Reported trial results for Eating Disorders
Every Eating Disorders trial Voxsanity tracks that has reported results to a public registry, newest first. These trials have finished, so they are not recruiting. Not medical advice.
44 trials have reported results.
AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI
-
NCT04038190 · results posted 28 May 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 572 university students — 287 in a programme called Behavioural Activation (BA) and 285 in a standard orientation control group (SO). The trial was measuring alcohol use and related problems, as well as depression and binge eating, across several points in time: at the start, mid-semester, end of semester, five months later, and (for some participants) seventeen months later. Completion rates were high early on but dropped notably at the later follow-up points, with around 155–206 participants completing the five-month check-in and 121–155 completing the seventeen-month check-in. The reported data shows that on the main alcohol measures, scores in both groups were fairly close throughout the study. For the AUDIT-C (a 0–12 scale where higher numbers suggest riskier drinking patterns), the BA group started at about 2.93 and rose to about 3.62 by the final time point, while the SO group started at about 2.57 and reached about 3.11. For alcohol-related problems (scored 0–28), the BA group moved from roughly 0.94 to 2.16, and the SO group from roughly 1.12 to 1.60. The proportion of participants flagged as potentially hazardous drinkers (scoring 8 or above on the full AUDIT scale) was reported as ranging from about 21% to 32% in the BA group and 16% to 26% in the SO group across the time points. The rate of very high-intensity drinking days was very low in both groups throughout — generally around 0.002 to 0.007 of all days measured. The reported data shows that on the secondary measures, depression scores (0–21 scale, higher meaning more symptoms) were similar between groups, ranging from about 3.05 to 4.00 in the BA group and 3.23 to 4.23 in the SO group. Binge eating scores (0–32 scale, higher meaning more frequent) started around 7.24 (BA) and 6.54 (SO) at baseline and were reported at roughly 6.69 and 5.71 respectively at the final time point. The data as submitted does not include statistical comparison results (such as whether any differences between the two groups were considered meaningful), so no such figures can be reported here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT05499676 · results posted 5 May 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 90 people in total — 30 in each of three groups. One group received treatment as usual (meaning they were referred to standard care), one group used a mobile app with coaching support, and a third group used the same mobile app with coaching support plus a social networking feature. The trial tracked participants over roughly nine months, measuring things like eating disorder-related thoughts and behaviours, body mass index (BMI), depression, and how much daily life was being affected by eating disorder symptoms. The reported data shows that on the main measure — a questionnaire that scores eating disorder-related thoughts and feelings on a scale from 0 to 6, where higher means more severe — all three groups started with scores in the range of 3.5 to 3.8 at the beginning of the trial. By the nine-month point, scores across all three groups had moved to around 3.1 to 3.3. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that the number of participants reporting any eating-related behaviours, depression questionnaire scores, and scores on a measure of how much eating disorder symptoms disrupted daily life also shifted across all three groups over the course of the study, with no single group showing a dramatically different pattern from the others based on the numbers as reported. BMI figures, measured via a digital scale during video calls, remained broadly similar across all groups and time points, ranging from approximately 20.5 to 22.9 kg/m². Rehospitalisation data was not reported for all time points, but the data was not reported in a way that would allow further comparison to be drawn. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05753410 · results posted 16 April 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 32 people took part in a single-group trial of a program called "Mindful Courage," with 30 completing it and 2 not finishing. The trial was primarily measuring whether the program was feasible to complete and whether participants found it acceptable. It also tracked changes in eating disorder symptoms, difficulties managing emotions, body dissatisfaction, and beliefs around "savouring" — that is, the ability to appreciate and enjoy positive experiences. The reported data shows that, on average, participants completed 87.8% of the program's modules. On the acceptability scale (where 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest), the average rating across items such as usability, understandability, and helpfulness was 4.28 out of 5. For the secondary measures, which looked at changes from before to after the program, the reported data shows an average change of −1.42 points on the eating disorder symptoms scale (which runs from 0 to 6), −0.40 points on the emotion difficulties scale (which runs from 1 to 5), and −26.47 points on the body dissatisfaction scale (which runs from 34 to 204) — in each case, a lower score indicates fewer difficulties. The savouring beliefs score showed an average change of +1.30 points (on a scale ranging from −72 to 72), where a higher score reflects stronger savouring beliefs. No comparison group data was reported, as this was a single-arm study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04636840 · results posted 9 March 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 148 young people in total — 51 in a group that used a mobile app with a social networking feature (Group A), 48 in a group that used the mobile app alone (Group B), and 49 in a control group. The trial was measuring eating disorder thoughts and behaviours, quality of life, depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and time spent using the app, across four points in time: the start of the study, at six weeks, at three months, and at six months. The reported data shows that eating disorder symptom scores (measured on a scale of 0–6, where higher means more severe) started similarly across all three groups — around 3.7 to 3.9 — and were lower by the six-month mark in all groups: 2.54 for Group A, 2.57 for Group B, and 2.78 for the control group. For quality of life (measured 0–100, where higher means fewer problems), scores started in the low-to-mid 50s across all groups and were reported as higher at six months: 65.36 for Group A, 61.47 for Group B, and 56.39 for the control group. Depression symptom scores (0–24, higher means more severe) started around 14–15 across all groups and were lower at six months: 9.65, 10.32, and 10.68 respectively. Anxiety scores (0–82, higher means more severe) also started higher and were reported as lower at six months across all groups: 34.30, 36.89, and 42.97. The reported data also shows that among participants who logged in at least once, Group A spent an average of 3,003 seconds on the app in total, Group B spent 2,520.5 seconds, and the control group spent 1,490 seconds. It is important to note that these numbers describe what was recorded at each point in time — they do not on their own tell us whether any one group changed more than another, or why scores may have changed. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04409457 · results posted 14 January 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved two main groups: 51 people with bulimia nervosa and 49 people without the condition (healthy controls) who went through an initial screening phase. After screening, those who were eligible were randomly assigned to complete two brain-scanning sessions — one after fasting and one after eating a meal — in different orders. In total, 33 participants with bulimia nervosa and 35 healthy controls completed the screening, and around 16–17 people per group went on to complete the randomised scanning sessions. The trial was measuring brain activity in areas linked to self-control (specifically a network involving the front of the brain and deeper brain structures), looking at how that activity changed depending on whether someone had eaten or was fasting, and whether patterns differed between people with and without bulimia nervosa. The reported data shows that brain activity was measured using a signal called BOLD (which reflects blood flow changes linked to brain activity — a common measure in brain-scanning research). Across several primary measures — including how the brain responds when preparing to stop an action, how it responds to unexpected outcomes, and how it responds when successfully holding back a response — the reported BOLD signal values were generally small and close to zero for all groups, ranging roughly from around -0.16 to +0.21 across conditions. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that participants with bulimia nervosa took on average about 164–171 milliseconds to react before failing to stop a response, compared to about 152–167 milliseconds for healthy controls (higher numbers mean it took slightly longer). The reported data also shows that both groups successfully held back their responses on roughly 53–57% of "stop" trials across fasted and fed conditions. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03946111 · results posted 17 December 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03946111) enrolled a very small number of participants — 1 person in the naltrexone/bupropion (combination medication) group and 2 people in the placebo (inactive treatment) group, and all 3 completed the study. The trial was measuring two main things: how often binge-eating episodes occurred over a 28-day period, and changes in body weight over time. Because of the very small number of participants, the reported numbers should be read with that context in mind. The reported data shows that, for binge-eating frequency (measured as number of episodes in the past 28 days), the naltrexone/bupropion group reported changes of −14, 0, and 4 episodes across different time points, while the placebo group reported changes of −17, 3, and 1.5 episodes at those same points. For body weight, the reported data shows percent changes of +2.71%, +5.82%, and +12.33% for the naltrexone/bupropion group across time points, compared with −1.73%, +5.61%, and +3.32% for the placebo group. In the weight data, a negative number indicates weight loss and a positive number indicates weight gain. It is important to note that with only 3 participants across both groups, the reported figures reflect a very limited snapshot and the trial appears to have been extremely small in scale. The specific time points for each measurement were not detailed in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04428580 · results posted 29 August 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 123 therapists or clinicians who were split into two groups: 61 received online training and 62 received webinar-based training. The trial was not testing a medical treatment — instead, it was looking at two different ways of training practitioners in a therapy approach, and measuring whether it was practical to run a larger study in the future. The key things being tracked were whether enough people could be recruited and whether they would stay involved through to the end of training. The reported data shows that recruitment appeared to meet the study's targets: all 61 people in the online group and all 62 in the webinar group provided the required information at the start of the study. When it came to staying involved through to the end of training (called "retention"), the reported figures show 48 out of 61 participants in the online group and 51 out of 62 in the webinar group provided the required post-training information. A smaller number of participants — 26 from the online group and 28 from the webinar group — went on to start a clinical case consultation stage, with 20 and 27 respectively completing it. The reported data also includes a secondary measure that looked at whether how well a therapist followed the training (called "fidelity") was connected to patient weight changes during a set of therapy sessions. However, only 7 participants in the online group and 9 in the webinar group contributed data to this part of the analysis, and no summary figures for the weight change outcomes themselves were reported in the submitted results data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT05389657 · results posted 7 August 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 85 participants in total — 56 in an online training group and 29 in a live (in-person) training group. The trial was testing two different ways of training healthcare providers in a type of treatment called Family-Based Treatment (FBT), which is used for eating disorders. The trial measured how many providers completed the training, how much knowledge they gained about FBT, and whether they went on to receive follow-up consultation support in the 12 months after training. The reported data shows that, of the 56 people who started online training, 48 completed it, while 8 did not finish. In the live training group, 22 out of 29 completed the training, with 7 not finishing. When it came to knowledge scores — measured using a 28-question test where higher scores mean more knowledge, out of a maximum of 28 — the online training group scored an average of 20.52 and the live training group scored an average of 18.30 after completing their training. For the follow-up measure at 12 months, the reported data shows that 28 participants in the online group and 10 in the live group reported receiving FBT-specific consultation; 21 online and 11 live participants reported they did not; and 7 online and 8 live participants did not provide this information. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04128683 · results posted 11 April 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 13 people in total — 7 healthy volunteers and 6 people diagnosed with anorexia nervosa. The trial was examining how the brain responds to unexpected rewards (in this case, taste experiences like a sweet drink) and to anticipating those taste experiences. To do this, researchers used brain scans (MRI) while participants completed a taste-based task. Each person took part in three separate scan sessions, and before each session they received one of three things: a drug called amisulpride (which affects a brain chemical called dopamine), a drug called bromocriptine (which also affects dopamine in a different way), or a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). There were washout periods of 2–3 days between sessions to allow each substance to clear from the body. The reported data shows brain activity measured as "percent signal change" — essentially a way of quantifying how much activity was detected in specific brain regions during the task. For the unexpected reward part of the task, the healthy controls showed values of around 5.8% and 4.1% signal change on the placebo scans (two separate brain regions were reported). The anorexia nervosa group showed values of around 5.1% and 4.9% on placebo. When amisulpride was given, the healthy controls showed values of around 1.0% and 0.9%, while the anorexia nervosa group showed values of approximately −1.0% and −0.1%. With bromocriptine, healthy controls showed values of around 1.1% and 4.1%, and the anorexia nervosa group showed values of approximately −0.1% and 2.7%. For the taste expectation part of the task, the reported data shows broadly similar ranges across both groups and all three medications, with values generally falling between roughly 3% and 5.9% signal change across the different conditions and brain regions measured. It is worth noting that this was a very small study involving just 13 participants in total, and the results as submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov do not include standard measures of statistical uncertainty (such as margins of error), so the precision of these figures cannot be fully assessed from the reported data alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05806788 · results posted 7 January 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05806788) tested a behavioural program called the BESTOW Behavioral Intervention, which was designed to address binge eating. Twenty people enrolled in the study, 17 completed it, and 3 did not finish. The trial was primarily looking at whether the program was practical and acceptable to participants — in other words, whether people found it easy enough to use and felt it was a reasonable way to address their binge eating. It also tracked self-reported binge eating symptoms and depressive symptoms over time as secondary measures. The reported data shows that on the feasibility scale (how practical participants found the program), scores of 5.44 and 5.53 out of a possible 6 were recorded across two time points — where a higher number means participants rated it as more feasible. On the acceptability scale (how acceptable they found the program as a treatment), scores of 5.58 and 5.50 out of 6 were recorded — again, higher meaning more acceptable. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows binge eating scores (on a scale of 0–46, where higher means more severe symptoms) started at 24.78 and were recorded at 14.81, 13.24, and 13.81 across later time points. Scores on the depressive symptoms scale (ranging 0–3, higher meaning more symptoms) were reported as 1.15, 0.91, 0.93, and 1.00 across the four time points. The data does not include labels specifying exactly which time points each measurement corresponds to. It is worth noting that this was a small pilot-style study with only 20 participants and no comparison group, so the numbers reflect only those who took part in the single intervention group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04088097 · results posted 10 October 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 50 people in total — 25 in a Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) group and 25 in a control (comparison) group. The trial was measuring two main things: how often participants experienced episodes of binge eating (described as loss-of-control eating), and any changes in their body weight, measured as a percentage change in BMI (Body Mass Index — a standard number calculated from a person's height and weight). By the end of the study, 23 people in the CBT group and 21 in the control group had completed the trial, with 2 and 4 people respectively not completing it. The reported data shows that, at the primary measurement point, the CBT group reported an average of 1.52 binge eating episodes, while the control group reported an average of 6.05 episodes. For body weight, the reported percentage change in BMI was 0.02% for the CBT group and 0.01% for the control group — both very small figures. At a secondary measurement time point, the reported data shows the CBT group averaged 2.04 binge eating episodes compared to 5.94 in the control group, while the BMI percentage changes remained similarly small (0.02% and 0.01% respectively). The data does not include information about when exactly these two measurement time points were taken. It is worth noting that the reported results describe averages across each group at particular points in time, and no further detail about the spread of individual results was included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04771455 · results posted 19 September 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04771455) enrolled 81 participants across eight groups of roughly 10–11 people each. Of those, 73 completed the study — between 8 and 11 people finished in each group depending on the group. The trial was looking at two main things: changes in body weight (measured in pounds) and changes in the number of binge eating episodes over a 28-day period. Participants were divided according to three characteristics: whether they placed a high importance on their weight or body shape, whether they used unhealthy weight control practices, and whether they experienced negative feelings or mood. The reported data shows the following changes in weight (in pounds) across the groups: people who did place high importance on weight or shape showed a change of 4.2 pounds, compared to 6.9 pounds for those who did not; those who used unhealthy weight control practices showed a change of 4.7 pounds, compared to 6.3 pounds for those who did not; and those who experienced negative affect (low or difficult mood) showed a change of 8.5 pounds, compared to 2.7 pounds for those who did not. For binge eating episodes over 28 days, the reported changes were: 8.1 episodes for those with high importance on weight/shape versus 10.1 for those without; 6.9 episodes for those with unhealthy weight control practices versus 11.2 for those without; and 9.8 episodes for those with negative affect versus 8.4 for those without. The data does not specify the direction of these changes (i.e. whether they represent increases or decreases), so that detail was not reported in a way that allows clarification here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02977403 · results posted 20 August 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 68 people in total — 36 in a control group and 32 in a retraining group. The study was looking at whether a type of computer-based attention training (called "attention bias retraining") could change the way people's attention is drawn toward images of appealing food. It measured two things: how quickly people reacted to food-related images in a visual task (using reaction times in milliseconds), and changes in a type of brain activity called "beta band oscillatory power" — essentially a measure of electrical signal patterns in specific regions of the brain involved in reward and motivation. By the end of the study, 29 people in each group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that, on the reaction-time measure of attention toward food cues, the retraining group had a change score of +1.85 milliseconds, while the control group had a change score of +4.27 milliseconds. For the brain activity measures, the reported data shows small numerical differences between the two groups across several brain regions (the caudate, pallidum, and putamen, on both the left and right sides of the brain). For example, in the left caudate region, the retraining group showed a change of +0.021 compared to +0.010 in the control group; in the right caudate, the retraining group showed +0.023 compared to +0.032 in the control group; and in the left putamen, the retraining group showed +0.046 compared to −0.013 in the control group. These are unitless ratio-based figures, meaning they reflect relative changes in brain signal patterns rather than a directly physical measurement. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03449095 · results posted 31 July 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 640 people in total — 320 who were given an alcoholic drink and 320 who were given a non-alcoholic control drink. All 640 participants completed the study with no dropouts recorded. The trial was measuring how drinking alcohol in a group setting affected people's mood and sense of social closeness, using self-reported questionnaires completed during a laboratory session. The reported data shows that for the mood measure (scored from 1 to 6), the alcohol group scored 3.49 on positive emotion and 0.32 on negative emotion, while the control group scored 2.98 on positive emotion and 0.673 on negative emotion. For the social closeness measure (scored from 1 to 9), the alcohol group scored 7.471 and the control group scored 7.180. These numbers simply reflect what participants reported feeling during the session — they are not a judgement about whether any difference between the groups is meaningful. The reported data shows that several other outcomes were planned to be measured — including facial expression synchronisation between group members, physical distance between participants, brain activity recorded by headset during social tasks, and mood tracked outside the lab over time — however, no numerical results for these secondary outcomes were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03712462 · results posted 26 April 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 126 people in total — 63 in each of two groups. One group received a treatment called ABBT Weight Loss Therapy (a mindfulness- and acceptance-based approach combined with weight loss support), and the other received Standard Behavior Therapy. Both groups were being studied for changes in weight and eating-related thoughts and behaviours over two years. Of the 126 who started, 43 in each group completed the study, meaning 20 people in each group did not finish. The reported data shows that both groups lost a similar percentage of body weight over the course of the study. At the one-year mark (end of treatment), the ABBT group had lost an average of about 7.65% of their body weight, while the Standard Behavior Therapy group had lost about 6.97%. At the two-year follow-up, the reported figures were approximately 4.76% for the ABBT group and 3.52% for the Standard Behavior Therapy group, suggesting some weight had been regained in both groups by that point. The reported data also shows scores on a questionnaire measuring eating-related concerns (scored 0–6, where higher means more severe). At the end of treatment, the ABBT group scored around 1.50 and the Standard Behavior Therapy group around 1.60, both lower than their starting scores of 2.29 and 1.72 respectively — though the data for the two-year follow-up point was not reported for this measure. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02887586 · results posted 30 January 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 60 people in total — 30 in an "auricular needling" group (a form of acupuncture applied to points on the ear) and 30 in a control group. The trial was looking at appetite and related measures in cancer patients. By the end of the study, 27 people in the needling group and 28 in the control group had completed the trial, with a small number dropping out from each group. The reported data shows that two questionnaires were used as the main measures of appetite. The first, called the Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire (scored from 4 = poor appetite to 20 = good appetite), recorded average scores for the auricular needling group starting at 8.7 and rising across four time points to 13.0, while the control group's scores started at 9.57 and ended at 9.68. The second main questionnaire assessed appetite loss symptoms on a scale of 0 (normal) to 48 (severe loss of appetite), and the reported numbers across time points were identical to the first questionnaire's figures — the reported data shows the same set of numbers for both measures, which may reflect a data entry issue on the registry; no separate figures were provided. For the secondary measures, a 10-point appetite ruler (where higher scores mean greater