Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 May 23.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Med. 2021 Nov 23;53(7):2789–2797. doi: 10.1017/S003329172100475X

Change in Impulsivity is Prospectively Associated with Treatment Outcomes for Binge-Eating Disorder

Rebecca G Boswell 1,2, Ralitza Gueorguieva 1,3, Carlos M Grilo 1,4
PMCID: PMC9124732  NIHMSID: NIHMS1761725  PMID: 34812713

Abstract

Background:

Impulsivity may be a process underlying BED psychopathology and its treatment. This study examined change in impulsivity during cognitive-behavioral (CBT) and/or pharmacological treatment for binge-eating disorder (BED) and associations with treatment outcomes.

Methods:

108 patients with BED (NFEMALE=84) in a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of CBT and/or fluoxetine were assessed before treatment, monthly throughout treatment, at post-treatment (16 weeks), and at 12-month follow-up after completing treatment. Patients completed established measures of impulsivity, eating-disorder psychopathology, and depression, and were measured for height and weight (to calculate body mass index [BMI]) during repeated assessments by trained/monitored doctoral research-clinicians. Mixed-effects models using all available data examined changes in impulsivity and the association of rapid and overall changes in impulsivity on treatment outcomes. Exploratory analyses examined whether baseline impulsivity predicted/moderated outcomes.

Results:

Impulsivity declined significantly throughout treatment and follow-up across treatment groups. Rapid change in impulsivity and overall change in impulsivity during treatment were significantly associated with reductions in eating-disorder psychopathology, depression scores, and BMI during treatment and at post-treatment. Overall change in impulsivity during treatment was associated with subsequent reductions in depression scores at 12-month follow-up. Baseline impulsivity did not moderate/predict eating-disorder outcomes or BMI but did predict change in depression scores.

Conclusions:

Rapid and overall reductions in impulsivity during treatment were associated with improvements in specific eating-disorder psychopathology and associated general outcomes. These effects were found for both CBT and pharmacological treatment for BED. Change in impulsivity may be an important process prospectively related to treatment outcome.

Keywords: impulsivity, binge-eating disorder, obesity, eating disorders, cognitive-behavioral therapy, treatment, fluoxetine

Binge-eating disorder (BED), the most prevalent eating disorder among adults in the United States (prevalence rate: ~1.0%; Udo & Grilo, 2018), is characterized by recurrent episodes of binge eating (consuming an objectively large amount of food while experiencing a subjective sense of loss of control), with marked distress and without regular, extreme weight-compensatory behaviors (APA, 2013). BED is distributed across sex, ethnic/racial, and age groups and is associated strongly with obesity and with heightened risk for psychiatric/medical comorbidity (Udo & Grilo, 2018, 2019). Although psychological and pharmacological treatments for BED are effective in reducing binge eating (Grilo, 2017; Hilbert et al., 2019), approximately 50% of patients do not achieve abstinence (Linardon, 2018). Accordingly, research on predictors, moderators, and processes of treatment change is essential both to improve treatments and to refine conceptual models of the psychopathology of BED (Kraemer, Wilson, Fairburn, & Agras, 2002).

A candidate process that may influence treatment outcomes for BED is impulsivity. Impulsivity is a multi-dimensional construct reflecting poor reward-related decision-making and a propensity to engage in rash or reward-seeking behavior (Dawe & Loxton, 2004). Impulse-control difficulties have transdiagnostic neurobiological correlates (Bari & Robbins, 2013) and are related to severity of psychopathology (J. M. Berg, Latzman, Bliswise, & Lilenfeld, 2015), including eating psychopathology (Waxman, 2009). Individuals with BED have heightened impulsivity in the context of food (Giel, Teufel, Junne, Zipfel, & Schag, 2017) and in general (Boswell & Grilo, 2020; Boswell, Potenza, & Grilo, 2021; Kober & Boswell, 2018). To determine whether impulsivity might be a target for BED treatment, it will be important to establish whether impulsivity is impacted by treatments for BED and whether changes in impulsivity are associated with treatment outcomes.

To date, very little research has examined the relationship between impulsivity and BED treatment outcomes. Greater impulsivity is associated with poorer treatment outcomes for substance use disorders (Hershberger, Um, & Cyders, 2017), gambling (Mallorqui-Bague et al., 2018), and bariatric surgery (Yeo et al., 2020); findings to date for BED are mixed. In two small pilot studies, baseline self-reported behavioral and brain-based measures of impulsivity were associated with poorer response to BED treatment (Balodis et al., 2014; Manasse et al., 2016). Two other studies, however, reported null associations between baseline impulsivity and treatment outcomes (Anderson et al., 2020; Castellini et al., 2012). Overall, the limited research to date has identified very few reliable patient predictors of outcome and even fewer findings about moderators (Linardon, de la Piedad Garcia, & Brennan, 2017). Identifying patient characteristics at baseline that predict or moderate treatment responses (e.g., for whom specific treatments work better) could inform rational decision-making about prescribing treatments (Grilo, 2017; Wilson, Grilo, & Vitousek, 2007).

Although historically conceptualized as a trait measure and thought to be relatively stable over time, impulsivity changes in both prospective naturalistic studies (McGlashan et al., 2005) and during treatment, including for substance use disorders and obesity (Littlefield et al., 2015; Ross et al., 2020). Because greater impulsivity may interfere with treatment outcomes, reductions in impulsivity during treatment could signal better prognosis. To date, in the sole study with BED that has examined change in impulsivity during pharmacological treatment, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, a pro-drug stimulant medication that improves executive functioning, was associated with reduced self-reported impulsivity (McElroy et al., 2016). In contrast, a pilot study of an impulsivity-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for BED did not produce significant changes in impulsivity (Schag et al., 2019). Despite interest in the role of impulsivity in maintaining eating disorders (Waxman, 2009), no prior work has examined whether changes in impulsivity during treatment predict outcomes for BED (or any eating disorders).

