Vital partners in GI care
Advanced practice providers have become increasingly vital clinical partners to gastroenterologists in optimizing patient access, improving health outcomes, and ensuring continuity of care.
-
06/16/2025
Demand for specialized GI care has skyrocketed in recent years, eclipsing the supply of gastroenterologists and impairing patient access to high-quality GI care, particularly in rural and other underserved areas. In this environment,
Across specialties, APPs are estimated to constitute roughly a third of the US clinical workforce, and demand is only growing. A June 2024 MGMA Stat poll found that 63% of medical groups planned to add new APP roles in the next year. As the GI APP workforce grows, so too will demand for advanced training tailored to the APP role.
AGA has invested heavily in professional development opportunities for NPs and PAs, in recognition of their vital role in providing high-quality GI care. The newly formed AGA NPPA Task Force, co-chaired by Abigail Meyers (who we featured in GIHN’s April issue) and Kimberly Kearns, works closely with the Education and Training Committee to develop education programs to meet the specific needs of NPs and PAs, and advocate for more APP involvement in AGA programming. One example of this is AGA’s 2025 Principles of GI for the NP and PA course, which will be held in Chicago in early August – I encourage you to spread the word and support your APP colleagues in getting involved in these important initiatives as our vital partners in GI care delivery.
In this month’s issue of GIHN, we present the exciting results of the BOSS trial, showing no survival difference between regular and at need surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus, suggesting that at need endoscopy may be a safe alternative for low-risk patients. Continuing our coverage of potentially practice-changing research from DDW, we highlight another recent RCT challenging the use of papillary sphincterotomy as a treatment for pancreas divisum.
In our July Member Spotlight, Eric Shah, MD, MBA (University of Michigan), a past AGA Research Scholar Award recipient, highlights how this critical research support aided him in his journey to develop a now FDA-approved point-of care screening tool used to evaluate patients with chronic constipation for pelvic floor dysfunction during a routine clinic visit. In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. David Wan (a GI hospitalist) and Dr. Zeyed Metwalli (an interventional radiologist) discuss best practices in management of lower GI bleeding. We hope you have a restful summer!
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief
Summary content
7 Key Takeaways
-
1
Developed a paper-based colorimetric sensor array for chemical threat detection.
-
2
Can detect 12 chemical agents, including industrial toxins.
-
3
Production cost is under 20 cents per chip.
-
4
Utilizes dye-loaded silica particles on self-adhesive paper.
-
5
Provides rapid, simultaneous identification through image analysis.
-
6
Inspired by the mammalian olfactory system for pattern recognition.
-
7
Future developments include a machine learning-enabled reader device.
The guidelines emphasize four-hour gastric emptying studies over two-hour testing. How do you see this affecting diagnostic workflows in practice?
Dr. Staller: Moving to a four-hour solid-meal scintigraphy will actually simplify decision-making. The two-hour reads miss a meaningful proportion of delayed emptying; standardizing on four hours reduces false negatives and the “maybe gastroparesis” purgatory that leads to repeat testing. Practically, it means closer coordination with nuclear medicine (longer slots, consistent standardized meal), updating order sets to default to a four-hour protocol, and educating front-line teams so patients arrive appropriately prepped. The payoff is fewer equivocal studies and more confident treatment plans.
Metoclopramide and erythromycin are the only agents conditionally recommended for initial therapy. How does this align with what is being currently prescribed?
Dr. Staller: This largely mirrors real-world practice. Metoclopramide remains the only FDA-approved prokinetic for gastroparesis, and short “pulsed” erythromycin courses are familiar to many of us—recognizing tachyphylaxis limits durability. Our recommendation is “conditional” because the underlying evidence is modest and patient responses are heterogeneous, but it formalizes what many clinicians already do: start with metoclopramide (lowest effective dose, limited duration, counsel on neurologic adverse effects) and reserve erythromycin for targeted use (exacerbations, bridging).
Several agents, including domperidone and prucalopride, received recommendations against first-line use. How will that influence discussions with patients who ask about these therapies?
Dr. Staller: Two points I share with patients: evidence and access/safety. For domperidone, the data quality is mixed, and US access is through an FDA IND mechanism; you’re committing patients to EKG monitoring and a non-trivial administrative lift. For prucalopride, the gastroparesis-specific evidence isn’t strong enough yet to justify first-line use. So, our stance is not “never,” it’s just “not first.” If someone fails or cannot tolerate initial therapy, we can revisit these options through shared decision-making, setting expectations about benefit, monitoring, and off-label use. The guideline language helps clinicians have a transparent, evidence-based conversation at the first visit.
The guidelines suggest reserving procedures like G-POEM and gastric electrical stimulation for refractory cases. In your practice, how do you decide when a patient is “refractory” to medical therapy?
Dr. Staller: I define “refractory” with three anchors.
1. Adequate trials of foundational care: dietary optimization and glycemic control; an antiemetic; and at least one prokinetic at appropriate dose/duration (with intolerance documented if stopped early).
2. Persistent, function-limiting symptoms: ongoing nausea/vomiting, weight loss, dehydration, ER visits/hospitalizations, or malnutrition despite the above—ideally tracked with a validated instrument (e.g., GCSI) plus nutritional metrics.
3. Objective correlation: delayed emptying on a standardized 4-hour solid-meal study that aligns with the clinical picture (and medications that slow emptying addressed).
At that point, referral to a center with procedural expertise for G-POEM or consideration of gastric electrical stimulation becomes appropriate, with multidisciplinary evaluation (GI, nutrition, psychology, and, when needed, surgery).
What role do you see dietary modification and glycemic control playing alongside pharmacologic therapy in light of these recommendations?
Dr. Staller: They’re the bedrock. A small-particle, lower-fat, calorie-dense diet—often leaning on nutrient-rich liquids—can meaningfully reduce symptom burden. Partnering with dietitians early pays dividends. For diabetes, tighter glycemic control can improve gastric emptying and symptoms; I explicitly review medications that can slow emptying (e.g., opioids; consider timing/necessity of GLP-1 receptor agonists) and encourage continuous glucose monitor-informed adjustments. Pharmacotherapy sits on top of those pillars; without them, medications will likely underperform.
The guideline notes “considerable unmet need” in gastroparesis treatment. Where do you think future therapies or research are most urgently needed?
Dr. Staller: I see three major areas.
1. Truly durable prokinetics: agents that improve emptying and symptoms over months, with better safety than legacy options (e.g., next-gen motilin/ghrelin agonists, better-studied 5-HT4 strategies).
2. Endotyping and biomarkers: we need to stop treating all gastroparesis as one disease. Clinical, physiologic, and microbiome/omic signatures that predict who benefits from which therapy (drug vs G-POEM vs GES) would transform care.
3. Patient-centered trials: larger, longer RCTs that prioritize validated symptom and quality-of-life outcomes, include nutritional endpoints, and reflect real-world medication confounders.
Our guideline intentionally highlights these gaps to hopefully catalyze better trials and smarter referral pathways.
Dr. Staller is with the Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.