Osteoarthritis is associated with an increased prevalence of MetS, particularly in younger individuals. Global cardiovascular risk should be assessed in individuals aged < or = 65 years with OA, and should be considered when prescribing analgesics for OA patients.

Objective: To estimate binge eating disorder (BED) prevalence according to DSM-5 and DSM-IV-TR criteria in US adults and to estimate the proportion of individuals meeting DSM-5 BED criteria who reported being formally diagnosed. Methods: A representative sample of US adults who participated in the National Health and Wellness Survey were asked to respond to an Internet survey (conducted in October 2013). Assessments included 3-month, 12-month, and lifetime BED prevalence based on DSM-5 and DSM-IV-TR criteria and demographics, psychiatric comorbidities, and self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale).Descriptive statistics are provided. Prevalence estimates were calculated using poststratification sampling weights. Results: Of 22,397 respondents, 344 (women, n = 242; men, n = 102) self-reported symptoms consistent with DSM-5 BED symptom criteria. The 3-month, 12-month, and lifetime DSM-5 prevalence estimates (95% CIs) projected to the US population were 1.19% (1.04%-1.37%), 1.64% (1.45%-1.85%), and 2.03%(1.83%-2.26%), respectively. The 12-month and lifetime projected DSM-IV-TR prevalence estimates were 1.15% (1.00%-1.32%) and 1.52% (1.35%-1.70%), respectively. Of respondents meeting DSM-5 BED criteria in the past 12 months, 3.2% (11/344) reported receiving a formal diagnosis. Compared with non-BED respondents, respondents meeting DSM-5 BED criteria in the past 12 months were younger (mean ± SD age = 46.01 ± 14.32 vs 51.59 ± 15.80 years; P < .001), had a higher body mass index (mean ± SD = 33.71 ± 9.36 vs 27.96 ± 6.68 kg/m 2 ; P < .001), and had lower self-esteem (mean ± SD score = 16.47 ± 6.99 vs 23.33 ± 6.06; P < .001). Conclusions: DSM-5 BED criteria resulted in higher BEDprevalence estimates than with DSM-IV-TR criteria. Most BED respondents did not report being formally diagnosed, indicating an unmet need in BED recognition and diagnosis. J Clin Psychiatry 2016;77(8) Binge eating disorder (BED), the general symptomatology of which was recognized as early as 1959, 1 was included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) as a diagnosis for further study in the early 1990s.2-4 However, it did not receive official recognition as a distinct eating disorder until its inclusion in DSM-5 in 2013. 5 According to DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for BED (Table 1), binge eating must occur at least once a week for ≥ 3 months. These episodes are characterized by the consumption, in a discrete period of time, of a larger amount of food than is typical for most people under similar circumstances, by a sense of lack of control over eating, and by marked distress about binge eating. 5 Unlike bulimia nervosa (BN) and anorexia nervosa (AN), BED is not associated with recurrent inappropriate compensatory behaviors (eg, purging or excessive exercise). 5In the DSM-5, the binge episode frequency criterion was reduced from the DSM-IV Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criterion of ≥ 2 days per week for ≥ 6 months, 6 but other criteria were unchanged. Therefore, individuals previously not me...

Post hoc, within-woman analysis of migraine treatment episodes categorized based on International Headache Society criteria showed that menstrual treatment episodes were more impairing, longer lasting, and more likely to relapse than nonmenstrual treatment episodes in this selected population of women with frequent menstrual migraine. The current analysis indicates that most of the variability in these outcomes is due to differences between headache types and not within-patient differences for a given type of headache, suggesting that menstrual episodes are potentially treatable. These findings underscore the differences between menstrual and nonmenstrual episodes of migraine and the need to offer effective migraine treatment to women.

The findings support the hypothesis that pain qualities cluster into distinct groups. If replicated in additional samples, the pain quality domains identified may provide clinicians and researchers with a useful way to summarize data from pain quality measures, and may also provide meaningful end points that would allow for treatment differentiation between various pharmacologic entities.