CPG for Eating Disorders

esults related with eating disorders a significant difference in favour of FT (p=0.003 top=0.03) was also reported. FT had a statistically significant clinical advantage overFSP after treatment and at 6-months follow-up. There was a reduction of BNsymptoms in the group treated with FT.9.6.2.2. What is the safety of FT (systemic) in patients with BN?Safety of FT is not addressed in the NICE CPG (2004) 30 or in later high-quality SRSE(1++) 31, 211 . Only one RCT has been identified that provides results on this issue. Studies arebriefly described in question 9.6.2.1.Scientific EvidenceIn an RCT (Schmith, 2007) 238 , 28% of young people refused to participate in the studydue to the family’s mandatory involvement, which suggests these patients should beoffered individual therapy.RCT1++Summary of the Evidence(See summary of the evidence for psychological treatment)Recommendations(See recommendations 9.GP.12. to 9.GP.17.)9.6.3. Binge-eating disorder9.6.3.1. What is the efficacy of FT (systemic or unspecified) in patients withBED?There is no evidence in the NICE CPG (2004) 30 , or in later high-quality SRSE 31, 245 . Theupdated search has identified one new RCT.Scientific EvidenceIn an RCT conducted by Schmith, 2007 238 that compared FT (N=31 BN; N=10 EDNOS)and CBT-GSH (N=30 BN; N=14 EDNOS) in adolescents aged 13-20 years with BN orEDNOS over 6 months with a 12-month follow-up, CBT-GSH was more effective atreducing binge-eating at 6 months than FT (p=0.03) even though this differencedisappeared at 12 months. There were no differences between groups in terms of BMI,diet, eating fast and other attitudinal eating disorder symptoms. The direct cost oftreatment was lower for CBT-GSH and no differences were reported in other types ofcosts.RCT1++127CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE FOR EATING DISORDERS