News from AGA

As a member of the AGA, you understand the physical, emotional, and financial costs of digestive diseases. And you understand the tremendous value of research to advance patient care.

We are in a time of major scientific breakthroughs; however, there is a growing gap in federal funding for research. Without gastroenterology and hepatology research, there would be no discoveries to develop new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches and to improve our understanding of the pathogenesis of digestive diseases.

The AGA Research Foundation funds promising GI investigators who don’t receive funding at crucial times in their early careers. The research of these talented individuals, while important to the field, could end prematurely if they are left unfunded. That’s something the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology can’t afford, and that’s why, as an AGA member, I’m making a year-end donation to the AGA Research Foundation. You can help fill the funding gap and protect the next generation of investigators by joining me in supporting the AGA Research Foundation through a personal year-end gift.

Gifts to the AGA Research Foundation this past year directly supported 71 investigators. Despite this success, close to 245 other promising research proposals were not funded.

We must continue to foster the careers of talented scientists and clinicians, and protect the GI research pipeline. A financial contribution to the AGA Research Foundation is the opportunity for you to help foster the careers of talented scientists and protect the GI research pipeline.

Help make a difference. You can make your tax-deductible donation online at www.gastro.org/donateonline; by phone at 301-222-4002; or, by mail:

AGA Research Foundation
4930 Del Ray Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20814

All gifts are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of U.S. law.

Thank you for your support and best wishes for a happy, healthy holiday season and prosperous New Year.

As a member of the AGA, you understand the physical, emotional, and financial costs of digestive diseases. And you understand the tremendous value of research to advance patient care.

We are in a time of major scientific breakthroughs; however, there is a growing gap in federal funding for research. Without gastroenterology and hepatology research, there would be no discoveries to develop new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches and to improve our understanding of the pathogenesis of digestive diseases.

The AGA Research Foundation funds promising GI investigators who don’t receive funding at crucial times in their early careers. The research of these talented individuals, while important to the field, could end prematurely if they are left unfunded. That’s something the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology can’t afford, and that’s why, as an AGA member, I’m making a year-end donation to the AGA Research Foundation. You can help fill the funding gap and protect the next generation of investigators by joining me in supporting the AGA Research Foundation through a personal year-end gift.

Gifts to the AGA Research Foundation this past year directly supported 71 investigators. Despite this success, close to 245 other promising research proposals were not funded.

We must continue to foster the careers of talented scientists and clinicians, and protect the GI research pipeline. A financial contribution to the AGA Research Foundation is the opportunity for you to help foster the careers of talented scientists and protect the GI research pipeline.

Help make a difference. You can make your tax-deductible donation online at www.gastro.org/donateonline; by phone at 301-222-4002; or, by mail:

AGA Research Foundation
4930 Del Ray Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20814

All gifts are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of U.S. law.

Thank you for your support and best wishes for a happy, healthy holiday season and prosperous New Year.

As a member of the AGA, you understand the physical, emotional, and financial costs of digestive diseases. And you understand the tremendous value of research to advance patient care.

We are in a time of major scientific breakthroughs; however, there is a growing gap in federal funding for research. Without gastroenterology and hepatology research, there would be no discoveries to develop new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches and to improve our understanding of the pathogenesis of digestive diseases.

The AGA Research Foundation funds promising GI investigators who don’t receive funding at crucial times in their early careers. The research of these talented individuals, while important to the field, could end prematurely if they are left unfunded. That’s something the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology can’t afford, and that’s why, as an AGA member, I’m making a year-end donation to the AGA Research Foundation. You can help fill the funding gap and protect the next generation of investigators by joining me in supporting the AGA Research Foundation through a personal year-end gift.

Gifts to the AGA Research Foundation this past year directly supported 71 investigators. Despite this success, close to 245 other promising research proposals were not funded.

We must continue to foster the careers of talented scientists and clinicians, and protect the GI research pipeline. A financial contribution to the AGA Research Foundation is the opportunity for you to help foster the careers of talented scientists and protect the GI research pipeline.

Help make a difference. You can make your tax-deductible donation online at www.gastro.org/donateonline; by phone at 301-222-4002; or, by mail:

AGA Research Foundation
4930 Del Ray Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20814

All gifts are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of U.S. law.

Thank you for your support and best wishes for a happy, healthy holiday season and prosperous New Year.

As one of the most commonly reported bacterial infections, staying up to date on the latest in Clostridioides difficile is critical for providing the best possible care for your patients. AGA’s new on-demand program, “C. difficile: Preparing the Field for Change,” is a six-part podcast series that outlines effective approaches to patient-centered care that will transform your practice. 

Each 30-minute episode delves into a different topic – from microbiome therapy and FMT to documenting patient history – that will help you improve patient outcomes and reduce the risk of complications.

Tune in and subscribe to our channel Inside Scope wherever you listen to podcasts (Apple or Google). To claim CME credit for listening, visit AGA University (agau.gastro.org).

Episode breakdown

Risk factors
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna cover risk factors for initial and recurrent C. difficile infection.

Microbiota changes
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna describe the shifts in the microbiota with C. difficile infection.

Reconciling guideline differences for testing and treatment
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Colleen Kelly to discuss how to reconcile guideline differences for testing and treatment of C. difficile.

Case management and transitions of care
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Rebecca Perez and Cheri Lattimer to discuss case management and transitions of care in C. difficile infection.

Impact of rCDI on patients and their lives
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Dr. Kevin Garey and a patient to discuss the impact of recurrent CDI on patients and their lives. 