aversion to food) showed the needling group's average scores moving from 6.56 down to 3.30 across time points, while the control group's scores ranged between 5.29 and 5.75. Average body weight in the needling group went from about 56.9 kg to 58.1 kg across the time points, and in the control group from about 58.5 kg to 57.5 kg. A questionnaire about participants' expectations of acupuncture (scored 4–20) showed the needling group averaging around 12–14 across most time points, compared to roughly 8–10 in the control group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04935931 · results posted 21 August 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 13 participants in a single-group study, with 12 completing it and 1 not completing it. The study was investigating how a single dose of a medicine called naltrexone affected brain activity — specifically in two regions of the brain linked to reward and decision-making — using a type of brain scan called an MRI (which measures changes in blood flow as a sign of brain activity). The reported data shows that after taking a single dose of naltrexone, brain activity in an area called the nucleus accumbens (a region involved in reward processing) changed by an average of −0.08 units on the brain scan measure used (called %BOLD signal change). In another brain region called the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (involved in attention and decision-making), activity changed by an average of +0.06 units on the same measure. These numbers reflect the difference between brain scans taken before and after the dose. To give a sense of scale, the %BOLD signal change is a small measurement used to detect subtle shifts in brain activity during scanning tasks. The reported data also shows that two hours after taking the single dose, the average level of naltrexone measured in participants' blood was 44.1 nanomolar (a unit describing the concentration of the medicine in the bloodstream). No further breakdown of results by individual participants was reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03539900 · results posted 24 July 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 89 participants in total — 43 in the group receiving a medication called NB (naltrexone-bupropion) and 46 in a placebo group (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). Most participants completed the trial: 38 from the medication group and 44 from the placebo group. The trial was measuring two main things: how often participants experienced binge-eating episodes per month, and changes in their Body Mass Index (BMI — a number calculated from height and weight) over the course of treatment. The reported data shows that, when looking at the change in binge-eating episodes from the start of the trial to the end of treatment, the medication group reported a reduction of around 6.4 episodes per month, while the placebo group reported a reduction of around 5.4 episodes per month. For BMI, the medication group showed an average decrease of 8.0%, while the placebo group showed an average decrease of 0.5% over the same period. At the follow-up check-ins (6 months and 12 months after treatment ended), the reported changes in binge-eating frequency and BMI were relatively small and mixed across both groups — for example, the 12-month BMI figures showed a 0.20% decrease for the medication group and a 3.43% increase for the placebo group compared to their end-of-treatment measurements. It is worth noting that these follow-up figures reflect changes *from the end of treatment*, not from the very beginning of the trial. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03604172 · results posted 18 April 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03604172) enrolled 40 people in total — 20 in a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) group and 20 in a waitlist control group (people who waited rather than receiving the therapy straight away). Of those, 19 in the CBT group and 18 in the waitlist group completed the study. The trial was measuring brain activity and self-reported eating behaviours, with a particular focus on how the brain responded to high-calorie food images and descriptions of binge-eating episodes, as well as changes in binge-eating frequency and eating-related urges. The reported data shows that for the two primary (main) outcomes — both measured using a brain scanning technique called fMRI, which tracks blood flow in the brain as a rough indicator of brain activity — the numbers were very similar between groups. When shown food-related images during a task, the CBT group showed a brain signal change of −0.4% and the waitlist group −0.3%. When listening to descriptions of binge-eating episodes, both groups showed a signal change of around −0.2% to −0.3%. For the secondary (additional) outcomes, the reported data shows the CBT group reported a change of −9 binge-eating episodes over the past 28 days compared with −4 for the waitlist group. On a scale measuring reward-driven urges to eat (scored 0–52), the CBT group showed a change of −15 points while the waitlist group showed a change of +3 points. On a scale measuring loss of control around eating (scored 0–16), the CBT group showed a change of −4 points while the waitlist group showed no change (0 points). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03784820 · results posted 11 April 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two therapy approaches for binge eating disorder: CBT-E (a form of cognitive behavioural therapy delivered to patients alone) and UNITE (a therapy that involved both patients and their partners). Each group started with 11 patients and 11 partners, giving 44 participants in total. The trial tracked people at several points: before treatment started, during treatment, at the end of treatment, and then at 3 months and 6 months after treatment finished. The main thing being measured was how many patients stopped binge eating entirely during the four weeks before each check-in point. The reported data shows that, among patients in the CBT-E group, the number who had stopped binge eating at each time point was: 2 (before treatment), 5 (mid-treatment), 5 (end of treatment), 4 (3-month follow-up), and 4 at 6 months — though that last figure was not reported in the primary outcome data. For the UNITE group, the corresponding numbers were: 1, 4, 5, and 6. On a secondary measure tracking the average number of binge-eating episodes in the past 28 days, the CBT-E group went from about 12.5 episodes before treatment to 0.5 at the 6-month follow-up, while the UNITE group went from about 14.5 episodes to 0.57. Other secondary measures — covering eating disorder thoughts and behaviours, the emotional experience of binge eating, obsessive thoughts around binge eating, and depressive symptoms — were also recorded using standard questionnaires at each time point, and the reported data shows scores on all of these measures were lower (meaning less severe) at later time points for both groups compared to where they started. It is worth noting that this was a small pilot trial, and the number of participants who completed all time points was modest — for example, only 6 CBT-E patients and 8 UNITE patients were recorded as having fully completed the study. Some data points across the measures were not reported for all time points, so direct comparisons across every stage are limited by the data available. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04753164 · results posted 31 March 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04753164) involved 136 people in total — 68 who received a medication called ACT-539313 (taken as a 100 mg dose twice a day) and 68 who received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial ran for 12 weeks and was primarily measuring changes in the number of days per week on which participants experienced binge eating episodes. Not everyone finished the trial: 41 out of 68 participants in the ACT-539313 group completed the study, compared with 48 out of 68 in the placebo group. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — the change in binge eating days per week from the start of the trial to week 12 — was identical in both groups. Participants in the ACT-539313 group recorded a reduction of 2.93 binge eating days per week on average, and participants in the placebo group also recorded a reduction of 2.93 binge eating days per week on average. No secondary outcome measure data was included in the structured results provided. It is worth noting that no additional outcome data beyond this single primary measure was available in the submitted results, so further detail about other aspects of the trial cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03045341 · results posted 20 December 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 136 people across four groups: one group received a placebo (an inactive pill), one received a medication called NB (naltrexone-bupropion), one received a behavioural weight loss programme (BWL) plus placebo, and one received the behavioural weight loss programme plus the NB medication. The trial was measuring two main things: how often participants had binge-eating episodes each month, and whether their body weight changed over the course of the study. By the end of the trial, between 27 and 29 people in each group had completed the programme. The reported data shows that, at the end of the study, the placebo group reported an average of about 9.9 binge-eating episodes per month, the NB medication-only group reported about 7.6, the BWL plus placebo group reported about 3.3, and the BWL plus NB medication group reported about 2.0 episodes per month. For body weight, the reported figures show the placebo group's weight increased slightly on average (about 1.05% above their starting weight), while the NB medication-only group saw an average reduction of about 2.1%, the BWL plus placebo group about 4.4%, and the BWL plus NB medication group about 5.7% below their starting weight. For a secondary measure — which counted how many participants reduced their binge-eating episodes by 65% or more compared to where they started — the reported data shows 14 people in the placebo group, 14 in the NB medication group, 20 in the BWL plus placebo group, and 25 in the BWL plus NB medication group met that threshold. It is important to note that these figures describe what was measured and recorded in this specific trial group, and do not account for all the factors that can influence such results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT04278755 · results posted 26 July 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04278755) enrolled 8 participants in a single group, all of whom were taking a continuous oral contraceptive (OC). Seven participants completed the study and one did not finish. The trial was measuring several things before and after the intervention: how often participants experienced binge eating episodes per week, their score on a binge eating questionnaire, activity in specific brain regions (the nucleus accumbens, dorsal striatum, and prefrontal cortex) in response to reward cues during a brain scan task, and a measure of how much participants favoured smaller immediate rewards over larger delayed ones (sometimes called impulsivity). The reported data shows the following average changes from before the intervention to the end of the intervention period. Self-reported binge eating frequency changed by −0.43 episodes per week, meaning participants reported slightly fewer episodes on average. The binge eating questionnaire score (which runs from 0 to 32, with higher numbers indicating more frequent binge eating behaviours) changed by −6.60 points on average. For the brain scan measurements, the reported change in the nucleus accumbens reward response was +0.0423 percentage signal change; the dorsal striatum showed two reported values of −0.012 and +0.02 percentage signal change (likely reflecting its two sub-regions, the caudate and putamen); and the prefrontal cortex reward response changed by +0.01 percentage signal change. The impulsivity measure (k value, which runs from 0 to 0.25) changed by +0.01 on average. It is worth noting that this was a very small study with only 8 participants and no comparison group, so the numbers above simply reflect what was recorded in this group over time. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT04957498 · results posted 13 December 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04957498) enrolled 40 people across two groups of 20 each. One group received a treatment called FBT-V (family-based therapy delivered via video) and the other received GSH-FBT (a guided self-help version of family-based therapy). The trial was a feasibility study — meaning it was designed not to test whether a treatment works, but to measure whether it was practical to run a larger trial in future. It looked at things like how easily people could be recruited, how many stayed in the study, and how acceptable participants found the treatments. The reported data shows that across both groups combined, roughly 2.86 participants were enrolled per month. Of the 40 who started, 35 completed their assigned treatment course without dropping out early, and 37 provided information at the end-of-treatment and three-month follow-up points. On average, the FBT-V group attended approximately 13 sessions and the GSH-FBT group attended approximately 12 sessions. For treatment acceptability, parents rated both treatments using two questionnaires after early sessions. On one measure (scored from −18 to +18 or −15 to +15 depending on the subscale, where higher means more positive), scores across both groups generally sat in positive territory. On a separate suitability and expectancy scale rated from 0 to 10, average scores for both groups were in the range of approximately 7 to 8.5, with the reported data showing broadly similar ratings between the two groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02805972 · results posted 3 November 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02805972) involved 41 people in total across two groups. It used a "crossover" design, meaning each person received both naloxone and a placebo (a dummy treatment) at separate visits, with a washout period in between. The trial was measuring whether people reported feeling nauseous after receiving naloxone compared to after receiving the placebo, and also looked at a stress hormone in saliva (cortisol) and scores on a withdrawal symptom questionnaire. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome at 10 minutes after treatment, 17 out of 38 participants (those who completed both visits) reported nausea after naloxone, compared with 18 out of 38 after the placebo. At 30 minutes after treatment, 13 participants reported nausea after naloxone and 11 reported nausea after the placebo. For the secondary outcomes, the reported average salivary cortisol levels were similar across both conditions at both time points measured. Scores on the withdrawal symptom questionnaire (which runs from 0 to 64, where higher means more symptoms) averaged 5.67 after naloxone and 5.03 after placebo. On a shorter version of the same questionnaire (scored 0 to 20), the averages were 1.42 after naloxone and 1.53 after placebo. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03652675 · results posted 20 July 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03652675) enrolled 31 people in total — 16 in the intervention group, who received a programme called HealthCall for HIV/HCV alongside a clinician's guide, and 15 in an educational control group. By the end of the study, 12 people in the intervention group and 11 in the control group had completed the trial, with 4 people leaving each group before the end. The trial was measuring alcohol drinking patterns — specifically how many drinks people had on days they drank, how many days they drank in a month, and the largest number of drinks consumed in a single day — as well as people's confidence in their ability to reduce drinking and their readiness to change. The reported data shows that at 60 days, the intervention group reported an average of 2.61 drinks on days they drank, compared to 5.49 drinks for the control group. For the change in number of days drinking over the previous 30 days (where a negative number means fewer days drinking), the intervention group showed a change of −6.08 days and the control group showed −3.09 days. Regarding the single-day maximum drinks (again, a negative number means a reduction), the intervention group reported a change of −4 drinks and the control group −5.36 drinks. On confidence to resist drinking (scored 0–100), the intervention group averaged 74.86 points and the control group 66.3 points. On readiness to change (scored −2 to +14), the intervention group scored 9.82 and the control group 8.98. The reported data also shows scores on a separate readiness-to-change scale (SOCRATES), which has three parts. For "recognition" of a drinking problem (range 7–35), both groups scored similarly at around 26. For "ambivalence" (range 4–20), scores were 12.25 (intervention) and 13.36 (control). For "taking steps" toward change (range 8–40), the intervention group scored 34.33 and the control group 28.73. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01301183 · results posted 13 July 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 75 people in total — 38 in a group receiving a treatment called Rh IGF-1 combined with a skin-patch form of oestrogen, and 37 in a group receiving a placebo (an inactive substance) combined with the same oestrogen patch. The trial ran over 12 months and was primarily measuring changes in bone density in the lower spine, using a scoring system that shows how a person's bone density compares to the average for their age, sex, and racial group. A higher score over time was considered a more favourable result. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of bone density change in the lower spine, the Rh IGF-1 group had an average change in score of +0.045, while the placebo group had an average change of +0.280. Both numbers represent small increases from the starting point, with the placebo group showing a numerically larger increase. For the secondary measure — changes in the fine structure of bone (specifically, the number of tiny rod-like structures in a bone near the wrist) — the Rh IGF-1 group showed an average change of −0.10 per millimetre and the placebo group showed −0.02 per millimetre, meaning both groups had a small decrease, with the Rh IGF-1 group showing a slightly larger decrease. It is also worth noting that a large number of participants did not complete the trial — 26 out of 38 in the Rh IGF-1 group and 16 out of 37 in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02488109 · results posted 24 June 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 116 young people (adolescents) who were hospitalised and being treated for an eating disorder. They were split into two groups: 60 received a Higher Calorie Refeeding (HCR) approach and 56 were assigned to a Lower Calorie Refeeding (LCR) approach (though 5 in the LCR group did not go on to receive treatment, leaving 51 in that group). The trial was measuring whether participants reached "clinical remission" — defined as both reaching a healthy weight for their age and sex, and scoring within a normal range on a psychological questionnaire about eating-related thoughts and behaviours. It also tracked how long it took each group to reach medical stability in hospital. The reported data shows that at one month, 12 participants in the HCR group and 8 in the LCR group met the criteria for clinical remission. At three months, the numbers were 10 (HCR) and 13 (LCR). At six months, 16 (HCR) and 10 (LCR) had reached remission, and at twelve months, 18 (HCR) and 13 (LCR) did so. For the time taken to reach medical stability in hospital, the reported median was 7 days for the HCR group and 10 days for the LCR group. The reported data also shows an estimated cost figure per person who recovered: approximately USD $38,112 for the HCR group and USD $57,168 for the LCR group, though it is worth noting these figures are presented in US dollars and may not directly reflect Australian costs. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02684279 · results posted 12 August 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 528 people who were all given a medicine called dasotraline. There was no comparison (placebo) group. The trial was a long-term safety study, and one of its main focuses was monitoring participants for any thoughts of suicide or self-harm, using a standardised questionnaire called the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). This scale rates the seriousness of suicidal thoughts from 0 (no thoughts at all) up to 5 (active thoughts with a plan and intention to act). Of the 528 people who started, 249 completed the study and 279 did not complete it. The reported data shows that, out of 515 participants assessed for suicidal thinking, 7 reported thoughts at one level of the scale, 3 at another level, 1 at another, 0 at the most serious level (score of 5), and 1 at score 4 — the scale categories were listed separately but the exact label for each number was not provided in the submitted data. For suicidal behaviour, the reported data shows 1 participant had a recorded event in one category, and none in several others, with 1 participant recorded under another category. The trial also tracked body weight and Body Mass Index (BMI, a measure of body size based on height and weight) as secondary outcomes. The reported data shows an average change in body weight of approximately −4.65 kg at one time point and −2.13 kg at another, and an average change in BMI of −1.64 and −0.75 at those same respective time points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT00762710 · results posted 4 June 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at alcohol consumption in people who were drinking heavily. A total of 92 participants took part — 48 received a medication called prazosin and 44 received a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient). By the end of the study, 27 people in the prazosin group and 29 in the placebo group had completed the trial, meaning a notable number of participants did not finish in both groups. The main thing the trial measured was the percentage of days on which participants drank heavily, assessed over a 90-day period at the start of the study and again at the end. The reported data shows that at the start (baseline), the prazosin group reported heavy drinking on about 71.8% of days, and the placebo group reported heavy drinking on about 66.5% of days. By the final visit, the reported figures had dropped — to about 11.4% of days for the prazosin group and about 22.6% of days for the placebo group. No other outcome measures were included in the data provided, so further details were not reported here. It is worth noting that these are group-level numbers from a clinical trial setting and do not tell us about any individual's experience. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02382848 · results posted 16 July 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a medication called prazosin in people with nightmares, PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), and eating disorder symptoms. Eight people took part in total — three started with prazosin then switched to a dummy pill (placebo), and five started with the placebo then switched to prazosin. It was a "crossover" design, meaning everyone received both the real medication and the placebo at different times, with a one-week break in between. All eight participants completed every stage of the trial. The reported data shows the following scores across the measures used. For nightmare frequency (rated 1–4, where a higher number means more frequent nightmares), the prazosin group scored 2.25 and the placebo group scored 2.75. For PTSD symptom severity (scored 0–136, higher being worse), the prazosin group scored 65.5 compared to 79.8 for the placebo group. For bulimia-related symptoms (a T-score ranging 22–66, higher being worse), the prazosin group scored 43.1 versus 38.6 for the placebo group. For depressed mood (scored 0–4, higher being worse), both groups scored similarly — 1.4 for prazosin and 1.3 for placebo. For self-harm thoughts (also scored 0–4), the prazosin group scored 0.5 and the placebo group scored 0.1. One planned measurement — a sleep study looking at dream-sleep patterns — was only carried out in two participants, and no numerical results from that measure were reported in the data. The reported data shows this was a very small trial with only eight participants, which means these numbers should be interpreted with considerable caution. No results for the sleep-study measure were available to report. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00300742 · results posted 11 May 2017
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00300742) involved just 5 participants, all of whom received a combination of a medication called topiramate together with a behavioural therapy programme referred to as BBCET. The trial was measuring things like how often participants attended their treatment sessions, how much they drank per day, how many days per week they didn't drink at all, and how often they experienced binge eating episodes. These measurements were taken at the start of the study (baseline) and again at a later point called Visit 12. Of the 5 people who started, 3 completed the trial and 2 did not. The reported data shows the following numbers across the group. Average drinks per day started at 10.95 at baseline and was reported as 0.68 at Visit 12. The average percentage of days per week with no drinking started at 20% at baseline and was reported as 76.2% at Visit 12. Average binge eating episodes per week started at 3.7 at baseline and was reported as 1 at Visit 12. All 5 participants reached the maximum daily dose of the medication (300 mg). No other outcome data beyond these figures was reported in the structured results. It is worth noting that this was a very small study with only 5 participants, and the structured results do not include a comparison group or a control group, so the reported data shows only what was recorded within this single small group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT00260962 · results posted 28 April 2017