Timing of reductions in impulsivity during treatment might also influence outcomes. Rapid response to treatment is the strongest and most well-established mediator of treatment outcomes across eating disorders (Linardon, Brennan, & de la Piedad Garcia, 2016). In BED, rapid reduction in binge eating (i.e., during the first month of treatment) is reliably associated with better outcomes across psychological and pharmacological treatments (Grilo & Masheb, 2007; Grilo, Masheb, & Wilson, 2006; Grilo, White, Masheb, & Gueorguieva, 2015; Grilo, White, Wilson, Gueorguieva, & Masheb, 2012; Masheb & Grilo, 2007). Prior BED research focused exclusively on rapid reductions in binge eating rather than early/rapid changes in other potentially clinically-relevant variables such as impulsivity. Recent research with bulimia nervosa found that rapid improvements in emotion regulation predicted outcomes (MacDonald & Trottier, 2019; MacDonald, Trottier, & Olmsted, 2017; Peterson et al., 2017).

Examining change in impulsivity as a prospective indicator of treatment outcomes could highlight a transdiagnostic process underlying BED psychopathology and its treatment. This study examined changes in impulsivity during and after treatment with CBT and fluoxetine, alone and together, for BED. Examining changes in impulsivity in these treatments seems indicated for the following reasons. CBT, which has well-established effectiveness for BED (Grilo, 2017), includes structured treatment components (e.g., self-monitoring, regular eating, cognitive reappraisal) that target/reduce binge eating. These CBT-BED based skills, which require practice in planning, problem-solving, and cognitive flexibility, may indirectly generalize to broader behavioral and cognitive aspects of impulsivity. Fluoxetine modulates serotonergic systems implicated in impulsive responding, which is hypothesized to be broadly related to general psychopathology (Carver, Johnson, & Joormann, 2008; Coccaro & Kavoussi, 1997; Walderhaug et al., 2002). However, while fluoxetine has demonstrated effectiveness for depression and bulimia nervosa (Hagan & Walsh, 2021), its effects on impulsivity are less certain (Boswell et al., 2021).

Thus, the specific aims were: (1) To determine whether impulsivity changes during treatment for BED and during follow-up; and (2) To determine whether changes in impulsivity are related to treatment outcomes for BED, including: (a) Does rapid change in impulsivity prospectively influence treatment outcomes?; and (b) Does overall change in impulsivity during treatment influence outcomes? In order to examine the specificity of the effects of changes in impulsivity and include secondary outcomes from existing BED randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we characterized CBT and fluoxetine treatment outcomes broadly by including eating-disorder symptoms and features (i.e., binge eating episodes and global eating-disorder psychopathology), depression scores, and body mass index (BMI) as outcome variables. In doing so, we addressed an additional specific aim: (3) To examine whether the association of change in impulsivity during treatment for BED is specific to eating psychopathology or also related to associated clinical outcomes. Finally, we examined an exploratory aim: (4) Is baseline impulsivity a predictor or moderator of treatment outcomes (Kraemer et al., 2002)?

Methods.

Participants

Participants were 108 adult patients who met DSM-IV-defined BED (APA, 1994), were ≥100% ideal weight, and were consecutively enrolled in a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study examining fluoxetine and CBT, alone and in combination. Detailed study descriptions and outcomes at post-treatment (Grilo, Masheb, & Wilson, 2005) and 12-month follow-up (Grilo, Crosby, Wilson, & Masheb, 2012) have been reported and are therefore summarized briefly below. Study was approved by the Yale institutional review board and all participants provided written informed consent.

Exclusion criteria included any concurrent treatment for eating, weight, or psychiatric problems, current medical conditions that influence eating/weight, current severe psychiatric conditions precluding accurate assessment or requiring alternative treatment, or current pregnancy/breastfeeding. Participants’ mean body mass index (BMI) was 36.3 (SD=7.9) and mean age was 44.0 (Range: 21–59, SD=8.6). The participant group was 89% White, 78% female, and 87% attended/finished college.

Randomization and Treatment

Participants were randomized to one of four treatment conditions in a balanced 2×2 factorial design for 16 weeks: (a) fluoxetine (60mg/day), (b) placebo, (c) CBT+fluoxetine (60mg/day) and (d) CBT+placebo. Randomization followed the consecutive order in which participants completed assessments and were deemed eligible to enroll. Computer-generated randomization schedule was created without stratification in blocks of eight to yield approximately equal allocations across conditions; the schedule was implemented by a research pharmacist separate from the blinded investigators/clinicians. The study medications were given in identical appearing capsules and delivered with minimal clinical management by faculty-level psychiatrists focused on medication regimen and adherence/safety without additional psychotherapeutic interventions. CBT was delivered following manualized protocols in weekly individual sessions by doctoral research-clinicians monitored for adherence. First stage of CBT (7 sessions) focused on psychoeducation about binge eating and specific behavioral strategies (e.g., self-monitoring, problem-solving, regular-eating patterning) to help reduce binge-eating while normalizing eating. Middle stage (6 sessions) included cognitive restructuring (of eating and weight/shape thoughts that maintain binge eating) while continuing to normalize eating patterns. Final stage (3 sessions) focused on maintenance and relapse prevention. Independent (blinded) assessments were performed at baseline, monthly throughout treatment, post-treatment, and 12-month follow-up after completing and discontinuing treatments. Patients in placebo-only condition were not followed after posttreatment because they were offered treatment at that time (Grilo, Crosby, et al., 2012).

