomised for 16 weeks to guided self-help or to full CBT. At 6 months' follow-up, but not at the end of treatment, binge eating abstinence rates were greater in those who had completed two or more of the CBT exercises (P = 0.04; CI not reported).

Clinical Guide:

CBT-BN or derivative CBT for bulimia nervosa is likely to be beneficial. Compliance and engagement in therapy are also likely important outcomes. Most patients who have bulimia nervosa should be offered CBT-BN as first-line therapy.

Substantive changes

CBT for bulimia nervosa One systematic review added, which confirmed strong evidence for CBT-BN in patients with bulimia nervosa; benefits and harms data enhanced; categorisation unchanged (Likely to be beneficial).

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

CBT plus exposure/response prevention therapy

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT Compared with waiting list control: CBT plus exposure response prevention enhancement (CBT-ERP) may be more effective at 4 months at improving depression scores, but no more effective at improving vomiting frequency ( very low-quality evidence ). Compared with CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN): We don't know whether CBT-ERP is more effective at 4 months at improving binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, or depression score (very low-quality evidence).

Benefits

CBT plus exposure/response prevention therapy (CBT-ERP) versus waiting list:

We found two systematic reviews (search date 2004,and search date 2005) which identified the same RCT comparing four treatments: CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN); CBT plus exposure/response prevention (CBT-ERP) of vomiting; self-monitoring of calorific intake and vomiting behaviour; and waiting list control. The RCT found no significant difference in vomiting frequency after 4 months of treatment between CBT-ERP and waiting list control (77 women with bulimia nervosa characterised by purging behaviour; SMD from baseline in frequency of vomiting over 1 week: 6.4 with CBT-ERP v 0.2 with waiting list; difference reported as not significant; P value not reported). It found that CBT-ERP significantly improved depression scores compared with waiting list control (SMD from baseline in Beck Depression Inventory Score: 9.9 with CBT-ERP v 0.7 with waiting list; P less than 0.05).

CBT-ERP versus CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN):

One RCT, identified by two systematic reviews (search date 2004,and search date 2005) found no significant difference after the 4-month treatment period between CBT-ERP and CBT-BN in binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, or depression score (77 women [described above]; binge eating remission: 46% with CBT-BN v 29% with CBT-ERP; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.26; bulimic symptoms SMD: –0.35, 95% CI –1.03 to +0.34; depression SMD: –0.27, 95% CI –0.96 to +0.41).

CBT-ERP versus pharmacotherapy alone or pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

We found no RCTs.

Harms

CBT-ERP versus waiting list:

The RCT did not report on harms. However, it found no significant difference in withdrawal rate between CBT-ERP and waiting list control, although the confidence intervals were wide, and the trial may have lacked power to detect an important difference (withdrawal rate: 23% with CBT-ERP v 5% with waiting list; RR 3.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 30.06).

CBT-ERP versus CBT-BN:

The RCT found no significant difference in withdrawal rates between CBT-ERP and CBT-BN (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.13). The subsequent systematic review noted high attrition rates and absence of reporting on harms.

Comment

The first systematic review also performed a meta-analysis of RCTs using a broader definition of CBT-BN than we examine in this option, and found no significant difference after 4 months' treatment between CBT-ERP and CBT-BN in binge-free remission, bulimic symptoms, or depression score.

Clinical Guide:

CBT-ERP therapy is not commonly used for bulimia nervosa.

Substantive changes

CBT plus exposure response prevention therapy One systematic review added with no new RCTs identified;categorisation unchanged (Unknown effectiveness).

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Pure or unguided self-help CBT

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT Compared with waiting list control, no treatment, or placebo: Pure or unguided self-help CBT may be no more effective at improving the proportion of women with a 50% reduction in binge eating or purging at 8 weeks, or at improving remission rates at 16 weeks ( very low-quality evidence ). Compared with fluoxetine: We don't know whether unguided self-help CBT is more effective at improving remission rates at 16 weeks ( low-quality evidence ). Compared with pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy: Pure self-help CBT alone may be as effective at improving remission rates in the last 2 weeks of treatment (very low-quality evidence).

Benefits

Pure or unguided self-help CBT versus waiting list, no treatment, or placebo medication:

We found two systematic reviews (search date 2004, search date 2005) which identified the same RCT, and we found one additional RCT. The RCT identified by the reviews compared two self-help treatments versus waiting list control: a specifically modified manual for bulimia nervosa (CBT self-help) and a non-specific manual on self-assertion for women (non-specific self-help). The waiting list group had a significantly higher baseline frequency of purging compared with either of the two self-help groups. The RCT found no significant difference after 8 weeks in the proportion of women achieving a 50% reduction in binge eating or purging between either self-help intervention and waiting list control (85 women with bulimia nervosa; see comment below; AR for achieving a 50% reduction in binge eating or purging: 15/28 [54%] with CBT self-help v 9/29 [31%] with waiting list; P = 0.10; 14/28 [50%] with non-specific self-help v 9/29 [31%] with waiting list; P = 0.08). The additional RCT compared four treatments: fluoxetine 60 mg daily alone, fluoxetine plus an unguided self-help CBT manual, placebo plus an unguided self-help CBT manual, and placebo alone. It found no significant difference in remission rates after 16 weeks between the unguided self-help CBT manual plus placebo and placebo alone (91 women with bulimia nervosa; AR for remission: 5/22 [24%] with self-help plus placebo v 2/22 [9%] with placebo; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.54 to 11.54). Both RCTs may have lacked power to detect significant differences.

Pure or unguided self-help CBT versus CBT for bulimia nervosa:

We found no RCTs.

