Binge eating disorder (BED) is the most common eating disorder categorized in the DSM-V, but it is often not diagnosed in patients with obesity because it can be difficult to detect in these patients who often have altered eating patterns. In this narrative review, we have highlighted the most recent findings in the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with BED and obesity. The results of our search showed that many BED patients are not obese, and most people with obesity do not have binge behavior. In the diagnostic assessment of these patients, it is important to evaluate not only the clinical and nutritional status and the presence of medical comorbidities, but also the psychological signs and symptoms related to psychiatric comorbidities to define the appropriate diagnosis and the consequent level of treatment. Well-tolerated drugs with action on both body weight and binges can be useful as a second-line complement to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Specific guidelines are needed to obtain consensus on appropriate recommendations in patients with obesity and BED approaching bariatric surgery, taking into account not only weight reduction and clinical data, but also eating behaviors. Identification of BED is important for targeting individuals at high risk of obesity, adverse metabolic patterns, and cardiovascular disease. The challenge is to also achieve lasting weight loss in patients with BED and concomitant obesity.

Background Binge eating disorder (BED) is the most common eating disorder, categorized in DSM-V, but many patients are not diagnosed, because of the difficulty to consider BED distinct condition from obesity. Its identification is important for targeting individuals at high risk of obesity, adverse metabolic pattern, and cardiovascular disease. In this review we have highlighted the main aspects of screening, diagnosis and treatment of patients with BED and Obesity.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (ω-3 PUFAs), specifically eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are critical modulators of cardiovascular physiology, acting through anti-inflammatory signaling, membrane remodeling, and transcriptional regulation. Despite strong biological plausibility, clinical evidence remains heterogeneous. This narrative review evaluates the complexities of ω-3 supplementation, moving beyond standardized dosing to discuss the emerging role of biomarker-based assessments. While traditional low-dose mixed formulations often failed to show significant benefits, high-dose purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 4 g/day) has demonstrated a substantial reduction in residual cardiovascular risk in specific populations. However, this clinical success is accompanied by a modest but consistent increase in atrial fibrillation risk at pharmacological doses, suggesting a need for better risk stratification. We highlight that therapeutic efficacy is closely tied to bioavailability—driven by chemical form and dietary context. In this setting, objective metrics such as the ω-3 Index or EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio are discussed as validated biomarkers of ω-3 status that, although not yet incorporated into clinical guidelines as routine treatment targets, may help account for inter-individual variability. Furthermore, we address the environmental burden of marine-derived oils, considering microalgae-based alternatives as sustainable solutions. Ultimately, this review advocates for a more nuanced approach that integrates clinical evidence, the potential of biomarker monitoring, and global environmental responsibility.