Measures

Diagnostic Assessment

BED was determined via Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-Axis I Disorders (SCID-I/P; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1996) and confirmed with Eating Disorder Examination interview (EDE; Fairburn & Cooper, 1993). These diagnostic interviews were administered by doctoral-level research clinicians; interrater reliability was excellent (EDE: Spearman rho=.87–.99; SCID: kappa for BED=1.0).

Baseline and Repeated Measures

Measures were administered at baseline, monthly during treatment, end of treatment (post-treatment), and 12-month follow-up after completing treatments.

Impulsivity Control Scale

Impulsivity Control Scale (ICS; Grosz et al., 1994; Plutchik & van Praag, 1989). ICS is a 15-item self-report measure of impulsivity that conceptually is related to UPPS-P dimensions of positive/negative urgency and sensation-seeking (Verdejo-Garcia, Lozano, Moya, Alcazar, & Perez-Garcia, 2010). ICS has well-established psychometric properties (Grosz et al., 1994); in patients with BED, ICS shows concurrent validity with diagnostic interview-based assessment of impulsivity (Boswell & Grilo, 2020). In this study, ICS had good internal consistency (alpha coefficient (α)=0.75).

Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire

Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q; Fairburn & Beglin, 1993). EDE-Q, the self-report version of the EDE interview, assesses the behavioral/cognitive features of eating-disorder psychopathology. EDE-Q evaluates the frequency of binge-eating episodes and generates a global total score reflecting overall eating-disorder psychopathology severity. EDE-Q converges well with the EDE interview (Grilo, Masheb, & Wilson, 2001a, 2001b) and has excellent reliability in BED samples (K. C. Berg, Peterson, Frazier, & Crow, 2012; Reas, Grilo, & Masheb, 2006). In this study, EDE-Q global scale had good internal consistency (α=.80).

Beck Depression Inventory

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1998). BDI is a 21-item measure of depression symptoms that is psychometrically well-established (Beck et al., 1998). In this study, the BDI had excellent internal consistency (α=.90).

Body Mass Index (BMI).

Body Mass Index (BMI). BMI (kg/m2) was calculated from in-person measured height (at baseline) and weight at baseline and every session throughout the study 12-month follow-up.

Statistical Analyses

Mixed effects models were fit (SAS 9.4) to evaluate changes in impulsivity and associations of those changes in impulsivity with outcomes during treatment and follow-up. Analyses included all participants randomized to treatments with all repeated measures for each individual included in mixed-effects models.

Predictor and Outcome Variables.

Descriptive statistics and distributions were evaluated prior to analyses; no transformations were applied. Predictor (i.e., impulsivity) and outcome variables (i.e., binge-eating episodes, global eating-disorder psychopathology, depression scores, and BMI) were measured continuously. Rapid change in impulsivity was measured via ICS change score following one month of treatment (baseline - month 1). In the case of missing month 1 ICS data, month 2 data was used (N=1). Overall change in impulsivity was measured via ICS change score during treatment (baseline - post). ICS predictor variables were mean-centered. If post data were missing, post value was imputed with last observation carried forward (20% imputed). No imputation was conducted for outcome variables because there was minimal missing outcome data and because mixed models provide unbiased and efficient estimates when data are missing at random. All available data from all available timepoints were included in analyses.

Change in Impulsivity During Treatment and Follow-Up.

Change in impulsivity over time was investigated using two mixed models with measurements during treatment in one model (Model 1A) and measurements during follow-up in another (Model 1B). Fixed effects were time, treatment group, and the interaction. Because individuals in the placebo-only group did not complete follow-up assessments, there were four groups during treatment (fluoxetine, placebo, CBT+fluoxetine, CBT+placebo) and three groups during follow-up (fluoxetine, CBT+fluoxetine, CBT+placebo). The timepoints were baseline, monthly during treatment, and post-treatment (i.e., at 4 months). In the follow-up analyses, timepoints were baseline, post-treatment, and 12-month follow-up. For each model, the best-fitting variance-covariance structure was selected based on Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC). Least square means were compared in post-hoc tests to explain significant effects in the models.

Rapid Change in Impulsivity and Outcomes.

The effects of rapid change in impulsivity on outcomes during treatment and follow-up were tested via two sets of mixed models (referred to as Models 2A and Models 2B, respectively). Models 2A included during treatment timepoints/groups. Models 2B included follow-up timepoints (post, 12-month follow-up) and groups. Outcome variables were included as change scores from baseline by timepoint (baseline – subsequent timepoint). Fixed effects were ICS change score, time, treatment group, and all interactions. The same model-selection process as described above was used.

Change in Impulsivity During Treatment and Outcomes.

The influence of change in impulsivity during treatment on outcomes was investigated using two separate types of models (Models 3A during treatment and Models 3B during follow-up). For Models 3A, change in impulsivity was computed via overall ICS change score (baseline - post) rather than through repeated measures (i.e., effect of time) because of overlapping time-course for predictor and outcome variables. We used a linear model with ICS change score, treatment group and their interaction as predictors and change in the outcome from baseline to post as response. Models 3B were mixed models that investigated change in outcomes from baseline during follow-up (post, 12-month follow-up). Models 3B included fixed effects of ICS change score, time, treatment group, and all interactions. Model selection was based on AIC.

Exploratory Analyses: Baseline Impulsivity.

The association of baseline impulsivity on treatment outcome was examined using two sets of mixed models (Models 4A during treatment; Models 4B during follow-up). Outcome variables were change scores from baseline by timepoint. Fixed effects were baseline impulsivity, time, treatment group, and interactions. The interaction between baseline impulsivity and treatment group was used to test potential moderation effects. Model selection was based on AIC.

Results.

Treatment Completion and Primary Outcomes.