Pure or unguided self-help CBT versus guided self-help CBT:

We found no RCTs.

Pure or unguided self-help CBT versus fluoxetine:

We found one RCT, which compared four treatments (see above). It found no significant difference in remission rate after 16 weeks between placebo plus the unguided self-help CBT manual and fluoxetine alone (91 women with bulimia nervosa; AR for remission: 5/22 [24%] with placebo plus the unguided self-help CBT manual v 4/26 [16%] with fluoxetine alone; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.84).

Pure or unguided self-help CBT versus pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

See benefits of pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy.

Harms

The RCTs did not report on harms.

Comment

Pure or unguided self-help CBT versus waiting list, no treatment, or placebo medication:

In the review, pure self-help CBT may be regarded as synonymous with unguided self-help CBT. In trials with a drug-treatment arm, people randomised to self-help plus placebo were seen regularly by healthcare professionals, and so results may not generalise to self-help, in which there is no contact with healthcare professionals. The results of the RCT identified by the review should be regarded with caution.We identified a third systematic review (search date 2004), which found no significant difference in abstinence from binge eating between pure self-help and waiting list in patients with binge eating disorders (4 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.05).

Pure or unguided self-help CBT versus guided self-help CBT:

A subsequent systematic review (13 RCTs, search date 2005), compared pure or unguided CBT with guided self-help CBT (4 RCTs) in a combination of patients with bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorders (BED) and eating disorder not otherwise specified (EDNOS). It did not perform a meta-analysis separately for patients with bulimia nervosa. It found no significant differences in abstinence from bingeing and purging, eating disorder symptomatology, proportion of dropouts, psychiatric and mental-state symptomatology, level of interpersonal functioning, and depression.

Clinical guide:

Pure self-help CBT may be a useful first-step in therapy, particularly where access to CBT-BN is problematic.

Substantive changes

Pure or unguided self-help CBT One systematic review added with no new RCTs identified;categorisation unchanged (Unknown-effectiveness).

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Guided self-help CBT

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT Compared with CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN): We don't know whether guided self-help CBT is more effective at increasing remission of binge vomiting at 43 weeks, or at improving abstinence from binge eating at the end of treatment or at 1 year ( low-quality evidence ). NOTE We found no clinically important results about guided self-help CBT compared with waiting list control.

Benefits

Guided self-help CBT versus waiting list:

We found no RCTs.

Guided self-help CBT versus CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN):

We found two RCTs (presented in three publications). The first RCT compared 16 weekly sessions of CBT-BN versus eight fortnightly sessions of guided self-help CBT. It found that CBT-BN increased the remission rate of binge vomiting at 16 weeks compared with guided self-help CBT, although the significance of the difference is not known (62 people with DSM-III-R bulimia nervosa; AR for remission: 55% with CBT-BN v 13% with guided self-help; P value not reported). However, after a mean follow-up of 43 weeks from the end of treatment, it found no significant difference between treatments in remission of binge vomiting (AR 71% with CBT-BN v 61% with guided self-help; ARR +10%, 95% CI –17% to +37%). Long-term follow-up of this RCT found that remission was sustained or enhanced at 4 years, although the significance of the difference between groups is not clear (AR 62% with CBT-BN v 67% with guided self-help; P value not reported). The second RCT found no significant difference between groups in abstinence from binge eating at the end of treatment or at 1 year (81 people meeting DSM-IV criteria for bulimia nervosa; abstinence at end of follow-up: 7% with guided self-help CBT v 12% with CBT-BN; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22; abstinence at 1 year: 9% with guided self-help CBT v 15% with CBT-BN; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.12).

Guided self-help CBT versus unguided self-help CBT:

See benefits of pure or unguided self-help CBT.

Harms

Guided self-help CBT versus waiting list:

We found no RCTs.

Guided self-help CBT versus CBT-BN:

The RCTs did not report on harms.

Comment

Guided self-help CBT versus waiting list:

We found one RCT, which compared four treatments in patients with bulimia nervosa (59%), binge eating disorders (23%), and eating disorder not otherwise specified (18%): self-help CBT manual with minimal guidance (participants received a brief explanation by a therapist of how to use the supplied self-help manual), self-help CBT manual with face-to-face guidance (participants received 4 guidance sessions over 4 months), self-help CBT manual with telephone guidance (participants received the same guidance as the face-to-face group, delivered over the telephone), and waiting list control. The RCT did not provide a separate meta-analysis in patients with bulimia nervosa. It found no significant difference in the proportion of people who improved (at least 25% improvement on the Eating Disorder Examination global score, the objective binge episode, and self-induced vomiting scores) after 4 months between either of the guidance groups and the waiting list group (25% with minimal guidance v 50% with face-to-face guidance v 36% with telephone guidance v 19% with waiting list; P values not reported).The RCT may have lacked power to detect clinically important effects.

Guided self-help CBT versus CBT-BN:

Abstinence rates in the second RCT were lower than those reported in other studies (usually about 40% with CBT-BN). Guided self-help therapy was of similar duration (16 weeks), but differed in the number of sessions from CBT-BN (8 guided self-help sessions v 16 CBT-BN sessions). The therapists were the same for both intervention arms.

Guided self-help CBT versus pure or unguided self-help CBT:

See comments on pure or unguided self-help CBT.

Clinical guide:

Guided self-help CBT may be a useful alternative therapy, particularly where access to specialist-administered CBT-BN is problematic.

Substantive changes

Guided self-help CBT One RCT was moved to the comments section as it did not provide a seperate meta-analysis in patients with bulimia nervosa (59% of included patients); categorisation unchanged (Unknown effectiveness).

