---
type: claim
domain: health
description: NEDA and ANAD recommend physician + ED therapist + dietitian before prescribing GLP-1s to at-risk patients, but this care team structure does not exist in primary care where 70+ percent of GLP-1 prescriptions are written
confidence: experimental
source: NEDA/ANAD clinical guidance 2025
created: 2026-05-04
title: GLP-1 eating disorder screening gap is structural capacity failure not clinical knowledge deficit because professional society guidance requires tri-specialist care teams unavailable in primary care settings where most prescriptions originate
agent: vida
sourced_from: health/2025-xx-neda-anad-glp1-eating-disorders-clinical-guidance.md
scope: structural
sourcer: NEDA/ANAD
supports:
- ai-telehealth-glp1-prescribing-commoditizes-at-scale-but-generates-systematic-safety-and-fraud-failures
related:
- the-mental-health-supply-gap-is-widening-not-closing
- ai-telehealth-glp1-prescribing-commoditizes-at-scale-but-generates-systematic-safety-and-fraud-failures
- glp-1-therapy-requires-nutritional-monitoring-infrastructure-but-92-percent-receive-no-dietitian-support
- glp1-pre-treatment-eating-disorder-screening-recommended-not-required
- glp1-eating-disorder-risk-subtype-specific-protective-bed-harmful-restrictive
- glp1-eating-disorder-screening-gap-structural-capacity-not-clinical-knowledge
- neda
- anad
- glp1-eating-disorder-screening-lacks-reimbursement-infrastructure-despite-identified-risk-population
- glp1-eating-disorder-screening-protocol-scoff-plus-history-plus-behavioral-assessment-recommended-for-pre-treatment-risk-stratification
- glp1-atypical-anorexia-screening-gap-creates-invisible-high-risk-population
- glp1-prescribing-competency-gap-primary-care-psychiatric-monitoring
---

# GLP-1 eating disorder screening gap is structural capacity failure not clinical knowledge deficit because professional society guidance requires tri-specialist care teams unavailable in primary care settings where most prescriptions originate

NEDA and ANAD jointly recommend that GLP-1 prescribing for patients with eating disorder risk factors require a tri-specialist care team: a physician versed in both GLP-1s and eating disorders, a therapist experienced with both GLP-1s and ED treatment, and a dietitian familiar with this medication class and recovery nutrition. This guidance is professional society recommendation only—it creates no regulatory requirement and no legal obligation. The structural problem: most GLP-1 prescriptions originate in primary care settings where none of these three specialists are available. Primary care physicians typically lack eating disorder training, do not have ED therapists on staff, and rarely coordinate with dietitians for medication management. The gap is not that PCPs don't know the guidance exists—it's that the recommended care infrastructure does not exist in the settings where prescribing actually happens. This is compounded by the fact that eating disorder specialists are even more supply-constrained than general mental health providers. The guidance documents best practice while being structurally unimplementable at the point of care.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** PMC pharmacovigilance methodology limitations 2025

Study explicitly acknowledges indication bias limitation: 'The databases used in this study did not contain information on any pre-existing psychiatric conditions in patients reporting AEs' and researchers could not 'distinguish between a medicine-induced reaction and an event related to a patient's ongoing health issues.' This structural data gap in pharmacovigilance databases prevents causal determination and requires clinical studies to confirm associations, reinforcing that screening infrastructure gaps are systemic not knowledge-based.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** ANAD 2026 clinical guidance

ANAD's epistemic honesty is striking: 'We simply do not know if these medications will improve, worsen, or have no impact on eating disorder behaviors.' The national professional society acknowledges insufficient evidence to make clear recommendations, yet the medications are being prescribed at scale without screening infrastructure. The gap is not knowledge availability but operational implementation.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** NBC News 2024-08-15

Collaborative of Eating Disorders Organizations calling for mandatory screening before prescribing, indicating current practice lacks standardized pre-treatment ED assessment. No drug label warnings about ED risk exist as of August 2024 despite accumulating case reports.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** PMC12694361 systematic review

Review frames GLP-1RAs as 'at the intersection of medical innovation and psychological risk' requiring 'integrated psychological monitoring within multidisciplinary care.' This operationalizes the structural capacity requirement through specific screening infrastructure rather than individual clinician knowledge.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** Timmerman Report regulatory analysis, November 2025

Timmerman Report documents that semaglutide labels do not include warnings for restrictive eating disorder risk, and no safety database exists for monitoring GLP-1-induced eating disorders. The regulatory gap extends beyond screening protocols to include labeling and post-market surveillance infrastructure.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** FDA oral Wegovy label, January 2026

FDA label for oral Wegovy contains NO eating disorder warning or screening requirement despite known pharmacovigilance signal (aROR 4.17-6.80). Label includes standard thyroid C-cell tumor boxed warning but explicitly REMOVED suicidal behavior/ideation warning in 2026 review after finding no causal link. This regulatory asymmetry—removing psychiatric warnings while maintaining zero ED action—confirms the screening gap is structural/regulatory, not knowledge-based.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** NPR, Dr. Samantha DeCaro and Dr. Kim Dennis interviews

Dr. DeCaro and Dr. Dennis provide clinical expert consensus that screening protocols exist (SCOFF questionnaire plus history plus behavioral assessment) but are not implemented due to structural barriers, not knowledge gaps. The article notes 'easy online access with little screening creates vulnerability in susceptible populations,' confirming that the gap is operational infrastructure, not clinical uncertainty about what to screen for.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** STAT News, April 27, 2026

Expert assessment that healthcare system is 'unprepared for this coming wave' of eating disorder cases suggests infrastructure gap extends beyond screening protocols to treatment capacity. The 420,000 person projection (1.28% of potential GLP-1 user population) represents scale that would overwhelm existing eating disorder treatment infrastructure.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** APA Monitor on Psychology, July/August 2025

APA Monitor coverage in July 2025 signals that the psychological professional community formally engaged with GLP-1 mental health effects 9 months before mainstream public awareness. Despite this early professional recognition, no APA clinical practice guidelines on GLP-1 prescribing or monitoring existed as of 2026, confirming the gap is structural capacity (lack of formal protocols and reimbursement) rather than clinical knowledge (practitioners were aware).


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** Osmind clinical article Q1 2026

Osmind identifies parallel competency gap for psychiatric monitoring: primary care prescribers lack psychiatric competency to monitor for CNS effects including anhedonia, creating structural risk. Recommends psychiatrists prescribe GLP-1s directly for SUD/mood disorders rather than outsourcing to primary care. This extends the screening gap finding to broader psychiatric monitoring infrastructure.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** Sa et al., Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism 2026

Systematic review explicitly states 'caution is warranted in individuals with anorexia nervosa or restrictive eating patterns' but provides no evidence that pre-treatment screening protocols are being deployed. Most RCTs 'excluded individuals with moderate-to-severe mood disorders,' meaning high-risk populations are routinely excluded from evidence generation.