Overall, 80% of randomized patients completed treatment (Grilo et al., 2005). Of patients who completed treatment (excluding placebo-only condition), 71.6% completed 12-month follow-up (Grilo, Crosby, et al., 2012). After treatment, intent-to-treat binge-eating remission rates were: 22% (fluoxetine), 26% (placebo), 50% (CBT+fluoxetine), and 61% (CBT+placebo; Grilo et al., 2005). At 12-month follow-up, remission rates were 3.7% for fluoxetine-only, 26.9% for CBT+fluoxetine, and 35.7% for CBT+placebo (Grilo, Crosby, et al., 2012).

Change in Impulsivity During Treatment and Follow-Up

Figure 1 shows changes in impulsivity over time across the different treatment conditions. Mixed effects models revealed overall significant decreases from baseline to post-treatment across conditions (Model 1A-Time: F(4,86.9)=9.45, p<.001), but no significant differences between the specific treatments (Group; GroupxTime: ps>.34). Analyses revealed a significant main effect of time during follow-up (Model 1B-Time: F(2,59.2)=13.10, p<.001), but no effects of treatment group or interactions (Group; GroupxTime: ps>.65). Across groups, post-hoc analyses revealed significant decreases in impulsivity during treatment and significant increases during follow-up. After Tukey-Kramer adjustment, differences between baseline impulsivity and all subsequent timepoints remained significant (Supplementary Table S1).

Figure 1. Change in Impulsivity During Treatment and Follow-up.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Note. Impulsivity changes from baseline throughout treatment and 12-month follow-up after treatment (effects of Time; Model 1A & 1B). Least squares means and standard errors are represented graphically. CBT = Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; M0 = Baseline, M1 = Month 1; M2 = Month 2; M3 = Month 3; Post = Month 4; 12M F/U = 12 Month Follow-up.

Rapid Change in Impulsivity and Outcomes

Binge Eating Frequency.

Mixed effects models revealed a significant three-way interaction between impulsivity, group, and time (Model 2A- ICSxGroupxTime: F(9,208)=1.92, p=.05) and a significant interaction between ICS and time (Model 2A- ICSxTime: F(3,208)=3.07, p=.03). However, none of the slopes describing the relationship between impulsivity and binge eating by treatment group and time point or by time point were statistically significant (ps>.06).

Eating-Disorder Psychopathology.

Mixed-model analyses revealed that rapid reduction in impulsivity was significantly associated with subsequent reduction in eating-disorder psychopathology during treatment (Model 2A- ICS: F(1,92.3)=5.64, p=.02), but not during follow-up (Model 2B- ICS: F(1,62.3)=0.04, p=.84; Figure 2). During follow-up, analyses revealed an interaction between ICS and time, but the slopes were not significantly different from zero in post-hoc tests (Model 2B- ICSxTime: F(1,51.1)=10.25, p=.002; Supplementary Table S2).

Figure 2. Rapid Change in Impulsivity and Treatment Outcomes.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Note. Values represent slope of the association between rapid change in impulsivity (baseline – month 1) and change in outcome for the respective timepoint (Models 2A & 2B). Slope is expected change in outcome per unit change in impulsivity. Significant slopes are different than 0 (see Supplementary Table S2). Error bars depict standard error.

Y-Axis: b-value representing slope of the effect of rapid change in impulsivity on change in outcome variables; X-Axis: Time. M1 = Month 1; M2 = Month 2; M3 = Month 3; Post = Month 4; 12M F/U = 12 Month Follow-up; ED Psychopathology = Eating Disorder Psychopathology.

Depression Scores.

In mixed-model analyses, rapid reduction in impulsivity was significantly associated with subsequent reduction in depression scores during treatment; these relationships were non-significant during follow-up (Model 2A- ICS: F(1,90.7)=11.13, p=.001; Model 2B- ICS: F(1,64)=3.81, p=.055; Figure 2). Analyses also showed significant interactions between ICS, group, and time during treatment but not follow-up (ICSxGroupxTime: F(9,77.5)=2.95, p=.005; Model 2B- ICSxGroupxTime: F(2,51.2)=2.94, p=.06; other ps>.06). Post-hoc tests revealed that the relationship between rapid reduction in impulsivity and subsequent reduction in depression scores was significant in the fluoxetine and CBT+fluoxetine groups. There were no significant differences between slopes by treatment condition (ps>.17; Supplementary Table S3).

BMI.

In mixed-model analyses, rapid reduction in impulsivity was associated with subsequent reduction in BMI during treatment (Model 2A- ICS: F(1,88.2)=7.38, p=.008) but not during follow-up (Model 2B- ICS: F(1,59.3)=1.06, p=.31; Figure 2).

Change in Impulsivity During Treatment and Outcomes

Binge-Eating Frequency.

There were no main or interactive effects of change in impulsivity during treatment on change in binge eating during treatment or follow-up (ICS: ps>.45).

Eating-Disorder Psychopathology.

Reductions in impulsivity during treatment were significantly associated with reductions in eating-disorder psychopathology during treatment and follow-up (Model 3A- ICS: b =2.38, p=.03; Model 3B- F(1,63.5)=5.38, p=.02; Figure 3). The analyses revealed a significant interaction between ICS and Time (Model 3B- ICSxTime: F(1,54.4)=11.77, p=.001), but no other interactions (ps>.32). This reflected a relationship between reduction in impulsivity during treatment and reductions in eating-disorder psychopathology at post-treatment, but not follow-up (post: b=2.51, t(62.8)=4.09, p<.001; 12-month follow-up: p=.79).

Figure 3. Change in Impulsivity During Treatment and Treatment Outcomes.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Note. Values represent slopes of the association between change in impulsivity (baseline - post) and change in outcome for the respective timepoint (Models 3B). Positive values at post are greater than zero, indicating significant effects of decrease in impulsivity during treatment on outcomes (see Supplementary Table S4). Slope is expected change in outcome per unit change in impulsivity. Error bars depict standard errors.