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Cognitive orientation therapy

Summary

WE FOUND NO DIRECT INFORMATION ABOUT COGNITIVE ORIENTATION THERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH BULIMIA NERVOSA.

Benefits

Cognitive orientation therapy versus no treatment, placebo, or waiting list:

We found no RCTs of cognitive orientation therapy that met our inclusion criteria.

Cognitive orientation therapy versus CBT, pharmacotherapy, or pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

We found no RCTs.

Harms

Cognitive orientation therapy versus no treatment, placebo, or waiting list:

We found no RCTs.

Cognitive orientation therapy versus CBT, pharmacotherapy, or pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

We found no RCTs.

Comment

None.

Clinical guide:

Cognitive orientation therapy is not known to be a commonly used therapy for bulimia nervosa.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Interpersonal psychotherapy

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT C ompared with CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN): Interpersonal psychotherapy may be less effective at increasing the proportion of people who abstain from binge eating and purging at the end of treatment, but not at 1 year. We don't know whether interpersonal psychotherapy is more effective at improving the frequency of binge eating at the end of treatment or at 1 year (low-quality evidence). NOTE We found no direct information about whether interpersonal psychotherapy is better than no active treatment.

Benefits

Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) versus no treatment, placebo, or waiting list:

We found no RCTs.

IPT versus CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN):

We found one systematic review (search date 2002), which found that significantly more people abstained from both binge eating and purging after CBT-BN compared with IPT (19 sessions over 20 weeks) at the end of treatment, but not at 1-year follow-up (abstinence from binge eating at the end of treatment: 2 RCTs, 295 people; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.49; abstinence from purging at end of treatment: 1 RCT, 220 people; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.49; abstinence from both binge eating and purging at 1-year follow-up: 2 RCTs, 295 people; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.22). However, it found no significant difference in the frequency of binge eating between treatment groups at the end of treatment or at follow-up (binge eating: SMD –0.24, 95% CI –0.48 to +0.01; binge eating at follow-up: SMD –0.04, 95% CI –0.29 to +0.20). We found one subsequent systematic review of all treatment modalities in bulimia nervosa (search date 2005). It identified no RCTs with IPT not previously identified, and provided a narrative summary of trials with no meta-analyses, and similar conclusions.

IPT versus pharmacotherapy, or pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

We found no RCTs.

Harms

IPT versus CBT-BN:

One systematic review (search date 2004), reporting on the same RCTs as the review reported above, found that the RCTs did not report details of adverse effects. It found no significant difference in completion rates between interventions, suggesting no major difference in acceptability. However, it could not exclude infrequent serious adverse effects. The second systematic review noted high attrition rates and absence of reporting on harms. An observational study found that group psychotherapy offered very soon after presentation was sometimes perceived as threatening.

Comment

None.

Clinical guide:

In choosing between CBT-BN and IPT, patient preference and therapist expertise might be taken into consideration — albeit that change seems slower with IPT than with CBT-BN.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Hypnobehavioural therapy

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT Compared with no treatment, placebo, or waiting list control: We don't know whether hypnobehavioural therapy is more effective at improving abstinence from bingeing and purging during the week after treatment compared with a waiting list control ( very low-quality evidence ). Compared with CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN): We don't know whether hypnobehavioural therapy is more effective at increasing the proportion of people who abstain from bingeing and purging during the week after treatment (very low-quality evidence).

Benefits

Hypnobehavioural therapy (HBT) versus no treatment, placebo, or waiting list:

We found one RCT, which compared three treatments: HBT, CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN), and waiting list control. It found that more people abstained from bingeing and purging after HBT compared with waiting list control during the week after treatment (19 treatment sessions over 18 weeks), although the significance of the difference is not clear (78 women with bulimia nervosa; see comment below; AR for abstaining from bingeing: 43.0% with HBT v 4.5% with waiting list; P value not reported; AR for abstaining from purging: 33.3% with HBT v 4.5% with waiting list; P value not reported). We found one subsequent systematic review of all treatment modalities in bulimia nervosa (search date 2005),which identified no new RCTs with HBT.

HBT versus CBT-BN:

We found one RCT, which found no significant difference between HBT and CBT-BN in the proportion of people who abstained from bingeing and purging during the week after treatment (78 women with bulimia nervosa; see comment below; AR for abstaining from bingeing: 50% with CBT-BN v 43% with HBT; P value not reported; AR for abstaining from purging: 40% with CBT-BN v 33% with HBT; P value not reported).

HBT versus pharmacotherapy, or pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

We found no RCTs.

Harms

The RCT did not report on harms.

Comment

In the RCT the three treatment arms were not balanced at baseline. People in the CBT-BN group had had a significantly longer duration of bulimic symptoms before study enrolment compared with people in the HBT group (P less than 0.05).

Clinical guide:

HBT is not known to be a commonly used therapy for bulimia nervosa.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Dialectical behavioural therapy

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT Compared with placebo, no treatment, or waiting list control: Dialectical behavioural therapy may be more effective at 20 weeks at increasing the cessation of binge eating and purging, improving bulimic symptom scores, or dietary restraint scores compared with a waiting list control, but not at improving depression scores ( very low-quality evidence ).

Benefits

Dialectical behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list:

We found two systematic reviews (search date 2002, search date 2005), which identified one RCT. The RCT found that dialectical behavioural therapy significantly increased cessation of binge eating or purging at 20 weeks compared with waiting list control (31 women; cessation of binge eating or purging: 4/14 [29%] with dialectical behaviour therapy v 0/15 [0%] for waiting list control; P less than 0.05). It also found that dialectical behavioural therapy significantly reduced bulimic symptom scores and dietary restraint scores over 20 weeks compared with waiting list control (bulimic symptom scores: SMD –1.35, 95% CI –2.17 to –0.53; dietary restraint scores: SMD –0.80, 95% CI –1.56 to –0.04). However, it found no significant difference in depression scores between dialectical behavioural therapy and waiting list control (SMD –0.33, 95% CI –1.07 to +0.40).

