4.3 Review

The Neurobiology of Binge-eating Disorder Compared with Obesity: Implications for Differential Therapeutics

Journal

CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS
Volume 43, Issue 1, Pages 50-69

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.10.014

Keywords

binge-eating disorder; eating disorders; impulsive behavior; neurobiology; obesity; pharmacology

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. [R01 DK121551]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are distinct differences in the neurobiology between BED and obesity, with BED characterized by higher impulsivity and compulsivity. Therapeutic agents targeting both reward and executive function systems may be particularly effective for BED.
Purpose: Emerging work indicates divergence in the neurobiologies of binge-eating disorder (BED) and obesity despite their frequent co-occurrence. This review highlights specific distinguishing aspects of BED, including elevated impulsivity and compulsivity possibly involving the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system, and discusses implications for differential therapeutics for BED. Methods: This narrative review describes epidemiologic, clinical, genetic, and preclinical differences between BED and obesity. Subsequently, this review discusses human neuroimaging work reporting differences in executive functioning, reward processing, and emotion reactivity in BED compared with obesity. Finally, on the basis of the neurobiology of BED, this review identifies existing and new therapeutic agents that may be most promising given their specific targets based on putative mechanisms of action relevant specifically to BED. Findings: BED is characterized by elevated impulsivity and compulsivity compared with obesity, which is reflected in divergent neurobiological characteristics and effective pharmacotherapies. Therapeutic agents that influence both reward and executive function systems may be especially effective for BED. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available