Y-Axis: b-value representing slope of the effect of change in impulsivity during treatment on change in outcome variables; X-Axis: Time. Post = Month 4; 12M F/U = 12 Month Follow-up; ED Psychopathology = Eating Disorder Psychopathology.

Depression Scores.

Reductions in impulsivity during treatment were associated with reductions in depression scores at post-treatment and at 12-month follow-up (Model 3A- ICS: b=1.11, p=.004; Model 3B- ICS: F(1,65.1)=14.48, p<.001; Figure 3; Supplementary Table S4).

BMI.

There was an interaction between ICS and Time, reflecting a significant relationship between reduction in impulsivity during treatment and reduction in BMI at post-treatment but not during follow-up (Model 3B- ICSxTime: F(1,47)=5.44, p=.02; Supplementary Table S4/S5).

Exploratory Analyses: Baseline Impulsivity.

Binge-Eating Frequency.

There were no main effects of baseline impulsivity, nor interactions between baseline impulsivity and treatment group, for binge-eating outcomes (Model 4A- ICS: F(1,107)=0.67, p=.41; ICSxGroup: F(3,106)=2.51, p=.06; Model 4B- ICS: F(1,72)=1.67, p=.20; ICSxGroup: F(2,71.4)=1.04, p=.36; Supplementary Table S5).

Eating-Disorder Psychopathology.

Baseline impulsivity did not predict or moderate treatment effects for eating-disorder psychopathology outcomes during treatment or follow-up (Model 4A- ICS: F(1,101)=0.01, p=.91; ICSxGroup: F(3,100)=0.61, p=.61; Model 4B- ICS: F(1,68.4)=0.00, p=.99; ICSxGroup: F(2,67.6)=0.28, p=.75).

Depression Scores.

Higher baseline impulsivity was associated with greater change in depression scores during treatment and follow-up (Model 4A- ICS: F(1,98.4)=4.38, p=.04; Model 4B- ICS: F(1,67.8)=6.41, p=.01). Additionally, there was a significant interaction between baseline impulsivity and treatment group during treatment and follow-up (Model 4A- ICSxGroup: F(3,98)=4.06, p=.009; Model 4B- ICSxGroup: F(2,67.2)=3.13, p=.05), explained by greater baseline impulsivity being significantly associated with greater change in depression scores in the CBT+Fluoxetine group but not in the other groups (Supplementary Table S6).

BMI.

Greater baseline impulsivity was not associated with change in BMI (Model 4A- ICS: F(1,93)=3.79, p=.06; Model 4B- ICS: F(1,68)=0.02, p=.88; other ps>.14).

Discussion.

The present study examined the effects of rapid and overall change in impulsivity on BED outcomes achieved with CBT and fluoxetine treatments. Across treatment conditions, impulsivity declined during treatment and remained at lower levels than baseline during 12 months of follow-up. Change in impulsivity was significantly associated with initial treatment outcomes. Rapid reductions in impulsivity were prospectively associated with reductions in eating-disorder psychopathology, depression scores, and BMI during treatment, but not with reductions in binge eating. Additionally, the relationship between change in impulsivity during treatment and depression scores persisted to 12-month follow-up. Baseline impulsivity neither predicted nor moderated treatment effects on eating-disorder outcomes or BMI. Collectively, these results suggest that change in impulsivity may be an important outcome and process underlying outcomes of CBT and fluoxetine treatments for BED, and that this process may be associated with longer-term psychological changes.

The significant reductions in impulsivity following treatments for BED were sustained 12 months after treatment. CBT, fluoxetine, and their combination were associated with significant reductions in impulsivity from baseline that persisted through 12-month follow-up. One previous treatment study for BED reported reductions in impulsivity during 11 weeks of treatment with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (McElroy et al., 2016). Our findings extend those to different interventions (CBT and fluoxetine alone and in combination) and suggest that the changes are largely durable, as they were maintained for 12 months after discontinuing the acute treatments.

Reductions in impulsivity during treatment were observed across all treatment conditions including placebo (although a non-significant trend versus placebo was observed). Such findings might suggest that psychological and pharmacological treatments that do not specifically target impulsivity, including even a non-specific placebo treatment, may result in reduced impulsivity. These findings are consistent with previously-observed reductions in impulsivity following bariatric surgery (Sarwer et al., 2019) and varied treatments for other forms of psychopathology (Hershberger et al., 2017; Littlefield et al., 2015; Peckham, Forgeard, Hsu, Beard, & Bjorgvinsson, 2019; Reese, Conway, Anand, Bauer, & Daughters, 2019).

Our findings that changes in impulsivity were associated with broad treatment outcomes for BED echo recent work with patients being treated for substance use disorder that changes in distress tolerance were associated with outcomes (Reese et al., 2019). These findings perhaps clarify further the mixed findings from prior research on baseline impulsivity as a predictor of treatment outcomes for BED (Balodis et al., 2014; Manasse et al., 2016 ; c.f., Anderson et al., 2020; Castellini et al., 2012) by suggesting that impulsivity can decrease and, in those cases, the decreases predict improvements associated with treatments for BED even when baseline impulsivity does not. Because impulsive behaviors share neurobiological correlates (Bari & Robbins, 2013) and are observed across forms of psychopathology (J. M. Berg et al., 2015), change in impulsivity could be a transdiagnostic indicator of improvement during treatment across disorders. Future work should establish the consistency, specificity, timeline, and neurobiological mechanisms of changes in impulsivity and their relationships with BED treatment and outcomes.

Analyses revealed potential relationships between impulsivity and secondary outcome variables for BED (i.e., depression scores, BMI). Although CBT conditions had the greatest reduction in depression scores during the treatment study (Grilo, Crosby, et al., 2012; Grilo et al., 2005), the present analyses revealed stronger relationships between change in impulsivity and depression scores in patients who received fluoxetine, which may indicate that fluoxetine reduced both impulsivity and depressive symptoms in some individuals. Exploratory analyses also showed stronger relationships between baseline impulsivity and depression scores in patients who received CBT + fluoxetine, suggesting that individuals with greater baseline impulsivity may derive this specific benefit from combination treatment. Further, although these treatments did not produce significant overall reductions in BMI (Grilo, Crosby, et al., 2012; Grilo et al., 2005), a well-known challenge in most treatment outcome studies for BED (Grilo, 2017; Hilbert et al., 2020), the present analyses revealed that change in impulsivity was associated with change in BMI and future research should investigate this finding further.

Our findings should be considered in the context of potential study limitations/strengths. The participants were predominantly female, White, and well-educated, and findings may not generalize to groups with different characteristics or to those who seek treatment in different types of clinical settings. Study design did not allow for including participants from the placebo condition in the follow-up analyses, which reduced the overall follow-up sample-size and precluded analyses of longer-term changes in impulsivity in those who received placebo. Additionally, the predictor/moderator analyses were exploratory in nature and thus should be interpreted cautiously. Potential strengths include the rigorous RCT design, different treatments delivered through standardized protocols, psychometrically-established assessments performed by independent assessors, and rigorous statistical analyses examining multiple aspects of change in impulsivity and outcomes through 12-month follow-ups.

With the study’s limitations/strengths as context, we cautiously offer clinical implications. Change in impulsivity may be a non-specific process that is prospectively associated with changes in some clinical outcomes in those receiving treatment for BED. Even if non-specific, active monitoring of the rate of change in impulsivity during treatment could help to inform timely interventions. The observed trend towards an increase in impulsivity during follow-up suggests potential utility of clinical and research work targeting risk for relapse. Alternatively, if change in impulsivity is found to be directly related to clinical improvement, incorporating impulsivity into conceptualizations of BED could refine treatments (Balodis, Grilo, & Potenza, 2015; Boswell & Grilo, 2020; Boswell & Kober, 2016; Hutson, Balodis, & Potenza, 2018). Targeting impulsivity more specifically, including through specific pharmacological agents (McElroy et al., 2016), brief skills training (Boswell, Sun, Suzuki, & Kober, 2018), and impulsivity-focused augmented treatment (Schag et al., 2019) could help speed the rate at which impulsivity changes or improve the durability of these changes, and thereby enhance BED treatment outcomes.

Supplementary Material

supplementary materials

Financial Support

This research was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant R01 DK49587 (Dr. Grilo). The authors were also supported, in part, by NIH grants (awarded to Dr. Grilo) R01 DK121551, R01 DK114075, and R01 DK112771. The funders played no role in the content of this paper.

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest

The authors (Boswell, Gueorguieva, and Grilo) report no conflicts of interest. Drs. Grilo and Gueorguieva report several broader interests which did not influence this research or paper. During the past 12 months, Dr. Grilo’s broader interests include Honoraria for lectures and CME activities and Royalties from Guilford Press and Taylor & Francis Publishers for academic books. Dr. Gueorguieva discloses consulting for Cohen Veterans Biosciences and a provisional patent submission by Yale University: Chekroud, AM., Gueorguieva, R., & Krystal, JH. “Treatment Selection for Major Depressive Disorder” [filing date 3rd June 2016, USPTO docket number Y0087.70116US00], and Royalties from Taylor & Francis for an academic book.

References

  1. Anderson LM, Smith KM, Schaefer LM, Crosby RD, Cao L, Engel SG, … Peterson CB (2020). Predictors and moderators of treatment outcome in a randomized clinical trial for binge-eating disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 88(7), 631–642. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. APA. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed). Washington, D.C. : American Psychiatric Association. [Google Scholar]
  3. APA. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. [Google Scholar]
  4. Balodis IM, Grilo CM, Kober H, Worhunsky PD, White MA, Stevens MC, … Potenza MN (2014). A pilot study linking reduced fronto-Striatal recruitment during reward processing to persistent bingeing following treatment for binge-eating disorder. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 47(4), 376–384. doi: 10.1002/eat.22204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Balodis IM, Grilo CM, & Potenza MN (2015). Neurobiological features of binge eating disorder. CNS Spectrums, 20(6), 557–565. doi: 10.1017/S1092852915000814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bari A, & Robbins TW (2013). Inhibition and impulsivity: behavioral and neural basis of response control. Progress in Neurobiology, 108, 44–79. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Beck AT, Steer R, & Garbin M (1998). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: 25 years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77–100. doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(88)90050-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Berg JM, Latzman RD, Bliswise NG, & Lilenfeld LR (2015). Parsing the heterogeneity of impulsivity: A meta-analytic review of the behavioral implications of the UPPS for psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1129–1146. doi: 10.1037/pas0000111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Berg KC, Peterson CB, Frazier P, & Crow SJ (2012). Psychometric evaluation of the eating disorder examination and eating disorder examination-questionnaire: a systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 45(3), 428–438. doi: 10.1002/eat.20931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Boswell RG, & Grilo CM (2020). General Impulsivity in Binge-Eating Disorder. CNS Spectrums. 26(5), 538–544. doi: 10.1017/S1092852920001674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Boswell RG, & Kober H (2016). Food cue reactivity and craving predict eating and weight gain: a meta-analytic review. Obesity Reviews, 17(2), 159–177. doi: 10.1111/obr.12354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Boswell RG, Potenza MN, & Grilo CM (2021). The Neurobiology of Binge-Eating Disorder Compared with Obesity: Implications for Differential Therapeutics. Clinical Therapeutics. 43(1), 50–69. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Boswell RG, Sun W, Suzuki S, & Kober H (2018). Training in cognitive strategies reduces eating and improves food choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A. 115(48), E11238–E11247. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1717092115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Carver CS, Johnson SL, & Joormann J (2008). Serotonergic Function, Two-Mode Models of Self-Regulation, and Vulnerability to Depression: What Depression Has in Common With Impulsive Aggression. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 912–943. doi: 10.1037/a0013740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Castellini G, Mannucci E, Lo Sauro C, Benni L, Lazzeretti L, Ravaldi C, … Ricca V (2012). Different moderators of cognitive-behavioral therapy on subjective and objective binge eating in bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder: a three-year follow-up study. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 81(1), 11–20. doi: 10.1159/000329358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Coccaro EF, & Kavoussi RJ (1997). Fluoxetine and Impulsive Aggressive Behavior in Personality-Disordered Subjects. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54(12), 1081–1088. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830240035005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dawe S, & Loxton NJ (2004). The role of impulsivity in the development of substance use and eating disorders. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Review, 28(3), 343–351. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fairburn CG, & Beglin SJ (1993). Assessment of Eating Disorders: Interview or Self-Report Questionnaire? International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16(4), 363–370. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fairburn CG, & Cooper Z (1993). The Eating Disorder Examination (12th edition). In Fairburn GTWCG (Ed.), Binge eating: nature, assessment, and treatment. (pp. 317–360). New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. First MB, Gibbon M, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, & Benjamin LS (1996). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I). New York, NY: New York State Psychiatric Institute, Biometrics Research Department. [Google Scholar]
  21. Giel KE, Teufel M, Junne F, Zipfel S, & Schag K (2017). Food-related impulsivity in obesity and binge eating disorder- a systematic update of the evidence. Nutrients, 9(11), 1170. doi: 10.3390/nu9111170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Grilo CM (2017). Psychological and behavioral treatments for binge-eating disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 78(Suppl1), 20–24. doi: 10.4088/JCP.sh16003su1c.04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Grilo CM, Crosby RD, Wilson GT, & Masheb RM (2012). 12-month follow-up of fluoxetine and cognitive behavioral therapy for binge eating disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clincial Psychology, 80(6), 1108–1113. doi: 10.1037/a0030061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Grilo CM, & Masheb RM (2007). Rapid response predicts binge eating and weight loss in binge eating disorder: findings from a controlled trial of orlistat with guided self-help cognitive behavioral therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(11), 2537–2550. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2007.05.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Grilo CM, Masheb RM, & Wilson GT (2001a). A comparison of different methods for assessing the features of eating disorders in patients with binge eating disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clincial Psychology, 69(2), 317–322. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.69.2.317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Grilo CM, Masheb RM, & Wilson GT (2001b). Different methods for assessing the features of eating disorders in patients with binge eating disorder: a replication. Obesity Research, 9(7), 418–422. doi: 10.1038/oby.2001.55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Grilo CM, Masheb RM, & Wilson GT (2005). Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and fluoxetine for the treatment of binge eating disorder: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled comparison. Biological Psychiatry, 57(3), 301–309. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Grilo CM, Masheb RM, & Wilson GT (2006). Rapid response to treatment for binge eating disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clincial Psychology, 74(3), 602–613. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.602 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Grilo CM, White MA, Masheb RM, & Gueorguieva R (2015). Predicting meaningful outcomes to medication and self-help treatments for binge-eating disorder in primary care: The significance of early rapid response. Journal of Consulting and Clincial Psychology, 83(2), 387–394. doi: 10.1037/a0038635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Grilo CM, White MA, Wilson GT, Gueorguieva R, & Masheb RM (2012). Rapid response predicts 12-month post-treatment outcomes in binge-eating disorder: theoretical and clinical implications. Psychological Medicine, 42(4), 807–817. doi: 10.1017/S0033291711001875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Grosz DE, Lipschitz DS, Sofia E, Finkelstein G, Blackwood N, Gerbino-Rosen G, … Plutchik R (1994). Correlates of violence risk in hospitalized adolescents. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 35, 296–300. doi: 10.1016/0010-440x(94)90022-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hagan KE, & Walsh BT (2021). State of the Art: The Therapeutic Approaches to Bulimia Nervosa. Clinical Therapeutics, 43(1), 40–49. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.10.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hershberger AR, Um M, & Cyders MA (2017). The relationship between the UPPS-P impulsive personality traits and substance use psychotherapy outcomes: A meta-analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 178, 408–416. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.05.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hilbert A, Petroff D, Herpertz S, Pietrowsky R, Tuschen-Caffier B, Vocks S, & Schmidt R (2019). Meta-analysis of the efficacy of psychological and medical treatments for binge-eating disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clincial Psychology, 87(1), 91–105. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hutson PH, Balodis IM, & Potenza MN (2018). Binge-eating disorder: Clinical and therapeutic advances. Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 182, 15–27. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2017.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kober H, & Boswell RG (2018). Potential psychological & neural mechanisms in binge eating disorder: Implications for treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 60, 32–44. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kraemer HC, Wilson GT, Fairburn CG, & Agras WS (2002). Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(10), 877–838. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.59.10.877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Linardon J (2018). Rates of abstinence following psychological or behavioral treatments for binge-eating disorder: Meta-analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 51(8), 785–797. doi: 10.1002/eat.22897 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Linardon J, Brennan L, & de la Piedad Garcia X (2016). Rapid response to eating disorder treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 49(10), 905–919. doi: 10.1002/eat.22595 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Linardon J, de la Piedad Garcia X, & Brennan L (2017). Predictors, Moderators, and Mediators of Treatment Outcome Following Manualised Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy for Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review. European Eating Disorders Review, 25(1), 3–12. doi: 10.1002/erv.2492 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Littlefield AK, Stevens AK, Cunningham S, Jones RE, King KM, Schumacher JA, & Coffey SF (2015). Stability and change in multi-method measures of impulsivity across residential addictions treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 42, 126–129. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. MacDonald DE, & Trottier K (2019). Rapid improvements in emotion regulation predict eating disorder psychopathology and functional impairment at 6-month follow-up in individuals with bulimia nervosa and purging disorder. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 52(8), 962–967. doi: 10.1002/eat.23117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. MacDonald DE, Trottier K, & Olmsted MP (2017). Rapid improvements in emotion regulation predict intensive treatment outcome for patients with bulimia nervosa and purging disorder. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50(10), 1152–1161. doi: 10.1002/eat.22766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Mallorqui-Bague N, Mestre-Bach G, Lozano-Madrid M, Fernandez-Aranda F, Granero R, Vintro-Alcazaz C, … Jimenez-Murcia S (2018). Trait impulsivity and cognitive domains involving impulsivity and compulsivity as predictors of gambling disorder treatment response. Addictive Behaviors, 87, 169–176. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Manasse SM, Espel HM, Schumacher LM, Kerrigan SG, Zhang F, Forman EM, & Juarascio AS (2016). Does impulsivity predict outcome in treatment for binge eating disorder? A multimodal investigation. Appetite, 105, 172–179. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Masheb RM, & Grilo CM (2007). Rapid response predicts treatment outcomes in binge eating disorder: implications for stepped care. Journal of Consulting and Clincial Psychology, 75(4), 639–644. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.4.639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. McElroy SL, Mitchell JE, Wilfley D, Gasior M, Ferreira-Cornwell MC, McKay M, … Hudson JI (2016). Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate Effects on Binge Eating Behaviour and Obsessive-Compulsive and Impulsive Features in Adults with Binge Eating Disorder. European Eating Disorders Review, 24(3), 223–231. doi: 10.1002/erv.2418 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. McGlashan TH, Grilo CM, Sanislow CA, Ralevski E, Morey LC, Gunderson JG, … Pagano ME (2005). Two-Year Prevalence and Stability of Individual DSM-IV Criteria for Schizotypal, Borderline, Avoidant, and Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorders: Toward a Hybrid Model of Axis II Disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(5), 883–889. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.5.883 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Peckham AD, Forgeard M, Hsu KJ, Beard C, & Bjorgvinsson T (2019). Turning the UPPS down: Urgency predicts treatment outcome in a partial hospitalization program. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 88, 70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2018.11.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Peterson CB, Berg KC, Crosby RD, Lavender JM, Accurso EC, Ciao AC, … Wonderlich SA (2017). The effects of psychotherapy treatment on outcome in bulimia nervosa: Examining indirect effects through emotion regulation, self-directed behavior, and self-discrepancy within the mediation model. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50(6), 636–647. doi: 10.1002/eat.22669 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Plutchik R, & van Praag HM (1989). The measurement of suicidality, aggressivity, and impulsivity. Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 13, S23–S34. doi: 10.1016/0278-5846(89)90107-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Reas DL, Grilo CM, & Masheb RM (2006). Reliability of the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire in patients with binge eating disorder. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 44(1), 43–51. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Reese ED, Conway CC, Anand D, Bauer DJ, & Daughters SB (2019). Distress tolerance trajectories following substance use treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clincial Psychology, 87(7), 645–656. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Ross KM, Eastman A, Ugwoaba UA, Demos KE, Lillis J, & Wing RR (2020). Food reward sensitivity, impulsivity, and weight change during and after a 3-month weight loss program. PLoS One, 15(12), e0243530. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243530 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sarwer DB, Allison KC, Wadden TA, Ashare R, Spitzer JC, McCuen-Wurst C, … Wu J (2019). Psychopathology, disordered eating, and impulsivity as predictors of outcomes of bariatric surgery. Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases, 15(4), 650–655. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2019.01.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Schag K, Rennhak SK, Leehr EJ, Skoda EM, Becker S, Bethge W, … Giel KE (2019). IMPULS: Impulsivity-Focused Group Intervention to Reduce Binge Eating Episodes in Patients with Binge Eating Disorder - A Randomised Controlled Trial. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 88(3), 141–153. doi: 10.1159/000499696 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Udo T, & Grilo CM (2018). Prevalence and Corrleates of DSM-5-Defined Eating Disorders in a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. Adults. Biological Psychiatry, 84(5), 345–354. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.03.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Udo T, & Grilo CM (2019). Psychiatric and medical correlates of DSM-5 eating disorders in a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 52(1), 42–50. doi: 10.1002/eat.23004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Verdejo-Garcia A, Lozano O, Moya M, Alcazar MA, & Perez-Garcia M (2010). Psychometric properties of a Spanish version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale: reliability, validity, and association with trait and cognitive impulsivity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(1), 70–77. doi: 10.1080/00223890903382369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Walderhaug E, Lunde H, Nordvik JE, Landrø N, Refsum H, & Magnusson A (2002). Lowering of serotonin by rapid tryptophan depletion increases impulsiveness in normal individuals. Psychopharmacology, 164(4), 385–391. doi: 10.1007/s00213-002-1238-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Waxman SE (2009). A systematic review of impulsivity in eating disorders. European Eating Disorders Review, 17(6), 408–425. doi: 10.1002/erv.952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Wilson GT, Grilo CM, & Vitousek KM (2007). Psychological treatment of eating disorders. American Psychologist, 62(3), 199–216. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.62.3.199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Yeo D, Toh A, Yeo C, Low G, Yeo JZ, Aung MO, … Kaushal S (2020). The impact of impulsivity on weight loss after bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Eating and Weight Disorders. 26(2), 425–438. doi: 10.1007/s40519-020-00890-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

supplementary materials
NIHMS1761725-supplement-supplementary_materials.docx (41.7KB, docx)

RESOURCES