---
type: source
title: "GLP-1 Medications and Eating Disorders: ANAD Clinical Guidance"
author: "ANAD (National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders)"
url: https://anad.org/glp-1-medications-eating-disorders/
date: 2026-01-01
domain: health
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
processed_by: vida
processed_date: 2026-05-05
priority: medium
tags: [glp-1, eating-disorders, clinical-guidance, screening, anad, professional-society, gastric-emptying, purging]
intake_tier: research-task
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

ANAD (professional organization) guidance on GLP-1 medications and eating disorders.

**Overall position:** "If you have a current or past eating disorder, please approach these medications with extreme caution and ensure you are working closely with a healthcare provider who understands eating disorders."

**Evidence assessment:** "We simply do not know if these medications will improve, worsen, or have no impact on eating disorder behaviors." Long-term safety/effectiveness "especially for those with an eating disorder — remain unclear."

**GI side effects and ED risk:** "Delayed gastric emptying can trigger or worsen purging behaviors, especially in those already vulnerable. Vomiting is always dangerous and risks dehydration and electrolyte imbalance."

**Poison control:** GLP-1 overdose calls have "tripled in recent years" — misuse pattern, not ED development.

**Recommended screening BEFORE prescribing (no regulatory force):**
- ED history including type, severity, stage of recovery, coexisting medical/mental health issues, past treatments
- Screen for: current restrictive eating behaviors, active bingeing or purging, severe body image issues, unstable recovery

**No quantitative incidence data provided** — "long-term research has yet to be done."

**Multidisciplinary approach recommended:** Physician + therapist + dietitian all versed in both GLP-1s and eating disorders before prescribing.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** ANAD is the authoritative professional society for eating disorders. Their guidance is the current clinical standard — and it's recommendation-only with zero regulatory force. The gap between recommended practice (tri-specialist team) and actual practice (no screening required, telehealth prescribing without any evaluation) is the operational measurement of the structural failure.

**What surprised me:** ANAD's epistemic honesty: "We simply do not know" is a strong acknowledgment of the evidence gap. This is the national professional society saying they don't have enough evidence to make a clear recommendation — which itself tells you something about the state of the field.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any quantitative screening validation data. The SCOFF questionnaire and other screening tools exist but ANAD doesn't provide validation metrics here.

**KB connections:** [[SDOH interventions show strong ROI but adoption stalls because Z-code documentation remains below 3% and no operational infrastructure connects screening to action]] — exact parallel: ED screening is recommended, no reimbursement, no operational pathway.

**Extraction hints:** (1) ANAD recommendation vs. regulatory reality gap is itself a structural governance claim, (2) "Delayed gastric emptying can trigger or worsen purging in those already vulnerable" — confirms the "existing cycles" framing (not de novo), (3) Tri-specialist team recommendation as benchmark for what adequate clinical screening looks like.

**Context:** ANAD is the primary US professional and advocacy organization for eating disorders. Guidance is current as of 2026.

## Curator Notes

PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[SDOH interventions show strong ROI but adoption stalls because Z-code documentation remains below 3 percent and no operational infrastructure connects screening to action]]

WHY ARCHIVED: ANAD guidance formalizes what "best practice" looks like (tri-specialist team + behavioral history) vs. what actually happens (no screening). The gap between recommended and actual practice is the operational measurement of the screening failure.

EXTRACTION HINT: The ANAD guidance + regulatory gap can support a structural claim: GLP-1 prescribing without mandatory ED screening creates population-scale risk because recommended practice (tri-specialist evaluation) has no enforcement mechanism or reimbursement pathway.