Dialectical behavioural therapy versus CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN), pharmacotherapy, or pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

We found no RCTs.

Harms

Dialectical behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list:

The RCT found no significant difference in treatment withdrawal rates between dialectical behavioural therapy and waiting list control (12.5% with dialectical behavioural therapy v 7.0% with waiting list; RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.19 to 18.6).

Comment

None.

Clinical guide:

In choosing between CBT-BN and dialectical behavioural therapy, patient preference and therapist expertise might be taken into consideration — albeit that evidence for dialectical behavioural therapy is weak.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Motivational enhancement therapy

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT Compared with CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN): We don't know whether motivational enhancement therapy is more effective at achieving a clinically significant reduction in binge frequency at 4 weeks ( very low-quality evidence ). NOTE We found no direct information about whether motivational enhancement therapy is better than no active treatment.

Benefits

Motivational enhancement therapy versus no treatment, placebo, or waiting list:

We found no RCTs.

Motivational enhancement therapy versus CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN):

We found one RCT, which compared four sessions of motivational enhancement therapy versus CBT-BN. It found no significant difference between motivational enhancement therapy and CBT-BN in achieving a clinically significant reduction (defined as a reduction in symptom score of at least 1 scale point) in binge frequency after 4 weeks (125 people with bulimia nervosa; 17/25 [68%] with CBT-BN v 23/43 [53%] with motivational enhancement therapy; RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.9).

Motivational enhancement therapy versus pharmacotherapy, other psychotherapy, or pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

We found no RCTs.

Harms

Motivational enhancement therapy versus CBT-BN:

The RCT did not report on harms.

Comment

None.

Clinical Guide:

Motivational enhancement therapy is more commonly used for anorexia nervosa than for bulimia nervosa. However, as stage of change has been shown to be a predictor of outcome in bulimia nervosa, clinicians might (despite current weak evidence) use such strategies where patients are at a pre-contemplative stage of change.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

SSRIs (fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, citalopram)

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT Compared with placebo: SSRI's may be more effective at reducing the proportion of people with binge eating episodes and purging, but may be no more effective at increasing the proportion of people in remission, or at improving depression ( low-quality evidence ). Compared with CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN): We don't know whether fluoxetine is more effective at improving binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, depression, or self-induced vomiting ( very low-quality evidence ). Compared with CBT-BN plus fluoxetine: Fluoxetine alone may be as effective at improving binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, and depression scores (low-quality evidence). Compared with self-help CBT plus fluoxetine: Fluoxetine alone may be as effective at improving remission rates (very low-quality evidence). Compared with pure self-help CBT: We don't know whether fluoxetine is more effective at improving remission rates at 16 weeks (low-quality evidence).

Benefits

SSRIs versus placebo or no treatment:

We found two systematic reviews (search date 2003,search date 2005)and two subsequent RCTs. The first review compared fluoxetine versus placebo. It found that, compared with placebo, fluoxetine 60 mg daily did not significantly increase remission (see table 1 ), but significantly increased the chance of clinical improvement, and reduced non-completion rates (no clinical improvement [clinical improvement defined as at least 50% reduction in binge eating episodes]: 3 RCTs, 706 people; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79; completion: 3 RCTs, 706 people; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99). However, it found no significant difference between fluoxetine and placebo in depression (1 RCT, 46 people; SMD –0.44, 95% CI –1.03 to +0.14).The second review found 6 RCTs comparing fluoxetine versus placebo, and provided a narrative summary of the RCTs with no meta-analysis. It included two RCTs included in the first systematic review. The review concluded that, in the short term, fluoxetine (60 mg/day) reduced core bulimic symptoms of binge eating and purging, and associated psychological features. The first subsequent RCT found that citalopram (40 mg/day) reduced binge eating and purging compared with placebo after 8 weeks' treatment (20 women; reduction in binge eating episodes: 65% with citalopram v 12% with placebo; reduction in purging episodes: 56% with citalopram v 7% with placebo; differences reported as significant; P value not reported).The second subsequent RCT found that sertraline (100 mg/day) reduced the frequency of binge eating and purging behaviour compared with placebo after 12 weeks’ treatment (20 women; reduction in binge eating episodes: 75% sertraline v 10% with placebo; P less than 0.01; reduction in purging episodes: 55% v 8% with placebo; P less than 0.01; reduction in weight: 9% with sertraline v 4% with placebo; P less than 0.01).

Table 1.

Comparison of non-remission rates between active drug and placebo by class of antidepressant

Class: drug(s) Number of RCTs Number of people Absolute non-remission rates (drug v placebo) RR (95% CI)
TCA: desipramine, imipramine 3 132 79% v 91% 0.86 (0.70 to 1.07)
SSRI: fluoxetine 3 467 81% v 89% 0.89 (0.76 to 1.03)
MAOI: phenylzine, isocarboxacid 2 98 76% v 94% 0.81 (0.68 to 0.96)

MAOI, monoamine oxidase inhibitor; SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; TCA, tricyclic antidepressant.