FMT and new microbiome therapies
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Jessica Allegretti to discuss FMT and new microbiome therapies.

This series is supported by educational grants from Aimmune Therapeutics, Seres Therapeutics, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. 
 

As one of the most commonly reported bacterial infections, staying up to date on the latest in Clostridioides difficile is critical for providing the best possible care for your patients. AGA’s new on-demand program, “C. difficile: Preparing the Field for Change,” is a six-part podcast series that outlines effective approaches to patient-centered care that will transform your practice. 

Each 30-minute episode delves into a different topic – from microbiome therapy and FMT to documenting patient history – that will help you improve patient outcomes and reduce the risk of complications.

Tune in and subscribe to our channel Inside Scope wherever you listen to podcasts (Apple or Google). To claim CME credit for listening, visit AGA University (agau.gastro.org).

Episode breakdown

Risk factors
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna cover risk factors for initial and recurrent C. difficile infection.

Microbiota changes
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna describe the shifts in the microbiota with C. difficile infection.

Reconciling guideline differences for testing and treatment
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Colleen Kelly to discuss how to reconcile guideline differences for testing and treatment of C. difficile.

Case management and transitions of care
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Rebecca Perez and Cheri Lattimer to discuss case management and transitions of care in C. difficile infection.

Impact of rCDI on patients and their lives
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Dr. Kevin Garey and a patient to discuss the impact of recurrent CDI on patients and their lives. 

FMT and new microbiome therapies
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Jessica Allegretti to discuss FMT and new microbiome therapies.

This series is supported by educational grants from Aimmune Therapeutics, Seres Therapeutics, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. 
 

As one of the most commonly reported bacterial infections, staying up to date on the latest in Clostridioides difficile is critical for providing the best possible care for your patients. AGA’s new on-demand program, “C. difficile: Preparing the Field for Change,” is a six-part podcast series that outlines effective approaches to patient-centered care that will transform your practice. 

Each 30-minute episode delves into a different topic – from microbiome therapy and FMT to documenting patient history – that will help you improve patient outcomes and reduce the risk of complications.

Tune in and subscribe to our channel Inside Scope wherever you listen to podcasts (Apple or Google). To claim CME credit for listening, visit AGA University (agau.gastro.org).

Episode breakdown

Risk factors
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna cover risk factors for initial and recurrent C. difficile infection.

Microbiota changes
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna describe the shifts in the microbiota with C. difficile infection.

Reconciling guideline differences for testing and treatment
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Colleen Kelly to discuss how to reconcile guideline differences for testing and treatment of C. difficile.

Case management and transitions of care
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Rebecca Perez and Cheri Lattimer to discuss case management and transitions of care in C. difficile infection.

Impact of rCDI on patients and their lives
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Dr. Kevin Garey and a patient to discuss the impact of recurrent CDI on patients and their lives. 

FMT and new microbiome therapies
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Jessica Allegretti to discuss FMT and new microbiome therapies.

This series is supported by educational grants from Aimmune Therapeutics, Seres Therapeutics, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. 
 

Your patients may be confused by conflicting guidance about when to start getting screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). AGA stands firmly behind our Multi-Society Task Force on CRC recommendations, and those of the U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce, the American Cancer Society, and other national medical societies and advocacy organizations, that colorectal cancer screening for average risk individuals should start at age 45.

But what should you say to your patients who were already unaware or unsure about getting screened and are now confused by the media coverage?

View the talking points below to help your patients understand screening guidelines and why they need to get screened for colorectal cancer.

One outlier medical group says colorectal cancer screening can wait until age 50, but the consensus of the government and multiple expert groups, including the American Gastroenterological Association, is that getting screened starting at age 45 could save your life.

Colorectal cancer will be the leading cause of cancer-related death among 20- to 49-year-olds by 2030. Putting off screening until age 50 is a grave mistake.

Screening for colorectal cancer can help find polyps in your colon and rectum early, sometimes even before they become cancer. A polyp is a mushroom-like or flat growth on the inside wall of your colon or rectum. Polyps grow slowly over many years and not all turn into cancer. I can remove these growths, which might mean that I can help stop the cancer before it starts, remove tissue that shows cancer, or let us start treatment early if cancer has already started.

There are several tests for colorectal cancer screening, including colonoscopy, but there are also tests that are noninvasive, meaning they don’t need tools that enter your body. Let’s talk about each test and which one you feel most comfortable using.

For more resources to share with your patients, visit the AGA GI Patient Center.

Your patients may be confused by conflicting guidance about when to start getting screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). AGA stands firmly behind our Multi-Society Task Force on CRC recommendations, and those of the U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce, the American Cancer Society, and other national medical societies and advocacy organizations, that colorectal cancer screening for average risk individuals should start at age 45.

But what should you say to your patients who were already unaware or unsure about getting screened and are now confused by the media coverage?

View the talking points below to help your patients understand screening guidelines and why they need to get screened for colorectal cancer.

One outlier medical group says colorectal cancer screening can wait until age 50, but the consensus of the government and multiple expert groups, including the American Gastroenterological Association, is that getting screened starting at age 45 could save your life.

Colorectal cancer will be the leading cause of cancer-related death among 20- to 49-year-olds by 2030. Putting off screening until age 50 is a grave mistake.