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 34 people in total — 18 in a group receiving a placebo (an inactive treatment) plus day hospital care, and 16 in a group receiving a medication called olanzapine plus day hospital care. By the end of the study, 14 people in each group had completed the trial. The trial was looking at two main things: participants' Body Mass Index (BMI, a measure of body weight relative to height) and their levels of obsessive thoughts, as measured by a standard questionnaire called the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. The reported data shows that for BMI, both groups started at similar levels — around 19.66 kg/m² in the placebo group and 20.30 kg/m² in the olanzapine group — and these figures appear to have remained the same at the end of the study period, suggesting little to no change in either group over the course of the trial. It is worth noting that the data as reported does not clearly distinguish between starting and finishing BMI values, as the same numbers appear for both time points. For obsessive thoughts (scored on a scale where higher numbers mean more severe obsessions, out of a maximum of 20), the reported data shows the placebo group started at an average score of 9.11 and finished at 5.86, while the olanzapine group started at 11.06 and finished at 6.54. These are the numbers as submitted; the trial did not report whether any difference between the two groups was considered meaningful in a statistical sense. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01757847 · results posted 6 October 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01757847) involved 90 participants in total — 44 in a group receiving a brief weight management programme called MOVE-II, and 46 in a group receiving a talking therapy called Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). The trial was measuring changes in binge eating severity and obesity-related quality of life over time, with check-ins at the start of the trial, then at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Most participants completed the study — 41 in the MOVE-II group and 42 in the ACT group. The reported data shows that both groups were scored at the start using the Binge Eating Scale (a questionnaire rated from 0 to 46, where higher numbers mean more severe binge eating). The MOVE-II group started with an average score of 17.38 and the ACT group started at 15.45. By 4 weeks, scores had dropped to 10.52 (MOVE-II) and 13.52 (ACT). At 3 months, the reported figures were 10.47 and 11.90, and at 6 months, 10.00 and 12.20 respectively. For the second measure — obesity-related quality of life (scored 0 to 162, where lower numbers mean better quality of life) — the reported data shows both groups started around 50. By 6 months, the MOVE-II group's average score had fallen to 37.90 and the ACT group's to 36.55, with scores for both groups decreasing gradually across all time points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00140426 · results posted 2 February 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 41 young people in total — 22 in the placebo group and 19 in the risperidone group. The trial was measuring whether risperidone (a type of medication) made a difference compared to a dummy treatment (placebo) in several areas related to anorexia nervosa, including thoughts about thinness, body dissatisfaction, eating behaviour during meals, anxiety, body weight, and a hormone called leptin. All 22 placebo participants finished the study, while 16 of the 19 risperidone participants completed it (3 did not finish). The reported data shows the following numbers across the main things being measured. For "drive for thinness" (scored 0–21, where lower is less focused on thinness), the reported change was 1.36 points in the placebo group and 3.93 points in the risperidone group — both representing reductions from their starting scores. For "body dissatisfaction" (scored 0–27, where lower means less dissatisfaction), the reported change was 0.82 points in the placebo group and 2.67 points in the risperidone group. For eating behaviour during meals, a hazard ratio (a number comparing how quickly each group reached normal eating) of 0.85 was reported for placebo and 1.0 for risperidone. On a secondary measure of how long it took participants to reach 90% of their ideal body weight and maintain it for a month, the placebo group averaged 10.7 weeks and the risperidone group averaged 8.1 weeks. Anxiety scores changed by 7.41 points in the placebo group and 7.87 points in the risperidone group (higher scores mean more anxiety). The reported change in leptin levels (a hormone measured in blood) was 0.88 ng/ml in the placebo group and 3.27 ng/ml in the risperidone group. It is worth noting that this was a relatively small trial, and the reported data shows numbers for both groups without drawing firm conclusions about which treatment was better. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00537810 · results posted 12 December 2014
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 104 people across four groups: those taking a medication called sibutramine alone (26 people), those taking a placebo (a dummy pill) alone (27 people), those taking a placebo combined with a self-help program based on cognitive behavioural therapy — a type of structured thinking and behaviour program, often called CBT (25 people), and those taking sibutramine combined with that same CBT self-help program (26 people). The trial was measuring two main things: whether participants stopped binge eating entirely (meaning zero binge episodes in the previous 28 days), and their body mass index (BMI — a standard measure of body weight relative to height) four months after treatment ended. By the end of the study, the number who completed it varied by group: 20 in the sibutramine-only group, 14 in the placebo-only group, 21 in the placebo/CBT group, and 22 in the sibutramine/CBT group. The reported data shows the following numbers for binge eating remission (people recording zero binge episodes). The data appears to cover three separate time points, though the specific time points are not labelled in the submitted results. At the first time point, 10 people in the sibutramine group, 8 in the placebo group, 6 in the placebo/CBT group, and 6 in the sibutramine/CBT group had stopped binge eating. At the second time point, those numbers were 5, 11, 10, and 13 respectively. At the third time point, the figures were 5, 10, 10, and 11 respectively. For BMI measured four months after treatment, the reported data shows average BMI scores of 38.4 for the sibutramine group, 39.6 for the placebo group, 35.9 for the placebo/CBT group, and 35.6 for the sibutramine/CBT group. No further detail about the time points for the binge eating data was reported in the submission. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01718509 · results posted 21 August 2014
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 195 people in a placebo group and 195 people in a group receiving a medication called SPD489 (390 people in total). Of those, 147 in each group completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in binge eating behaviour over approximately 11–12 weeks in people who experienced binge eating episodes. The reported data shows that, for the main thing being measured — the average change in the number of days per week that involved binge eating — the placebo group reported a reduction of about 2.3 binge days per week, while the SPD489 group reported a reduction of about 3.9 binge days per week. For the additional measures reported: when clinicians rated overall improvement on a 7-point scale, roughly 43% of people in the placebo group were rated as "much improved" or "very much improved," compared with about 86% in the SPD489 group. Around 13% of the placebo group had no binge eating episodes for 28 days in a row before the final visit, compared with about 36% in the SPD489 group. A questionnaire measuring binge-eating-related thoughts and urges (scored 0–40, where lower is better) fell by about 7.4 points in the placebo group and about 15.4 points in the SPD489 group. Body weight changed by about −0.15% in the placebo group and −5.6% in the SPD489 group. A blood fat (triglyceride) measure rose slightly in the placebo group (+0.062 mmol/L) and fell slightly in the SPD489 group (−0.133 mmol/L). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00418977 · results posted 28 April 2014
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 59 young people in total, split across two groups: 43 received Family Based Therapy and 16 received Individual Supportive Psychotherapy. The trial was comparing the two approaches by tracking participants' body weight and growth over time. The main measurement used was something called a BMI Z-score — this is a way of comparing a young person's body mass index (a ratio of weight to height) against what would be typical for other children of the same age and sex, where a score of zero means exactly average. The reported data shows that at the end of the study, the Family Based Therapy group had an average BMI Z-score of −0.72, while the Individual Supportive Psychotherapy group had an average BMI Z-score of −0.02. Both scores are below zero, meaning both groups were, on average, below the typical weight-for-age, though the Individual Supportive Psychotherapy group's score was closer to the average. The reported data also shows that the Family Based Therapy group had an average weight of around 94.9 pounds and an average BMI of 17.6 kg/m², compared to 114.7 pounds and 19.7 kg/m² in the Individual Supportive Psychotherapy group. BMI percentiles — another way of ranking weight relative to peers — were reported as 30.1 for the Family Based Therapy group and 42.1 for the Individual Supportive Psychotherapy group. It is worth noting that the two groups started with different numbers of participants, which the reported figures do not adjust for. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00848367 · results posted 11 December 2013