SSRIs versus CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN):

We found one systematic review (search date 2003), which identified one RCT, and we found one subsequent RCT. The RCT identified by the review compared three treatments: CBT-BN alone, fluoxetine alone, and CBT-BN plus fluoxetine. It found no significant difference between fluoxetine and CBT-BN after 16 weeks in binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, or depression (76 people; binge eating remission rate: 13% for both treatments; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.24; mean bulimic symptoms: SMD +0.29, 95% CI –0.29 to +0.88; depression: SMD +0.10, 95% CI –0.47 to +0.67). The subsequent RCT compared three treatments given for 4 months: group-based CBT-BN, fluoxetine, and CBT-BN plus fluoxetine. Completer analysis found no significant difference in abstinence from binge eating or self-induced vomiting over the month preceding the end of treatment (53 people; abstinence from binge eating: 5/19 [26%] with CBT-BN v 2/16 [12%] with fluoxetine; RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.47 to 9.43; abstinence from self-induced vomiting: 7/19 [37%] with CBT-BN v 1/16 [6%] with fluoxetine; RR 5.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 42.99).

SSRIs versus other antidepressants:

We found no RCTs comparing SSRIs versus other classes of antidepressants.

SSRIs versus pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

See benefits of pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy.

SSRIs versus pure self-help CBT:

See benefits of pure or unguided self-help CBT.

Harms

In December 2005 the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the FDA released warnings that paroxetine taken by women during the first trimester of pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of congenital malformations compared with other antidepressants, and advised that practitioners carefully consider the potential harms and benefits when considering prescribing paroxetine. There is limited robust evidence available to examine the link between SSRIs and increased risk of self-harm or suicide in adults when used as a treatment for depression. In light of this, practitioners should be guided by the recommendations and warnings issued by their national drug regulatory authorities with respect to the prescribing of antidepressants, particularly in children and adolescents.

See harms of SSRIs in review on depression in children and adolescents.

See harms of SSRIs in review on depression in adults.

SSRIs versus placebo or no treatment:

The first systematic review found that although significantly fewer people discontinued treatment with fluoxetine than with placebo, there was no difference in treatment withdrawal because of adverse events (3 RCTs, 706 people; treatment withdrawal: 37% with fluoxetine v 40% with placebo; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99; treatment withdrawal because of adverse events: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.75).The second systematic review noted high attrition rates with absence of reporting on harms.The small subsequent RCT found that citalopram increased sedation, dry mouth, and nausea compared with placebo, but it was associated with a lower rate of headaches (sedation: 38% with citalopram v 5% with placebo; dry mouth: 24% with citalopram v 0% with placebo; nausea: 6% with citalopram v 0% with placebo; headaches: 3% with citalopram v 9% with placebo; significance not reported for any outcome). The second small subsequent RCT comparing sertraline with placebo, reported that no participants in either group experienced adverse effects that lead to 'dropping out’. Participants in the sertraline group reported sedation (55%), dry mouth (30%), and mild fatigue (8%) and those in the placebo group reported headache (20%), fatigue (12%) and insomnia (6%).

SSRIs versus CBT-BN:

The RCT identified by the systematic review found no significant difference in withdrawal rates between fluoxetine and CBT-BN (39% with fluoxetine v 33% with CBT-BN; RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.51). The subsequent RCT found no significant difference in withdrawals with fluoxetine compared with CBT-BN (42% with CBT-BN v 25% with fluoxetine; RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.57).

SSRIs versus other antidepressants:

We found no RCTs comparing SSRIs versus other classes of antidepressants.

SSRIs versus pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

See harms of pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy.

SSRIs versus pure self-help CBT:

See harms of pure or unguided self-help CBT.

Comment

We found no consistent predictors of response to treatment.

SSRIs versus placebo or no treatment:

We found a further systematic review (search date 2002), which reported on the same trials. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence that SSRIs increase remission rates or reduced depression, but it did not report data for these outcomes. The subsequent RCT did not report methods of randomisation, allocation concealment, or blinding; neither did it report information on numbers selected for eligibility, dropouts, or details of statistical analyses.The small size of the second subsequent RCT and insufficient reporting of statistical analyses makes interpretation problematic.

Clinical guide:

SSRIs are likely to be most efficacious for bulimia nervosa when prescribed in high dose e.g 60 mg daily of fluoxetine.

Substantive changes

SSRIs One systematic review and one RCT added; The systematic review concluded that fluoxetine (60 mg/day) reduced core bulimic symptoms in the short term. One RCT found sertaline reduced the frequency of binge eating and purging behaviour compared with placebo after 12 weeks’ treatment; benefits and harms data enhanced; categorisation unchanged (Likely to be beneficial).

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

MAOIs

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT Compared with placebo: MAOIs may be more effective at increasing remission rates, but may be no more effective at improving bulimic symptoms or depression scores ( very low-quality evidence ).

Benefits

MAOIs versus placebo or no treatment:

We found one systematic review (search date 2003, 4 RCTs). It found that MAOIs significantly increased remission rates (see table 1 ) compared with placebo, but found no significant difference in improvement in bulimic symptoms or in depression scores (improvement in bulimic symptoms: 3 RCTs, 138 people; SMD +0.22, 95% CI –0.94 to +1.37; depression scores: 4 RCTs, 156 people; SMD –0.14, 95% CI –0.50 to +0.22).

MAOIs versus psychotherapy:

We found no RCTs.

MAOIs versus pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

We found no RCTs.

Harms

MAOIs versus placebo or no treatment:

The systematic review found no significant difference in treatment withdrawal rates caused by adverse events between MAOIs and placebo (3 RCTs; 15/88 [17%] with MAOIs v 7/87 [8%] with placebo; RR 2.06, 95% CI 0.45 to 9.53).

