We thank the authors of the comments[1] for the interest shown in our study and the remarks. As elaborated in the article,[2] our study had three specific aims, none of which was to “search for a biomarker of
impulsivity” per se. Therefore, to consider that the study aimed to search for biomarkers of
impulsivity would attract inappropriate and far-fetched attempts to extrapolate or generalize
our findings, to find biomarkers of impulsivity. Neither did our article discuss about it
anywhere in the manuscript. Had “searching for biomarkers” been an aim of our study, it would
have been designed differently. Studying impulsivity among groups of patients with other
psychiatric diagnoses including impulse control disorder, their first-degree relatives, and
healthy controls (HC) would have been needed.The authors rightly pointed out the absence of assessment of metabolic profile in the study
sample. We have mentioned this in the limitation of our study and recommended the same for
improvement in future studies. We agree that incorporating other suggestions in future studies
would enhance the generalizability of the findings.Based on statistical analysis, our study found a negative correlation between serum HDL and
all scores of impulsivity in the obsessive compulsive disorder group. Following the aims of
the study, the HC group was assessed for serum lipids but was not assessed for impulsivity.
Therefore, impulsivity and serum lipids were not correlated in the HC group. Examining the HC
group both for serum lipid profile and impulsivity and correlating between them would have
provided additional information related to biomarkers for impulsivity among patients with
OCD.We regret that the article missed mentioning the clinical significance of the findings. Our
study adds to the existing literature on lipid abnormalities and their varying associations
with impulsivity across psychiatric disorders. Regular assessment of deranged serum lipid
profile among patients with OCD, both with and without impulsivity, is warranted, and
management of the same would reduce the ill effects of dyslipidemia. Addressing limitations
mentioned in our article[2] and incorporating comments from the letter[1] in future studies would further enhance our collective understanding.