Screening for colorectal cancer can help find polyps in your colon and rectum early, sometimes even before they become cancer. A polyp is a mushroom-like or flat growth on the inside wall of your colon or rectum. Polyps grow slowly over many years and not all turn into cancer. I can remove these growths, which might mean that I can help stop the cancer before it starts, remove tissue that shows cancer, or let us start treatment early if cancer has already started.

There are several tests for colorectal cancer screening, including colonoscopy, but there are also tests that are noninvasive, meaning they don’t need tools that enter your body. Let’s talk about each test and which one you feel most comfortable using.

For more resources to share with your patients, visit the AGA GI Patient Center.

Your patients may be confused by conflicting guidance about when to start getting screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). AGA stands firmly behind our Multi-Society Task Force on CRC recommendations, and those of the U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce, the American Cancer Society, and other national medical societies and advocacy organizations, that colorectal cancer screening for average risk individuals should start at age 45.

But what should you say to your patients who were already unaware or unsure about getting screened and are now confused by the media coverage?

View the talking points below to help your patients understand screening guidelines and why they need to get screened for colorectal cancer.

One outlier medical group says colorectal cancer screening can wait until age 50, but the consensus of the government and multiple expert groups, including the American Gastroenterological Association, is that getting screened starting at age 45 could save your life.

Colorectal cancer will be the leading cause of cancer-related death among 20- to 49-year-olds by 2030. Putting off screening until age 50 is a grave mistake.

Screening for colorectal cancer can help find polyps in your colon and rectum early, sometimes even before they become cancer. A polyp is a mushroom-like or flat growth on the inside wall of your colon or rectum. Polyps grow slowly over many years and not all turn into cancer. I can remove these growths, which might mean that I can help stop the cancer before it starts, remove tissue that shows cancer, or let us start treatment early if cancer has already started.

There are several tests for colorectal cancer screening, including colonoscopy, but there are also tests that are noninvasive, meaning they don’t need tools that enter your body. Let’s talk about each test and which one you feel most comfortable using.

For more resources to share with your patients, visit the AGA GI Patient Center.

Five patients and nearly 50 physician members of the American Gastroenterological Association recently traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and urge them to advance legislation reforming prior authorization and other health insurance barriers.   

Courtesy AGA

In our first in-person Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill since 2019, AGA leaders and patient advocates from 22 total states met with House and Senate offices to educate members of Congress and their staff about policies affecting GI patient care such as prior authorization and step therapy. Federal research funding and Medicare reimbursement were also on the agenda.  

In the meetings, the patient shared their stories of living with various gastrointestinal diseases, including ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, and the struggles they’ve gone through to get treatments approved by their insurers. AGA physicians shared the provider perspective of how policies like prior authorization negatively impact practices. According to a 2023 AGA member survey, 95% of respondents say that prior authorization restrictions have impacted patient access to clinically appropriate treatments and patient clinical outcomes and 84% described that the burden associated with prior authorization policies have increased “significantly” or “somewhat” over the last 5 years. AGA’s advocacy day came not long after UnitedHealthcare’s announcement of a new “Gold Card” prior authorization policy to be implemented in 2024, which will impact most colonoscopies and endoscopies for its 27 million commercial beneficiaries. The group expressed serious concerns about the proposed policy to lawmakers.    

Courtesy AGA

Five patients and nearly 50 physician members of the American Gastroenterological Association recently traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and urge them to advance legislation reforming prior authorization and other health insurance barriers.   

Courtesy AGA

In our first in-person Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill since 2019, AGA leaders and patient advocates from 22 total states met with House and Senate offices to educate members of Congress and their staff about policies affecting GI patient care such as prior authorization and step therapy. Federal research funding and Medicare reimbursement were also on the agenda.  

In the meetings, the patient shared their stories of living with various gastrointestinal diseases, including ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, and the struggles they’ve gone through to get treatments approved by their insurers. AGA physicians shared the provider perspective of how policies like prior authorization negatively impact practices. According to a 2023 AGA member survey, 95% of respondents say that prior authorization restrictions have impacted patient access to clinically appropriate treatments and patient clinical outcomes and 84% described that the burden associated with prior authorization policies have increased “significantly” or “somewhat” over the last 5 years. AGA’s advocacy day came not long after UnitedHealthcare’s announcement of a new “Gold Card” prior authorization policy to be implemented in 2024, which will impact most colonoscopies and endoscopies for its 27 million commercial beneficiaries. The group expressed serious concerns about the proposed policy to lawmakers.    

Courtesy AGA

Five patients and nearly 50 physician members of the American Gastroenterological Association recently traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and urge them to advance legislation reforming prior authorization and other health insurance barriers.   

Courtesy AGA

In our first in-person Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill since 2019, AGA leaders and patient advocates from 22 total states met with House and Senate offices to educate members of Congress and their staff about policies affecting GI patient care such as prior authorization and step therapy. Federal research funding and Medicare reimbursement were also on the agenda.  

In the meetings, the patient shared their stories of living with various gastrointestinal diseases, including ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, and the struggles they’ve gone through to get treatments approved by their insurers. AGA physicians shared the provider perspective of how policies like prior authorization negatively impact practices. According to a 2023 AGA member survey, 95% of respondents say that prior authorization restrictions have impacted patient access to clinically appropriate treatments and patient clinical outcomes and 84% described that the burden associated with prior authorization policies have increased “significantly” or “somewhat” over the last 5 years. AGA’s advocacy day came not long after UnitedHealthcare’s announcement of a new “Gold Card” prior authorization policy to be implemented in 2024, which will impact most colonoscopies and endoscopies for its 27 million commercial beneficiaries. The group expressed serious concerns about the proposed policy to lawmakers.    