Comment

MAOIs versus placebo or no treatment:

We identified a second systematic review (search date 2002). It reported no data, but reached the same conclusions as the first review.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

TCAs

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT Compared with placebo: TCAs (desipramine and imipramine) may be more effective at increasing clinical improvement (defined as a reduction of 50% in binge eating episodes) and bulimic symptoms at 11 weeks, but may be no more effective at improving remission rates or depressive symptoms ( very low-quality evidence ). Compared with CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN): Imipramine may be less effective than group-based CBT-BN at increasing binge eating remission rate at 10 weeks. We don't know whether desipramine is more effective than CBT-BN (16 weekly sessions with 2 follow-up sessions) at improving binge eating remission rates or bulimic symptoms (very low-quality evidence). Compared with pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy: We don't know whether imipramine is more effective than imipramine plus group-based CBT-BN in reducing binge eating, or whether desipramine is more effective than desipramine plus CBT-BN (16 weekly sessions with 2 follow-up sessions) at improving binge eating remission rates or bulimic symptoms (very low-quality evidence).

Benefits

TCAs versus placebo:

We found two systematic reviews (search date 2003; 3 RCTs [2 of desipramine, 1 of imipramine], 132 people), and search date 2005, 1 RCT [desipramine]). The first review found a significantly greater clinical improvement (at least 50% reduction in binge eating episodes) and a significant improvement in bulimic symptoms with TCAs after a mean of 11 weeks' treatment compared with placebo (clinical improvement: 2 RCTs, 44 people; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.64; bulimic symptoms: 3 RCTs, 121 people: SMD –0.75, 95% CI –1.12 to –0.38). It found no significant difference in either remission rates (see table 1 ) or improvement in depressive symptoms between TCAs and placebo (data for improvement in depressive symptoms not reported). The second systematic review found one RCT already included within the first systematic review.

TCAs versus CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN):

We found one systematic review (search date 2003), which identified two RCTs. The first RCT compared three treatments: imipramine 200–300 mg daily, group-based CBT-BN, and imipramine plus CBT-BN. It found that CBT-BN increased binge eating remission rate at 10 weeks compared with imipramine (140 people; binge eating remission rate: 50% with CBT-BN v 16% with imipramine; RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.38). The second RCT compared three treatments: desipramine (mean 167 mg/day), CBT-BN (16 weekly sessions with 2 follow-up sessions), and CBT-BN plus desipramine. It found no significant difference in binge eating remission rates or bulimic symptoms between desipramine and CBT-BN (71 people; remission rate: 42% with desipramine v 57% with CBT-BN; RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.62; bulimic symptoms: SMD –0.02, 95% CI –0.72 to +0.68).

TCAs versus pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

See benefits of pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy.

Harms

TCAs versus placebo:

The systematic review found that treatment withdrawal for any cause was more likely with TCAs than with placebo (6 RCTs [2 of desipramine, 4 of imipramine], 277 people; treatment withdrawal for any cause: 29% with TCAs v 14% with placebo; RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.25). We found one RCT examining specific adverse effects. It found a significant increase in reclining and standing pulse rate, and in lying systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as well as in greater orthostatic effects on blood pressure, with desipramine compared with placebo (no data reported). Cardiovascular changes were well tolerated, and few people withdrew because of these effects.

TCAs versus CBT-BN:

The first RCT found no significant difference in withdrawal rate between TCAs and CBT-BN, although confidence intervals were wide, and an effect cannot be ruled out (RR 5.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 49.50). The second RCT found that withdrawal rate was significantly greater with TCAs than with CBT-BN (43% with TCAs v 15% with CBT-BN; RR 2.9, 95% CI 1.22 to 6.89).

TCAs versus pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy:

See harms of pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy.

Comment

We found no consistent predictors of response to treatment. We identified a second systematic review (search date 2002). It identified the same studies as the existing review and found similar results.

Clinical guide:

While there is evidence for efficacy of TCAs, the higher attrition rates indicate that they are likely to be less acceptable to patients than CBT-BN. In clinical practice they are most often used as adjunctive therapy to psychotherapy.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Topiramate

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT Compared with placebo: Topiramate may be more effective at reducing the number of binge and/or purge episodes at 10 weeks ( very low-quality evidence ). QUALITY OF LIFE Compared with placebo: Topiramate may be more effective at improving quality-of-life scores (measured by SF-36) at 10 weeks (very low-quality evidence).

Benefits

Topiramate versus placebo:

We found one RCT. The RCT found that topiramate (250 mg/day) significantly reduced the mean number of binge and/or purge episodes per week after 10 weeks compared with placebo (60 women with bulimia nervosa; mean number of binge and/or purge episodes per week: 4.6 with topiramate v 7.9 with placebo, mean difference: –3.3, 95% CI –4.3 to –2.1). The RCT also found that topiramate significantly improved quality of life on all SF-36 domain scores compared with placebo (P less than 0.001 for physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health domains).

Harms

The RCT reported that no psychotic symptoms, suicidal behaviour, or other “serious” adverse events were observed. There were low rates in both groups of sedation, dizziness, headache, and paraesthesias with topiramate compared with placebo (sedation: 2/30 [7%] with topiramate v 3/30 [10%] with placebo; dizziness: 1/30 [3%] with topiramate v 2/30 [7%] with placebo; headache: 3/30 [10%] with topiramate v 2/30 [7%] with placebo; paraesthesia: 2/30 [7%] with topiramate v 2/30 [7%] with placebo; statistical assessment of adverse events not performed).

