Current Intervention Treatments for Food Addiction: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Research on the concept of food addiction (FA) has steadily grown and, based on a widely used self-report, FA is estimated to affect between 16–20% of the adult population. However, there are few interventions available for people with self-reported FA, and their efficacy is unclear. The primary aim of the review was to examine the efficacy of different interventions, including behavioural/lifestyle, medication and surgical approaches, for reducing symptoms and/or changing diagnosis of FA among adolescents and adults. A secondary aim was to examine the influence of sex as a moderator of intervention effects. A systematic search was performed from 2008–2020 to identify studies that used the YFAS to assess the effectiveness of interventions on FA. Nine studies were identified (n = 7 adults, n = 2 adolescents) including a total of 812 participants (range 22–256) with an average of 69% females per study. The types of interventions included medications (n = 3), lifestyle modification (n = 3), surgical (n = 2) and behavioural (n = 1), with FA being assessed as a secondary outcome in all studies. Five studies in adults reported a significant reduction in FA symptoms or diagnosis from pre to post-intervention, two when compared to a control group and three in the intervention group only. Efficacious interventions included: medication (combination of naltrexone and bupropion, as well as pexacerfont), bariatric surgery and lifestyle modification. No significant changes in FA were reported in adolescent studies. Given few studies were identified by the review, there is insufficient evidence to provide clear recommendations for practice; however, some interventions show potential for reducing self-reported FA outcomes in adults. Future research should explore the longer-term efficacy of interventions and the effectiveness of treatments with sufficient sample sizes.

Prevalence of food addiction determined by the Yale Food Addiction Scale and associated factors: A systematic review with meta‐analysis

“…However, with the explosive increase over the years in the number of studies evaluating FA using YFAS, in several contexts, and around the globe, no systematic review has been proposed to comprehensively assess this topic since the publication of Pursey et al (2014). The most current systematic reviews are aimed at specific population groups (Skinner et al, 2021;Yekaninejad et al, 2021), specific clinical contexts (Burrows et al, 2018;Leary et al, 2021), with data from only one of the YFAS versions (Oliveira et al, 2021) or just intended to explore the construct of FA (Penzenstadler et al, 2019). Thus, this study aims to determine, through a systematic review with meta-analysis, the prevalence of FA using the YFAS and its derivatives exploring possible factors associated with the prevalence of FA in several contexts.…”

Socio-Demographic, Self-Control, Bullying, Parenting, and Sleep as Proximal Factors Associated with Food Addiction among Adolescents

“…In a 2014 systematic review of FA prevalence, the weighted mean number of symptoms for adults ( n = 8 studies) was 2.8 (range from 1.8 to 4.6) out of a possible score of seven, with females reporting higher number of symptoms compared to males [ 49 ]. Additionally, more recent reviews of FA within adult populations using the updated YFAS 2.0 report that the total number of symptoms are often in the severe form (≥6 symptoms out of a possible 11) [ 15 , 34 , 50 , 51 ]. This contrast between the two age groups may indicate a progression in severity as an individual transitions from adolescence to adulthood.…”

Clinical Considerations of Ultra-processed Food Addiction Across Weight Classes: an Eating Disorder Treatment and Care Perspective

“…Recommendations are generated from available evidence and the clinical experience of the author which have not been validated. Systematic reviews of interventions for UPFA have recently been published [ 116 , 117 ]. Ketogenic diets used in the treatment of binge eating and UPFA [ 118 , 119 ] are controversial and are not discussed here but may have utility in select cases.…”