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 102 people — 52 in a "Low Attachment Anxiety" group and 50 in a "High Attachment Anxiety" group. (Attachment anxiety, as used here, refers to a person's tendency to worry about their close relationships.) By the end of the study, 43 and 41 people in each group respectively had completed it, with 9 people in each group not finishing. The trial was measuring how often participants experienced episodes of binge eating over a 28-day period, and also tracking symptoms of depression using a standard questionnaire called the Beck Depression Inventory II (a 0–63 scale where higher numbers mean more depressive symptoms). The reported data shows that, for binge eating frequency over 28 days, the High Attachment Anxiety group started with an average of about 16 days and the Low Attachment Anxiety group started at about 14 days. Both figures appear to have reduced across later time points — the reported numbers move to around 6–7 days in both groups at what appear to be mid-point measurements, and then to roughly 5.7 and 4.1 days respectively at the final time point. For depression symptoms, the High Attachment Anxiety group began with an average score of approximately 25.8 (out of 63) and the Low Attachment Anxiety group began at around 16.4. The reported data shows both scores appearing to shift over the course of the study, ending at roughly 17.3 and 9.8 respectively. It is worth noting that the data as submitted does not label each individual time point, so the exact timing of each measurement is not clear from the figures provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00304187 · results posted 30 July 2013
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00304187) looked at the use of erythromycin (an antibiotic sometimes used to help the stomach empty) compared to a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) in people with binge eating behaviour. A total of 29 people started the trial — 15 in the erythromycin group and 14 in the placebo group. Of those, 13 people in each group completed the study, with 2 from the erythromycin group and 1 from the placebo group not finishing. The reported data shows two main things were measured: how often binge eating episodes happened each week (recorded by participants in a daily diary), and how quickly a meal was eaten (described as the percentage of a meal remaining per minute, where a more negative number suggests the meal was consumed more quickly). For binge episodes per week, the erythromycin group reported an average of 10.4 episodes, while the placebo group reported 11.3 episodes. For the meal-eating rate measure, the erythromycin group returned a value of −0.339 percent of meal remaining per minute, compared to −0.177 for the placebo group. No additional detail about how these figures changed over the course of the trial was included in the reported data. It is important to note that these are simply the numbers submitted to the registry — they do not on their own tell us whether any difference between the two groups is meaningful, and no conclusions about whether erythromycin does or does not work for this condition should be drawn from this summary alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT00310791 · results posted 1 February 2013
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 80 people in total — 40 in a placebo group (receiving an inactive treatment) and 40 in the active treatment group. The trial was measuring bone density, specifically what is called "areal bone density," which is a way of measuring how dense or strong bones are using a scanning method known as DXA (a type of low-dose X-ray). Of the 80 people who started the trial, 60 completed it — 30 from each group — while 10 people in each group did not finish. The reported data shows that at the end of the study, the average bone density reading in the placebo group was 0.88 grams per square centimetre, and in the active treatment group it was 0.89 grams per square centimetre. These are the only outcome figures reported in the submitted results. No secondary outcome measures or additional data were included in the results as submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no further comparisons can be described here. It is worth noting that the difference between the two groups' bone density readings, as reported, appears very small, but it would not be appropriate to draw any conclusions from this about whether the treatment made a meaningful difference — that kind of interpretation requires careful scientific analysis beyond what is presented here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00777634 · results posted 29 May 2012
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial followed 268 people over five years to track the development of certain physical health conditions. Half of the participants (134 people) had been diagnosed with Binge Eating Disorder (BED) — a condition involving repeated episodes of eating large amounts of food in a short time — and the other 134 did not have BED. The study was measuring how often each group went on to receive a new diagnosis of high cholesterol, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, or a cluster of related health conditions known as "metabolic syndrome." Most participants completed the five years: 129 in the BED group and 133 in the non-BED group. The reported data shows that, over the five-year follow-up, new diagnoses were recorded across both groups. For high cholesterol, 34 people in the BED group and 18 in the non-BED group received a new diagnosis. For high blood pressure, the figures were 25 and 18 respectively. For Type 2 diabetes, 13 people in the BED group and 10 in the non-BED group received a new diagnosis. When looking at metabolic syndrome more broadly, 53 participants with BED and 37 without BED acquired at least one new related diagnosis; 18 with BED and 8 without BED acquired two or more new diagnoses; and 1 participant in each group acquired three or more new diagnoses. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00088153 · results posted 10 October 2011
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 110 participants in total — 55 in a group receiving a physiologic (low-dose, body-similar) oestrogen replacement and 55 in a placebo (dummy treatment) group. The trial ran for 18 months and was measuring changes in spine bone density in its participants. By the end of the study, 31 people in the oestrogen group and 30 in the placebo group had completed the trial, with 24 and 25 people respectively not completing it. The reported data shows two main (primary) measurements, both looking at spine bone density. The first was the percentage change in bone density over 18 months: the oestrogen group showed an average increase of 2.6%, while the placebo group showed an average increase of 0.3%. The second primary measurement used a "Z-score" — a number that compares a person's bone density to the average for people of the same age and sex. The oestrogen group's Z-score changed by −0.026 (essentially staying about the same), while the placebo group's Z-score changed by −0.236 (a small decline relative to peers). The reported data also shows a secondary (additional) measurement of a blood marker linked to bone formation, called P1NP. In the oestrogen group, P1NP levels fell by an average of 2.9 ng/ml from the start to 18 months, compared to a fall of 10.9 ng/ml in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00685334 · results posted 4 February 2010
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two medications — olanzapine and aripiprazole — in people with a psychiatric condition. A total of 22 participants took part: 12 were assigned to olanzapine and 10 to aripiprazole. The trial was measuring two main things: changes in body weight over 12 weeks, and how well participants tolerated each medication (meaning whether they experienced unwanted side effects). Two secondary outcomes — specific side effects and whether participants stuck with the full 12-week treatment — were listed but no numerical results were reported for those measures. The reported data shows that, on average, participants taking olanzapine gained approximately 2.2 pounds over the 12 weeks, while those taking aripiprazole lost approximately 1.2 pounds on average. Regarding tolerability, the reported data shows that 8 out of 12 participants in the olanzapine group and 9 out of 10 in the aripiprazole group did not experience unwanted side effects, according to clinical assessment and self-report. It is also worth noting that the number of people who completed the full 12 weeks was very low — only 2 out of 12 in the olanzapine group and 3 out of 10 in the aripiprazole group finished the study. For the two secondary outcomes (specific side effects and treatment compliance), the results data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov did not include any numerical figures, so those cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
See the full Eating Disorders page · What changed recently
Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.