Comment

Topiramate is a mood-stabilising anticonvulsant treatment (for partial-onset or primary generalised seizures), and is also used in migraine prophylaxis. In the identified RCT, 11 peope (18%) did not complete treatment, although the reasons were not reported.We found one subsequent systematic review, reporting on harms with topiramate in the context of treatment of obesity. Pooled analysis of weight loss with topiramate versus placebo at 6 months found an additional 6.5% weight loss with topiramate (6 RCTs, 1372 people, RR –6.51, 95% CI –8.25 to –4.77). The most common adverse effects reported were paraesthesias (RR 4.9) and taste "perversion" (RR 9.19). The review was part of a large endemic report,that reported the same meta-analysis results, and commented that adverse events were more common with 192 mg topiramate daily v 96 mg daily, and that the upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI indicated that the rate of serious adverse events could be 6 per 1000. A third systematic reviewdid not list the included RCTs or perform a meta-analysis, and listed serious adverse effects of topiramate in the treatment of epilepsy as: kidney stones, oligohidrosis, and glaucoma; and non-serious adverse effects including parasthaesias, cognitive impairment, and weight loss.

Clinical guide:

Topiramate may have a role in bulimia nervosa treatment, but adverse effects may prove problematic. Long-term outcome is unknown.

Substantive changes

Topiramate New evidence added regarding harms of topiramate in the treatment of obesity; long-term adverse effects of topiramate in bulimia nervosa unknown; categorisation changed (Unknown effectiveness).

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Mirtazapine

Summary

WE FOUND NO DIRECT INFORMATION ABOUT MIRTAZAPINE IN THE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH BULIMIA NERVOSA.

Benefits

We found no RCTs.

Harms

We found no RCTs.

Comment

Mirtazapine is a noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant.

Clinical guide:

Mirtazapine is not an evidence-based treatment in bulimia nervosa and should not be used as a first-line treatment for this condition. It is associated with weight gain, making it problematic for treating people with eating disorders. Where other antidepressants are not tolerated or appropriate, it may be tried on an empirical basis as adjunct to pscyhotherapy.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Reboxetine

Summary

WE FOUND NO DIRECT INFORMATION ABOUT REBOXETINE IN THE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH BULIMIA NERVOSA.

Benefits

We found no RCTs.

Harms

We found no RCTs.

Comment

Reboxetine is a noradrenergic antidepressant.

Clinical guide:

Reboxetine is not an evidence-based treatment in bulimia nervosa and should not be used as a first-line treatment for this condition. Where other antidepressants are not tolerated or appropriate, it may be tried on an empirical basis as adjunct to pscyhotherapy.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Venlafaxine

Summary

WE FOUND NO DIRECT INFORMATION ABOUT VENLAFAXINE IN THE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH BULIMIA NERVOSA.

Benefits

We found no RCTs.

Harms

We found no RCTs.

Comment

Venlafaxine is a serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor.

Clinical guide:

Reboxetine is not an evidence-based treatment in bulimia nervosa and should not be used as a first-line treatment for this condition. Where other antidepressants are not tolerated or appropriate, it may be tried on an empirical basis as adjunct to pscyhotherapy.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy

Summary

SYMPTOM IMPROVEMENT CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN) plus TCAs compared with TCAs alone: We don't know whether imipramine plus group-based CBT-BN is more effective than imipramine alone at reducing binge eating, or whether desipramine plus CBT-BN (16 weekly sessions with 2 follow-up sessions) is more effective than desipramine alone at improving binge eating remission rates or bulimic symptoms ( very low-quality evidence ). CBT-BN plus TCAs compared with CBT-BN alone: CBT-BN plus TCAs seems as effective at improving binge eating remission rates and bulimic symptoms ( moderate-quality evidence ) CBT-BN plus fluoxetine compared with fluoxetine alone: CBT-BN plus fluoxetine may be no more effective at improving binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, and depression scores ( low-quality evidence ). CBT-BN plus fluoxetine compared with CBT-BN alone: CBT-BN plus fluoxetine may be no more effective at improving binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, or depression scores (low-quality evidence). Pure self-help CBT plus fluoxetine compared with fluoxetine alone: Pure self-help CBT plus fluoxetine may be no more effective at improving remission rates (very low-quality evidence). Pure self-help CBT plus fluoxetine compared with self-help CBT alone: Pure self-help CBT plus fluoxetine may be no more effective at improving remission rates in the last 2 weeks of treatment (very low-quality evidence).

Benefits

CBT for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN) plus TCAs versus TCAs alone:

We found two systematic reviews (search date 2003,search date 2005).which identified the same two RCTs. The first RCT compared four treatments: imipramine 200–300 mg daily, group-based CBT-BN, imipramine plus CBT-BN, and placebo. It found that the mean reduction in binge eating was greater with combination treatment than with imipramine alone, although the significance of this difference was not reported (171 people; mean reduction in number of binges per week: 7.7 with combination treatment v 3.6 with imipramine; significance assessment not performed). The second RCT compared three treatments: desipramine (mean 167 mg/day), CBT-BN (16 weekly sessions with 2 follow-up sessions), and CBT-BN plus desipramine. It found no significant difference between combination treatment and TCAs alone at 24 weeks in binge eating remission rates or bulimic symptoms (71 people; remission rate: 42% with TCAs alone v 67% with combination treatment; RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.44; bulimic symptoms: SMD +0.10, 95% CI –0.70 to +0.90).

CBT-BN plus TCAs versus CBT-BN alone:

We found one systematic review, which identified two RCTs . The first RCT (described above) found no significant difference in mean reduction in binge eating rates (number of binges per week) between combination treatment versus CBT-BN plus placebo (171 people; mean reduction in number of binges per week: 7.7 with combination treatment v 8.2 with CBT-BN plus placebo; P = 0.67). The second RCT also found no significant difference after 24 weeks between combination treatment and CBT-BN alone in binge eating remission rates or bulimic symptoms (71 people; remission rate: 44% with CBT-BN v 67% with combination treatment; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.07; bulimic symptoms: SMD +0.09, 95% CI –0.61 to +0.79).