Courtesy AGA

Except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy, common cancer screening tests do not extend life, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term randomized clinical trials involving 2.1 million individuals, found that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life. An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using CT. The study involved more than 1 decade of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality of people who had undergone mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer; CT screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.

AGA

The study received a fair amount of attention in the press, but the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) believes the premise of the study is flawed because cancer screening is not intended to increase longevity, but it can prevent premature death.

“Cancer prevention and earlier stage diagnoses through colorectal cancer screening provides significant morbidity and cost benefits, even if all-cause mortality is not reduced,” said Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, AGA vice president.

The authors of the study, who were led by Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, of the Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, are not suggesting that cancer screenings be abandoned. However, they do suggest that “organizations, institutions, and policy makers who promote cancer screening tests by their effect to save lives may find other ways of encouraging screening. It might be wise to reconsider priorities and dispassionately inform interested people about the absolute benefits, harms, and burden of screening tests that they consider undertaking.”

Except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy, common cancer screening tests do not extend life, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term randomized clinical trials involving 2.1 million individuals, found that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life. An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using CT. The study involved more than 1 decade of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality of people who had undergone mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer; CT screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.

AGA

The study received a fair amount of attention in the press, but the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) believes the premise of the study is flawed because cancer screening is not intended to increase longevity, but it can prevent premature death.

“Cancer prevention and earlier stage diagnoses through colorectal cancer screening provides significant morbidity and cost benefits, even if all-cause mortality is not reduced,” said Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, AGA vice president.

The authors of the study, who were led by Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, of the Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, are not suggesting that cancer screenings be abandoned. However, they do suggest that “organizations, institutions, and policy makers who promote cancer screening tests by their effect to save lives may find other ways of encouraging screening. It might be wise to reconsider priorities and dispassionately inform interested people about the absolute benefits, harms, and burden of screening tests that they consider undertaking.”

Except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy, common cancer screening tests do not extend life, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term randomized clinical trials involving 2.1 million individuals, found that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life. An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using CT. The study involved more than 1 decade of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality of people who had undergone mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer; CT screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.

AGA

The study received a fair amount of attention in the press, but the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) believes the premise of the study is flawed because cancer screening is not intended to increase longevity, but it can prevent premature death.

“Cancer prevention and earlier stage diagnoses through colorectal cancer screening provides significant morbidity and cost benefits, even if all-cause mortality is not reduced,” said Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, AGA vice president.

The authors of the study, who were led by Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, of the Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, are not suggesting that cancer screenings be abandoned. However, they do suggest that “organizations, institutions, and policy makers who promote cancer screening tests by their effect to save lives may find other ways of encouraging screening. It might be wise to reconsider priorities and dispassionately inform interested people about the absolute benefits, harms, and burden of screening tests that they consider undertaking.”

In a new statement, five professional gastroenterology organizations caution that there are currently no data to support stopping glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy

The medications, which include semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy), tirzepatide (Mounjaro), and liraglutide (Saxenda), among others, are used for the treatment of diabetes or for weight loss and may be associated with delayed gastric emptying.

Penn Medicine

Patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists for diabetes management “need to be cautious about withholding these medications because doing so can adversely impact blood glucose control,” said Octavia Pickett-Blakely, MD, a gastroenterologist with University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). “In patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, poorly controlled blood glucose could raise the risk of complications.”

In a commentary on Medscape, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, urges clinicians to learn about the topic and inform patients when prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists.

“These are new and changing issues. In our world as gastroenterologists, we should be considering – very strongly – mitigating strategies to protect the patients on this wonderful class of therapy,” he says. “Sometimes these drugs can have significant side effects that we need to at least be aware of. Nothing is perfect, but let us be better informed.”

“We really don’t know what the risks are yet. With endoscopy, they could be significant, but perhaps they’re not,” Jonathan Leighton, MD, a gastroenterologist with Mayo Clinic Arizona in Phoenix and president-elect of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), told this news organization. “There are a lot of factors that go into this, and we just want to proceed cautiously and carefully until we know more.”

The ACG, AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition released the statement on Aug. 11.

It was issued in response to recent guidance on the preoperative management of adults and children on GLP-1 receptor agonists put forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

In a separate statement, the AGA stated that there is little, or no data on complications from aspiration.

“While there is anecdotal experience that increased gastroparesis risk may be dose dependent or related to whether it is being used for diabetes control versus weight loss, we also acknowledge that there is little, or no data related to the relative risk of complications from aspiration. As a result, the impact associated with stopping these therapies prior to undergoing upper GI endoscopy (EGD) or other moderate to deep sedated procedures is unknown at this time. 

“As clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists, we are very familiar with safety issues regarding the performance of endoscopy in our patients suffering from gastroparesis as well as unexplained nausea, vomiting, and epigastric pain, particularly in emergency situations. As patient safety will always be paramount, and in the absence of actionable data, we encourage our members to exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients who are taking GLP-1 receptor agonists. More data are needed to understand if and when these medications should be held prior to elective endoscopy. Given the need for further data regarding the emerging use of these novel compounds, we encourage our anesthesiology, endocrinology, and industry partners to work collaboratively with our members to develop the necessary evidence to appropriately inform medication adjustments prior to elective endoscopy.”

ASA recommendations

The ASA Task Force on Preoperative Fasting reviewed the available literature on GLP-1 receptor agonists and associated gastrointestinal adverse effects, including the consequences of delayed gastric emptying.

The task force acknowledges that the evidence to provide guidance for preoperative management of these drugs to prevent regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is “sparse, limited only to several case reports.”

Nevertheless, given the concerns of GLP-1 receptor agonist–induced delayed gastric emptying and associated high risk for regurgitation and aspiration of gastric contents, the task force made these recommendations for elective procedures.

The day before the procedure

For patients on daily dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists on the day of the procedure/surgery. For patients on weekly dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists a week prior to the procedure/surgery.

This suggestion is irrespective of the indication (type 2 diabetes or weight loss), dose, or the type of procedure/surgery.

If GLP-1 agonists prescribed for diabetes are held for longer than the dosing schedule, consider consulting an endocrinologist for bridging the antidiabetic therapy to avoid hyperglycemia.

The day of the procedure

If GI symptoms such as severe nausea/vomiting/retching, abdominal bloating, or abdominal pain are present, consider delaying the elective procedure and discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

If the patient has no GI symptoms and the GLP-1 agonists have been held as advised, proceed as usual.

If the patient has no GI symptoms but the GLP-1 agonists were not held as advised, proceed with “full stomach” precautions or consider evaluating gastric volume by ultrasound, if possible and if proficient with the technique. If the stomach is empty, proceed as usual. If the stomach is full or if gastric ultrasound is inconclusive or not possible, consider delaying the procedure or treat the patient as “full stomach” and manage accordingly. Discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

There is no evidence to suggest the optimal duration of fasting for patients on GLP-1 agonists. Therefore, until we have adequate evidence, we suggest following the current ASA fasting guidelines.

For patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists who need urgent or emergent procedures, the ASA advises proceeding and treating the patient as “full stomach” and managing accordingly.

Dr. Leighton has financial relationships with Olympus and Pfizer. Dr. Pickett-Blakely has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Johnson is an adviser to ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

This story was adapted for GI&Hepatology News from Medscape.

In a new statement, five professional gastroenterology organizations caution that there are currently no data to support stopping glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy

The medications, which include semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy), tirzepatide (Mounjaro), and liraglutide (Saxenda), among others, are used for the treatment of diabetes or for weight loss and may be associated with delayed gastric emptying.

Penn Medicine

Patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists for diabetes management “need to be cautious about withholding these medications because doing so can adversely impact blood glucose control,” said Octavia Pickett-Blakely, MD, a gastroenterologist with University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). “In patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, poorly controlled blood glucose could raise the risk of complications.”

In a commentary on Medscape, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, urges clinicians to learn about the topic and inform patients when prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists.

“These are new and changing issues. In our world as gastroenterologists, we should be considering – very strongly – mitigating strategies to protect the patients on this wonderful class of therapy,” he says. “Sometimes these drugs can have significant side effects that we need to at least be aware of. Nothing is perfect, but let us be better informed.”

“We really don’t know what the risks are yet. With endoscopy, they could be significant, but perhaps they’re not,” Jonathan Leighton, MD, a gastroenterologist with Mayo Clinic Arizona in Phoenix and president-elect of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), told this news organization. “There are a lot of factors that go into this, and we just want to proceed cautiously and carefully until we know more.”

The ACG, AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition released the statement on Aug. 11.

It was issued in response to recent guidance on the preoperative management of adults and children on GLP-1 receptor agonists put forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

In a separate statement, the AGA stated that there is little, or no data on complications from aspiration.

“While there is anecdotal experience that increased gastroparesis risk may be dose dependent or related to whether it is being used for diabetes control versus weight loss, we also acknowledge that there is little, or no data related to the relative risk of complications from aspiration. As a result, the impact associated with stopping these therapies prior to undergoing upper GI endoscopy (EGD) or other moderate to deep sedated procedures is unknown at this time. 

“As clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists, we are very familiar with safety issues regarding the performance of endoscopy in our patients suffering from gastroparesis as well as unexplained nausea, vomiting, and epigastric pain, particularly in emergency situations. As patient safety will always be paramount, and in the absence of actionable data, we encourage our members to exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients who are taking GLP-1 receptor agonists. More data are needed to understand if and when these medications should be held prior to elective endoscopy. Given the need for further data regarding the emerging use of these novel compounds, we encourage our anesthesiology, endocrinology, and industry partners to work collaboratively with our members to develop the necessary evidence to appropriately inform medication adjustments prior to elective endoscopy.”

ASA recommendations

The ASA Task Force on Preoperative Fasting reviewed the available literature on GLP-1 receptor agonists and associated gastrointestinal adverse effects, including the consequences of delayed gastric emptying.

The task force acknowledges that the evidence to provide guidance for preoperative management of these drugs to prevent regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is “sparse, limited only to several case reports.”

Nevertheless, given the concerns of GLP-1 receptor agonist–induced delayed gastric emptying and associated high risk for regurgitation and aspiration of gastric contents, the task force made these recommendations for elective procedures.

The day before the procedure

For patients on daily dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists on the day of the procedure/surgery. For patients on weekly dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists a week prior to the procedure/surgery.

This suggestion is irrespective of the indication (type 2 diabetes or weight loss), dose, or the type of procedure/surgery.

If GLP-1 agonists prescribed for diabetes are held for longer than the dosing schedule, consider consulting an endocrinologist for bridging the antidiabetic therapy to avoid hyperglycemia.

The day of the procedure

If GI symptoms such as severe nausea/vomiting/retching, abdominal bloating, or abdominal pain are present, consider delaying the elective procedure and discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

If the patient has no GI symptoms and the GLP-1 agonists have been held as advised, proceed as usual.

If the patient has no GI symptoms but the GLP-1 agonists were not held as advised, proceed with “full stomach” precautions or consider evaluating gastric volume by ultrasound, if possible and if proficient with the technique. If the stomach is empty, proceed as usual. If the stomach is full or if gastric ultrasound is inconclusive or not possible, consider delaying the procedure or treat the patient as “full stomach” and manage accordingly. Discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

There is no evidence to suggest the optimal duration of fasting for patients on GLP-1 agonists. Therefore, until we have adequate evidence, we suggest following the current ASA fasting guidelines.

For patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists who need urgent or emergent procedures, the ASA advises proceeding and treating the patient as “full stomach” and managing accordingly.

Dr. Leighton has financial relationships with Olympus and Pfizer. Dr. Pickett-Blakely has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Johnson is an adviser to ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

This story was adapted for GI&Hepatology News from Medscape.

In a new statement, five professional gastroenterology organizations caution that there are currently no data to support stopping glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy

The medications, which include semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy), tirzepatide (Mounjaro), and liraglutide (Saxenda), among others, are used for the treatment of diabetes or for weight loss and may be associated with delayed gastric emptying.

Penn Medicine

Patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists for diabetes management “need to be cautious about withholding these medications because doing so can adversely impact blood glucose control,” said Octavia Pickett-Blakely, MD, a gastroenterologist with University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). “In patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, poorly controlled blood glucose could raise the risk of complications.”

In a commentary on Medscape, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, urges clinicians to learn about the topic and inform patients when prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists.

“These are new and changing issues. In our world as gastroenterologists, we should be considering – very strongly – mitigating strategies to protect the patients on this wonderful class of therapy,” he says. “Sometimes these drugs can have significant side effects that we need to at least be aware of. Nothing is perfect, but let us be better informed.”

“We really don’t know what the risks are yet. With endoscopy, they could be significant, but perhaps they’re not,” Jonathan Leighton, MD, a gastroenterologist with Mayo Clinic Arizona in Phoenix and president-elect of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), told this news organization. “There are a lot of factors that go into this, and we just want to proceed cautiously and carefully until we know more.”

The ACG, AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition released the statement on Aug. 11.

It was issued in response to recent guidance on the preoperative management of adults and children on GLP-1 receptor agonists put forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

In a separate statement, the AGA stated that there is little, or no data on complications from aspiration.

“While there is anecdotal experience that increased gastroparesis risk may be dose dependent or related to whether it is being used for diabetes control versus weight loss, we also acknowledge that there is little, or no data related to the relative risk of complications from aspiration. As a result, the impact associated with stopping these therapies prior to undergoing upper GI endoscopy (EGD) or other moderate to deep sedated procedures is unknown at this time. 

“As clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists, we are very familiar with safety issues regarding the performance of endoscopy in our patients suffering from gastroparesis as well as unexplained nausea, vomiting, and epigastric pain, particularly in emergency situations. As patient safety will always be paramount, and in the absence of actionable data, we encourage our members to exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients who are taking GLP-1 receptor agonists. More data are needed to understand if and when these medications should be held prior to elective endoscopy. Given the need for further data regarding the emerging use of these novel compounds, we encourage our anesthesiology, endocrinology, and industry partners to work collaboratively with our members to develop the necessary evidence to appropriately inform medication adjustments prior to elective endoscopy.”

ASA recommendations

The ASA Task Force on Preoperative Fasting reviewed the available literature on GLP-1 receptor agonists and associated gastrointestinal adverse effects, including the consequences of delayed gastric emptying.

The task force acknowledges that the evidence to provide guidance for preoperative management of these drugs to prevent regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is “sparse, limited only to several case reports.”

Nevertheless, given the concerns of GLP-1 receptor agonist–induced delayed gastric emptying and associated high risk for regurgitation and aspiration of gastric contents, the task force made these recommendations for elective procedures.

The day before the procedure

For patients on daily dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists on the day of the procedure/surgery. For patients on weekly dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists a week prior to the procedure/surgery.

This suggestion is irrespective of the indication (type 2 diabetes or weight loss), dose, or the type of procedure/surgery.

If GLP-1 agonists prescribed for diabetes are held for longer than the dosing schedule, consider consulting an endocrinologist for bridging the antidiabetic therapy to avoid hyperglycemia.

The day of the procedure

If GI symptoms such as severe nausea/vomiting/retching, abdominal bloating, or abdominal pain are present, consider delaying the elective procedure and discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

If the patient has no GI symptoms and the GLP-1 agonists have been held as advised, proceed as usual.

If the patient has no GI symptoms but the GLP-1 agonists were not held as advised, proceed with “full stomach” precautions or consider evaluating gastric volume by ultrasound, if possible and if proficient with the technique. If the stomach is empty, proceed as usual. If the stomach is full or if gastric ultrasound is inconclusive or not possible, consider delaying the procedure or treat the patient as “full stomach” and manage accordingly. Discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

There is no evidence to suggest the optimal duration of fasting for patients on GLP-1 agonists. Therefore, until we have adequate evidence, we suggest following the current ASA fasting guidelines.

For patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists who need urgent or emergent procedures, the ASA advises proceeding and treating the patient as “full stomach” and managing accordingly.

Dr. Leighton has financial relationships with Olympus and Pfizer. Dr. Pickett-Blakely has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Johnson is an adviser to ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

This story was adapted for GI&Hepatology News from Medscape.

AGA is excited to announce the new co–editors-in-chief of Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH). Michele A. Battle, PhD, and Jonathan P. Katz, MD, will be taking over their new roles beginning July 1, 2024.

“In my role as co–editor-in-chief of CMGH, I look forward to working with Jonathan Katz to advance its longstanding mission to disseminate rigorous, reproducible, and impactful digestive biology research. I am excited to launch new initiatives including the addition of special topic editors who will cover themes relating to early career investigators and diversity, equity, and inclusion,” said Dr. Battle, who is a professor in the department of cell biology, neurobiology, and anatomy at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Jonathan P. Katz, MD

“I am honored to work with Michele Battle and the rest of our new CMGH board of editors. Some of our goals are to expand CMGH outreach and engagement, incorporate more programs and opportunities for junior investigators, and provide rapid advancements and technical reports that drive research in the field. As such, we will strive to ensure that CMGH remains the preeminent journal focused on high-impact, basic, mechanistic research in GI and hepatology,” said Dr. Katz, an associate professor of medicine in the department of medicine gastroenterology division, director of molecular pathology and imaging care, and director of the undergraduate student scholars program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He is also currently an associate editor for CMGH.

Dr. Battle and Dr. Katz are former AGA Research Foundation awardees, with Dr. Battle receiving an AGA Research Scholar Award in 2009 and Dr. Katz receiving the AGA Astra Merck Advanced Research Training Award in 1998.

Over the next year, they will meet with the current editorial board and start to plan and develop new special sections and initiatives to bring to CMGH during their term.

Please join us in congratulating Dr. Battle and Dr. Katz on their new role as incoming co–editors-in chief.
 

AGA is excited to announce the new co–editors-in-chief of Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH). Michele A. Battle, PhD, and Jonathan P. Katz, MD, will be taking over their new roles beginning July 1, 2024.

“In my role as co–editor-in-chief of CMGH, I look forward to working with Jonathan Katz to advance its longstanding mission to disseminate rigorous, reproducible, and impactful digestive biology research. I am excited to launch new initiatives including the addition of special topic editors who will cover themes relating to early career investigators and diversity, equity, and inclusion,” said Dr. Battle, who is a professor in the department of cell biology, neurobiology, and anatomy at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Jonathan P. Katz, MD

“I am honored to work with Michele Battle and the rest of our new CMGH board of editors. Some of our goals are to expand CMGH outreach and engagement, incorporate more programs and opportunities for junior investigators, and provide rapid advancements and technical reports that drive research in the field. As such, we will strive to ensure that CMGH remains the preeminent journal focused on high-impact, basic, mechanistic research in GI and hepatology,” said Dr. Katz, an associate professor of medicine in the department of medicine gastroenterology division, director of molecular pathology and imaging care, and director of the undergraduate student scholars program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He is also currently an associate editor for CMGH.

Dr. Battle and Dr. Katz are former AGA Research Foundation awardees, with Dr. Battle receiving an AGA Research Scholar Award in 2009 and Dr. Katz receiving the AGA Astra Merck Advanced Research Training Award in 1998.

Over the next year, they will meet with the current editorial board and start to plan and develop new special sections and initiatives to bring to CMGH during their term.

Please join us in congratulating Dr. Battle and Dr. Katz on their new role as incoming co–editors-in chief.
 

AGA is excited to announce the new co–editors-in-chief of Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH). Michele A. Battle, PhD, and Jonathan P. Katz, MD, will be taking over their new roles beginning July 1, 2024.

“In my role as co–editor-in-chief of CMGH, I look forward to working with Jonathan Katz to advance its longstanding mission to disseminate rigorous, reproducible, and impactful digestive biology research. I am excited to launch new initiatives including the addition of special topic editors who will cover themes relating to early career investigators and diversity, equity, and inclusion,” said Dr. Battle, who is a professor in the department of cell biology, neurobiology, and anatomy at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Jonathan P. Katz, MD

“I am honored to work with Michele Battle and the rest of our new CMGH board of editors. Some of our goals are to expand CMGH outreach and engagement, incorporate more programs and opportunities for junior investigators, and provide rapid advancements and technical reports that drive research in the field. As such, we will strive to ensure that CMGH remains the preeminent journal focused on high-impact, basic, mechanistic research in GI and hepatology,” said Dr. Katz, an associate professor of medicine in the department of medicine gastroenterology division, director of molecular pathology and imaging care, and director of the undergraduate student scholars program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He is also currently an associate editor for CMGH.

Dr. Battle and Dr. Katz are former AGA Research Foundation awardees, with Dr. Battle receiving an AGA Research Scholar Award in 2009 and Dr. Katz receiving the AGA Astra Merck Advanced Research Training Award in 1998.

Over the next year, they will meet with the current editorial board and start to plan and develop new special sections and initiatives to bring to CMGH during their term.

Please join us in congratulating Dr. Battle and Dr. Katz on their new role as incoming co–editors-in chief.
 

We are delighted to introduce the Gastro Journal Club in which an author of a study published in Gastroenterology will present their paper followed by a Q&A. The inaugural Gastro Journal Club features Loren Laine, MD, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and was hosted by the McMaster University gastroenterology division. Dr. Laine presented his article “Vonoprazan Versus Lansoprazole for Healing and Maintenance of Healing of Erosive Esophagitis: A Randomized Trial,” published in the January 2023 issue of Gastroenterology.

The Gastro Journal Club is open to GI units at any institution worldwide. If you are interested in participating, please contact [email protected].

Watch the inaugural Gastro Journal Club: https://rb.gy/j8mqm

We are delighted to introduce the Gastro Journal Club in which an author of a study published in Gastroenterology will present their paper followed by a Q&A. The inaugural Gastro Journal Club features Loren Laine, MD, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and was hosted by the McMaster University gastroenterology division. Dr. Laine presented his article “Vonoprazan Versus Lansoprazole for Healing and Maintenance of Healing of Erosive Esophagitis: A Randomized Trial,” published in the January 2023 issue of Gastroenterology.

The Gastro Journal Club is open to GI units at any institution worldwide. If you are interested in participating, please contact [email protected].

Watch the inaugural Gastro Journal Club: https://rb.gy/j8mqm

We are delighted to introduce the Gastro Journal Club in which an author of a study published in Gastroenterology will present their paper followed by a Q&A. The inaugural Gastro Journal Club features Loren Laine, MD, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and was hosted by the McMaster University gastroenterology division. Dr. Laine presented his article “Vonoprazan Versus Lansoprazole for Healing and Maintenance of Healing of Erosive Esophagitis: A Randomized Trial,” published in the January 2023 issue of Gastroenterology.

The Gastro Journal Club is open to GI units at any institution worldwide. If you are interested in participating, please contact [email protected].

Watch the inaugural Gastro Journal Club: https://rb.gy/j8mqm

The AGA Government Affairs Committee is pleased to announce that the Senate and House have reintroduced the bipartisan Treat and Reduce Obesity Act (TROA) (H.R. 4818/S. 2407). This legislation is a vital first step in expanding access to obesity treatment as it would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity by a diverse range of health care providers who provide obesity care. The bill also includes coverage of behavioral counseling, prescription drugs for long-term weight management, and other prevention and treatment options.

The passage of TROA could lead to improved obesity care options because many private insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect Medicare.

You can help lawmakers understand the urgent need for expanded access to affordable, effective obesity treatments and how greater access to these tools will equip you to better care for your patients.

Use the new obesity advocacy toolkit to find the tools and resources you need, including an email template, sample phone script, op-ed template, and more, to assist you in reaching out to your elected officials and urging them to support the passage of TROA.
 

The AGA Government Affairs Committee is pleased to announce that the Senate and House have reintroduced the bipartisan Treat and Reduce Obesity Act (TROA) (H.R. 4818/S. 2407). This legislation is a vital first step in expanding access to obesity treatment as it would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity by a diverse range of health care providers who provide obesity care. The bill also includes coverage of behavioral counseling, prescription drugs for long-term weight management, and other prevention and treatment options.

The passage of TROA could lead to improved obesity care options because many private insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect Medicare.

You can help lawmakers understand the urgent need for expanded access to affordable, effective obesity treatments and how greater access to these tools will equip you to better care for your patients.

Use the new obesity advocacy toolkit to find the tools and resources you need, including an email template, sample phone script, op-ed template, and more, to assist you in reaching out to your elected officials and urging them to support the passage of TROA.
 

The AGA Government Affairs Committee is pleased to announce that the Senate and House have reintroduced the bipartisan Treat and Reduce Obesity Act (TROA) (H.R. 4818/S. 2407). This legislation is a vital first step in expanding access to obesity treatment as it would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity by a diverse range of health care providers who provide obesity care. The bill also includes coverage of behavioral counseling, prescription drugs for long-term weight management, and other prevention and treatment options.

The passage of TROA could lead to improved obesity care options because many private insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect Medicare.

You can help lawmakers understand the urgent need for expanded access to affordable, effective obesity treatments and how greater access to these tools will equip you to better care for your patients.

Use the new obesity advocacy toolkit to find the tools and resources you need, including an email template, sample phone script, op-ed template, and more, to assist you in reaching out to your elected officials and urging them to support the passage of TROA.
 

The AGA Government Affairs Committee is pleased to announce the Senate and House have reintroduced the bipartisan Treat and Reduce Obesity Act (TROA) (H.R. 4818/S. 2407). This legislation is a vital first step in expanding access to obesity treatment. If passed, the bill would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity by health care providers who provide obesity care. The bill also includes coverage of behavioral counseling, prescription drugs for long-term weight management, and other prevention and treatment options.

The passage of TROA could lead to improved obesity care options for all Americans since many private insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect Medicare.

The AGA Government Affairs Committee is pleased to announce the Senate and House have reintroduced the bipartisan Treat and Reduce Obesity Act (TROA) (H.R. 4818/S. 2407). This legislation is a vital first step in expanding access to obesity treatment. If passed, the bill would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity by health care providers who provide obesity care. The bill also includes coverage of behavioral counseling, prescription drugs for long-term weight management, and other prevention and treatment options.

The passage of TROA could lead to improved obesity care options for all Americans since many private insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect Medicare.

The AGA Government Affairs Committee is pleased to announce the Senate and House have reintroduced the bipartisan Treat and Reduce Obesity Act (TROA) (H.R. 4818/S. 2407). This legislation is a vital first step in expanding access to obesity treatment. If passed, the bill would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity by health care providers who provide obesity care. The bill also includes coverage of behavioral counseling, prescription drugs for long-term weight management, and other prevention and treatment options.

The passage of TROA could lead to improved obesity care options for all Americans since many private insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect Medicare.