CBT-BN plus fluoxetine versus fluoxetine alone:

We found two systematic reviews, which identified one RCT. The RCT found no significant difference between combination treatment and fluoxetine alone in binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, or depression scores (76 people; remission rate: 15% with fluoxetine v 21% with combination treatment; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.40; bulimic symptoms: SMD +0.09, 95% CI –0.46 to +0.63; depression: SMD 0, 95% CI –0.55 to +0.54).

CBT-BN plus fluoxetine versus CBT-BN alone:

We found two systematic reviews, which identified one RCT. The RCT compared three treatments: CBT-BN alone, fluoxetine alone, and CBT-BN plus fluoxetine. It found no significant difference between combination treatment and CBT-BN alone in binge eating remission rates, bulimic symptoms, and depression score (76 people; remission: 12% with CBT-BN v 21% with combination treatment; RR 1.10, 96% CI 0.87 to 1.40; bulimic symptoms: SMD –0.09, 95% CI –0.74 to +0.36; depression: SMD –0.19, 95% CI –0.74 to +0.36).

Pure self-help CBT plus fluoxetine versus fluoxetine alone:

We found one RCT, which compared four treatments: fluoxetine 60 mg daily alone, fluoxetine plus a self-help CBT manual, placebo plus a self-help manual, and placebo alone. It found similar reductions in remission rates between self-help CBT plus fluoxetine and fluoxetine alone (91 women with bulimia nervosa; remission: 6/21 [26%] with self-help CBT plus fluoxetine v 4/26 [16%] with fluoxetine; RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.60 to 5.73; data provided upon personal communication with author).

Pure self-help CBT plus fluoxetine versus self-help CBT alone:

We found one RCT, which compared four treatments: fluoxetine 60 mg daily alone, fluoxetine plus a self-help CBT manual, placebo plus a self-help CBT manual, and placebo alone. It found no significant difference in remission rates in the last 2 weeks of treatment between pure self-help CBT plus fluoxetine versus pure self-help CBT plus placebo (91 women, 26% v 24% respectively, P greater than 0.15).

Harms

CBT-BN plus TCAs versus TCAs alone:

The first RCT found that TCAs increased withdrawal rate compared with combination treatment, although the difference was not significant (43% with TCAs v 25% with combination treatment; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.99). The second RCT found no significant difference in withdrawal between combination treatment and TCAs alone (25% in both groups; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.00).

CBT-BN plus TCAs versus CBT-BN alone:

The first RCT found no significant difference in withdrawal rates between combination treatment and CBT-BN alone (15% with CBT-BN alone v 25% with combination treatment; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.50). The second RCT also found no significant difference in withdrawal rate between treatments (4% with CBT-BN v 25% with combination treatment; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.50).

CBT-BN plus fluoxetine versus fluoxetine alone:

The RCT identified by the review found no significant difference in withdrawal rates between combination treatment and fluoxetine alone (39% with fluoxetine v 55% with combination treatment; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.30).

CBT-BN plus fluoxetine versus CBT-BN alone:

The RCT identified by the review found no significant difference in withdrawal rates between combination treatment and CBT-BN alone (33% with CBT-BN v 55% with combination treatment; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.16).

Pure self-help CBT plus fluoxetine versus fluoxetine alone:

The RCT did not report on harms.

Pure self-help CBT plus fluoxetine versus self-help CBT alone:

The RCT did not report on harms.

Comment

Modest effect sizes in these analyses may be clinically relevant, but the small number and size of trials limit conclusions.

Clinical guide:

Evidence does not support the use of pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy. In clinical practice pharmacotherapy may be added to psychotherapy as adjunctive treatment to enhance a partial response to treatment.

Substantive changes

Pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy One systematic review added with no new RCTs identified; existing benefits data re-evaluated; combination treatment confers no added benefit compared with either treatment alone; categorisation changed (Unlikely to be beneficial).

BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jun 12;2008:1009.

Discontinuing antidepressants

Summary

WE FOUND NO DIRECT INFORMATION ABOUT DISCONTINUING ANTIDEPRESSANTS IN THE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH BULIMIA NERVOSA.

Benefits

We found no RCTs.

Harms

We found no RCTs.

Comment

We found no RCTs assessing the effects of discontinuing treatment in people with complete abstinence from bingeing. We found one RCT comparing continued treatment with fluoxetine 60 mg daily versus placebo. Results must be interpreted with caution because of high attrition rates, especially during the first 3 months (43% for fluoxetine v 74% for placebo). The RCT found that time to relapse (a return to baseline vomiting frequency for 2 consecutive weeks) was significantly prolonged with fluoxetine compared with placebo at 1 year (time to relapse not reported; P less than 0.02). It found a similar rate of discontinuation caused by relapse in both groups. Rhinitis, however, was significantly more common with fluoxetine than with placebo.

Clinical Guide:

Continuing treatment with antidepressants in treatment responders is likely to prevent relapse, but there is insufficient evidence to support this, and no evidence to support this beyond one year. Provided the medication is well tolerated and no problematic adverse effects emerge, the balance of benefits and harms favours benefit for continuation of fluoxetine.

Substantive changes

Discontinuing antidepressant treatment The single RCT was moved to the comments section because of a high attrition rate, making interpretation problematic; categorisation changed (Unknown effectiveness).


Articles from BMJ Clinical Evidence are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES