MatÍas A. Loewy

MAR DEL PLATA, ARGENTINA – Psychiatrists should prescribe metformin early to patients who experience rapid weight gain after they begin taking antipsychotic drugs, according to a new evidence-based Irish guideline for the management of this common complication in adults with psychoses who are taking medications.

The document was discussed during one of the sessions of the XXXV Argentine Congress of Psychiatry of the Association of Argentine Psychiatrists. The document also was presented by one of its authors at the European Congress on Obesity 2022.

The guideline encourages psychiatrists not to underestimate the adverse metabolic effects of their treatments and encourages them to contemplate and carry out this prevention and management strategy, commented María Delia Michat, PhD, professor of clinical psychiatry and psychopharmacology at the APSA Postgraduate Training Institute, Buenos Aires.

“Although it is always good to work as a team, it is usually we psychiatrists who coordinate the pharmacological treatment of our patients, and we have to know how to manage drugs that can prevent cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Michat said in an interview.

“The new guideline is helpful because it protocolizes the use of metformin, which is the cheapest drug and has the most evidence for antipsychotic-induced weight gain,” she added.
 

Avoiding metabolic syndrome

In patients with schizophrenia, obesity rates are 40% higher than in the general population, and 80% of patients develop weight gain after their first treatment, noted Dr. Michat. “Right away, weight gain is seen in the first month. And it is a serious problem, because patients with schizophrenia, major depression, or bipolar disorder already have an increased risk of premature mortality, especially from cardiovascular diseases, and they have an increased risk of metabolic syndrome. And we sometimes give drugs that further increase that risk,” she said.

Being overweight is a major criterion for defining metabolic syndrome. Dr. Michat noted that, among the antipsychotic drugs that increase weight the most are clozapine, olanzapine, chlorpromazine, quetiapine, and risperidone, in addition to other psychoactive drugs, such as valproic acid, lithium, mirtazapine, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Several clinical trials, such as a pioneering Chinese study from 2008, have shown the potential of metformin to mitigate the weight gain induced by this type of drug.

However, Dr. Michat noted that so far the major guidelines (for example, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments [CANMAT]/International Society for Bipolar Disorders [ISBD] for bipolar disorder and the American Psychiatric Association [APA] for schizophrenia) “say very little” on how to address this complication. They propose what she defined as a “problematic” order of action in which the initial emphasis is on promoting lifestyle changes, which are difficult for these patients to carry out, as well as general proposals for changing medication (which is not simple to implement when the patient’s condition is stabilized) and eventual consultation with a clinician to start therapy with metformin or other drugs, such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and topiramate.

The new clinical practice guideline, which was published in Evidence-Based Mental Health (of the BMJ journal group), was written by a multidisciplinary team of pharmacists, psychiatrists, and mental health nurses from Ireland. It aims to fill that gap. The investigators reviewed 1,270 scientific articles and analyzed 26 of them in depth, including seven randomized clinical trials and a 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors made a “strong” recommendation, for which there was moderate-quality evidence, that for patients for whom a lifestyle intervention is unacceptable or inappropriate the use of metformin is an “alternative first-line intervention” for antipsychotic drug–induced weight gain.

Likewise, as a strong recommendation with moderate-quality evidence, the guidance encourages the use of metformin when nonpharmacologic intervention does not seem to be effective.

The guideline also says it is preferable to start metformin early for patients who gain more than 7% of their baseline weight within the first month of antipsychotic treatment. It also endorses metformin when weight gain is established.

Other recommendations include evaluating baseline kidney function before starting metformin treatment and suggest a dose adjustment when the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is < 60 mL/min/1.73 m². The guidance says the use of metformin is contraindicated for patients in whom eGFR is <30 mL/min per 1.73 m². The proposed starting dosage is 500 mg twice per day with meals, with increments of 500 mg every 1-2 weeks until reaching a target dose of 2,000 mg/day. The guidance recommends that consideration always be given to individual tolerability and efficacy.

Treatment goals should be personalized and agreed upon with patients. In the case of early intervention, the guideline proposes initially stabilizing the weight gained or, if possible, reverse excess weight. When weight gain is established, the goal would be to lose at least 5% of the weight within the next 6 months.

The authors also recommend monitoring kidney function annually, as well as vitamin B₁₂ levels and individual tolerability and compliance. Gastrointestinal adverse effects can be managed by dose reduction or slower dose titration. The risk of lactic acidosis, which affects 4.3 per 100,000 person-years among those taking metformin, can be attenuated by adjusting the dose according to kidney function or avoiding prescribing it to patients who have a history of alcohol abuse or who are receiving treatment that may interact with the drug.
 

Validating pharmacologic management

The lead author of the new guideline, Ita Fitzgerald, a teacher in clinical pharmacy and senior pharmacist at St. Patrick’s Mental Health Services in Dublin, pointed out that there is a bias toward not using drugs for weight management and shifting the responsibility onto the patients themselves, something that is very often out of their control.

“The purpose of the guideline was to decide on a range of criteria to maximize the use of metformin, to recognize that for many people, pharmacological management is a valid and important option that could and should be more widely used and to provide precise and practical guidance to physicians to facilitate a more widespread use,” Ms. Fitzgerald said in an interview.

According to Fitzgerald, who is pursuing her doctorate at University College Cork (Ireland), one of the most outstanding results of the work is that it highlights that the main benefit of metformin is to flatten rather than reverse antipsychotic-induced weight gain and that indicating it late can nullify that effect.

“In all the recommendations, we try very hard to shift the focus from metformin’s role as a weight reversal agent to one as a weight management agent that should be used early in treatment, which is when most weight gain occurs. If metformin succeeds in flattening that increase, that’s a huge potential benefit for an inexpensive and easily accessible drug. When people have already established weight gain, metformin may not be enough and alternative treatments should be used,” she said.

In addition to its effects on weight, metformin has many other potential health benefits. Of particular importance is that it reduces hyperphagia-mediated antipsychotic-induced weight gain, Ms. Fitzgerald pointed out.

“This is subjectively very important for patients and provides a more positive experience when taking antipsychotics. Antipsychotic-induced weight gain is one of the main reasons for premature discontinuation or incomplete adherence to these drugs and therefore needs to be addressed proactively,” she concluded.

Ms. Fitzgerald and Dr. Michat have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition.

MAR DEL PLATA, ARGENTINA – Psychiatrists should prescribe metformin early to patients who experience rapid weight gain after they begin taking antipsychotic drugs, according to a new evidence-based Irish guideline for the management of this common complication in adults with psychoses who are taking medications.

The document was discussed during one of the sessions of the XXXV Argentine Congress of Psychiatry of the Association of Argentine Psychiatrists. The document also was presented by one of its authors at the European Congress on Obesity 2022.

The guideline encourages psychiatrists not to underestimate the adverse metabolic effects of their treatments and encourages them to contemplate and carry out this prevention and management strategy, commented María Delia Michat, PhD, professor of clinical psychiatry and psychopharmacology at the APSA Postgraduate Training Institute, Buenos Aires.

“Although it is always good to work as a team, it is usually we psychiatrists who coordinate the pharmacological treatment of our patients, and we have to know how to manage drugs that can prevent cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Michat said in an interview.

“The new guideline is helpful because it protocolizes the use of metformin, which is the cheapest drug and has the most evidence for antipsychotic-induced weight gain,” she added.
 

Avoiding metabolic syndrome

In patients with schizophrenia, obesity rates are 40% higher than in the general population, and 80% of patients develop weight gain after their first treatment, noted Dr. Michat. “Right away, weight gain is seen in the first month. And it is a serious problem, because patients with schizophrenia, major depression, or bipolar disorder already have an increased risk of premature mortality, especially from cardiovascular diseases, and they have an increased risk of metabolic syndrome. And we sometimes give drugs that further increase that risk,” she said.

Being overweight is a major criterion for defining metabolic syndrome. Dr. Michat noted that, among the antipsychotic drugs that increase weight the most are clozapine, olanzapine, chlorpromazine, quetiapine, and risperidone, in addition to other psychoactive drugs, such as valproic acid, lithium, mirtazapine, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Several clinical trials, such as a pioneering Chinese study from 2008, have shown the potential of metformin to mitigate the weight gain induced by this type of drug.

However, Dr. Michat noted that so far the major guidelines (for example, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments [CANMAT]/International Society for Bipolar Disorders [ISBD] for bipolar disorder and the American Psychiatric Association [APA] for schizophrenia) “say very little” on how to address this complication. They propose what she defined as a “problematic” order of action in which the initial emphasis is on promoting lifestyle changes, which are difficult for these patients to carry out, as well as general proposals for changing medication (which is not simple to implement when the patient’s condition is stabilized) and eventual consultation with a clinician to start therapy with metformin or other drugs, such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and topiramate.

The new clinical practice guideline, which was published in Evidence-Based Mental Health (of the BMJ journal group), was written by a multidisciplinary team of pharmacists, psychiatrists, and mental health nurses from Ireland. It aims to fill that gap. The investigators reviewed 1,270 scientific articles and analyzed 26 of them in depth, including seven randomized clinical trials and a 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors made a “strong” recommendation, for which there was moderate-quality evidence, that for patients for whom a lifestyle intervention is unacceptable or inappropriate the use of metformin is an “alternative first-line intervention” for antipsychotic drug–induced weight gain.

Likewise, as a strong recommendation with moderate-quality evidence, the guidance encourages the use of metformin when nonpharmacologic intervention does not seem to be effective.

The guideline also says it is preferable to start metformin early for patients who gain more than 7% of their baseline weight within the first month of antipsychotic treatment. It also endorses metformin when weight gain is established.

Other recommendations include evaluating baseline kidney function before starting metformin treatment and suggest a dose adjustment when the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is < 60 mL/min/1.73 m². The guidance says the use of metformin is contraindicated for patients in whom eGFR is <30 mL/min per 1.73 m². The proposed starting dosage is 500 mg twice per day with meals, with increments of 500 mg every 1-2 weeks until reaching a target dose of 2,000 mg/day. The guidance recommends that consideration always be given to individual tolerability and efficacy.

Treatment goals should be personalized and agreed upon with patients. In the case of early intervention, the guideline proposes initially stabilizing the weight gained or, if possible, reverse excess weight. When weight gain is established, the goal would be to lose at least 5% of the weight within the next 6 months.

The authors also recommend monitoring kidney function annually, as well as vitamin B₁₂ levels and individual tolerability and compliance. Gastrointestinal adverse effects can be managed by dose reduction or slower dose titration. The risk of lactic acidosis, which affects 4.3 per 100,000 person-years among those taking metformin, can be attenuated by adjusting the dose according to kidney function or avoiding prescribing it to patients who have a history of alcohol abuse or who are receiving treatment that may interact with the drug.
 

Validating pharmacologic management

The lead author of the new guideline, Ita Fitzgerald, a teacher in clinical pharmacy and senior pharmacist at St. Patrick’s Mental Health Services in Dublin, pointed out that there is a bias toward not using drugs for weight management and shifting the responsibility onto the patients themselves, something that is very often out of their control.

“The purpose of the guideline was to decide on a range of criteria to maximize the use of metformin, to recognize that for many people, pharmacological management is a valid and important option that could and should be more widely used and to provide precise and practical guidance to physicians to facilitate a more widespread use,” Ms. Fitzgerald said in an interview.

According to Fitzgerald, who is pursuing her doctorate at University College Cork (Ireland), one of the most outstanding results of the work is that it highlights that the main benefit of metformin is to flatten rather than reverse antipsychotic-induced weight gain and that indicating it late can nullify that effect.

“In all the recommendations, we try very hard to shift the focus from metformin’s role as a weight reversal agent to one as a weight management agent that should be used early in treatment, which is when most weight gain occurs. If metformin succeeds in flattening that increase, that’s a huge potential benefit for an inexpensive and easily accessible drug. When people have already established weight gain, metformin may not be enough and alternative treatments should be used,” she said.

In addition to its effects on weight, metformin has many other potential health benefits. Of particular importance is that it reduces hyperphagia-mediated antipsychotic-induced weight gain, Ms. Fitzgerald pointed out.

“This is subjectively very important for patients and provides a more positive experience when taking antipsychotics. Antipsychotic-induced weight gain is one of the main reasons for premature discontinuation or incomplete adherence to these drugs and therefore needs to be addressed proactively,” she concluded.

Ms. Fitzgerald and Dr. Michat have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition.

MAR DEL PLATA, ARGENTINA – Psychiatrists should prescribe metformin early to patients who experience rapid weight gain after they begin taking antipsychotic drugs, according to a new evidence-based Irish guideline for the management of this common complication in adults with psychoses who are taking medications.

The document was discussed during one of the sessions of the XXXV Argentine Congress of Psychiatry of the Association of Argentine Psychiatrists. The document also was presented by one of its authors at the European Congress on Obesity 2022.

The guideline encourages psychiatrists not to underestimate the adverse metabolic effects of their treatments and encourages them to contemplate and carry out this prevention and management strategy, commented María Delia Michat, PhD, professor of clinical psychiatry and psychopharmacology at the APSA Postgraduate Training Institute, Buenos Aires.

“Although it is always good to work as a team, it is usually we psychiatrists who coordinate the pharmacological treatment of our patients, and we have to know how to manage drugs that can prevent cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Michat said in an interview.

“The new guideline is helpful because it protocolizes the use of metformin, which is the cheapest drug and has the most evidence for antipsychotic-induced weight gain,” she added.
 

Avoiding metabolic syndrome

In patients with schizophrenia, obesity rates are 40% higher than in the general population, and 80% of patients develop weight gain after their first treatment, noted Dr. Michat. “Right away, weight gain is seen in the first month. And it is a serious problem, because patients with schizophrenia, major depression, or bipolar disorder already have an increased risk of premature mortality, especially from cardiovascular diseases, and they have an increased risk of metabolic syndrome. And we sometimes give drugs that further increase that risk,” she said.

Being overweight is a major criterion for defining metabolic syndrome. Dr. Michat noted that, among the antipsychotic drugs that increase weight the most are clozapine, olanzapine, chlorpromazine, quetiapine, and risperidone, in addition to other psychoactive drugs, such as valproic acid, lithium, mirtazapine, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Several clinical trials, such as a pioneering Chinese study from 2008, have shown the potential of metformin to mitigate the weight gain induced by this type of drug.

However, Dr. Michat noted that so far the major guidelines (for example, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments [CANMAT]/International Society for Bipolar Disorders [ISBD] for bipolar disorder and the American Psychiatric Association [APA] for schizophrenia) “say very little” on how to address this complication. They propose what she defined as a “problematic” order of action in which the initial emphasis is on promoting lifestyle changes, which are difficult for these patients to carry out, as well as general proposals for changing medication (which is not simple to implement when the patient’s condition is stabilized) and eventual consultation with a clinician to start therapy with metformin or other drugs, such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and topiramate.

The new clinical practice guideline, which was published in Evidence-Based Mental Health (of the BMJ journal group), was written by a multidisciplinary team of pharmacists, psychiatrists, and mental health nurses from Ireland. It aims to fill that gap. The investigators reviewed 1,270 scientific articles and analyzed 26 of them in depth, including seven randomized clinical trials and a 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors made a “strong” recommendation, for which there was moderate-quality evidence, that for patients for whom a lifestyle intervention is unacceptable or inappropriate the use of metformin is an “alternative first-line intervention” for antipsychotic drug–induced weight gain.

Likewise, as a strong recommendation with moderate-quality evidence, the guidance encourages the use of metformin when nonpharmacologic intervention does not seem to be effective.

The guideline also says it is preferable to start metformin early for patients who gain more than 7% of their baseline weight within the first month of antipsychotic treatment. It also endorses metformin when weight gain is established.

Other recommendations include evaluating baseline kidney function before starting metformin treatment and suggest a dose adjustment when the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is < 60 mL/min/1.73 m². The guidance says the use of metformin is contraindicated for patients in whom eGFR is <30 mL/min per 1.73 m². The proposed starting dosage is 500 mg twice per day with meals, with increments of 500 mg every 1-2 weeks until reaching a target dose of 2,000 mg/day. The guidance recommends that consideration always be given to individual tolerability and efficacy.

Treatment goals should be personalized and agreed upon with patients. In the case of early intervention, the guideline proposes initially stabilizing the weight gained or, if possible, reverse excess weight. When weight gain is established, the goal would be to lose at least 5% of the weight within the next 6 months.

The authors also recommend monitoring kidney function annually, as well as vitamin B₁₂ levels and individual tolerability and compliance. Gastrointestinal adverse effects can be managed by dose reduction or slower dose titration. The risk of lactic acidosis, which affects 4.3 per 100,000 person-years among those taking metformin, can be attenuated by adjusting the dose according to kidney function or avoiding prescribing it to patients who have a history of alcohol abuse or who are receiving treatment that may interact with the drug.
 

Validating pharmacologic management

The lead author of the new guideline, Ita Fitzgerald, a teacher in clinical pharmacy and senior pharmacist at St. Patrick’s Mental Health Services in Dublin, pointed out that there is a bias toward not using drugs for weight management and shifting the responsibility onto the patients themselves, something that is very often out of their control.

“The purpose of the guideline was to decide on a range of criteria to maximize the use of metformin, to recognize that for many people, pharmacological management is a valid and important option that could and should be more widely used and to provide precise and practical guidance to physicians to facilitate a more widespread use,” Ms. Fitzgerald said in an interview.

According to Fitzgerald, who is pursuing her doctorate at University College Cork (Ireland), one of the most outstanding results of the work is that it highlights that the main benefit of metformin is to flatten rather than reverse antipsychotic-induced weight gain and that indicating it late can nullify that effect.

“In all the recommendations, we try very hard to shift the focus from metformin’s role as a weight reversal agent to one as a weight management agent that should be used early in treatment, which is when most weight gain occurs. If metformin succeeds in flattening that increase, that’s a huge potential benefit for an inexpensive and easily accessible drug. When people have already established weight gain, metformin may not be enough and alternative treatments should be used,” she said.

In addition to its effects on weight, metformin has many other potential health benefits. Of particular importance is that it reduces hyperphagia-mediated antipsychotic-induced weight gain, Ms. Fitzgerald pointed out.

“This is subjectively very important for patients and provides a more positive experience when taking antipsychotics. Antipsychotic-induced weight gain is one of the main reasons for premature discontinuation or incomplete adherence to these drugs and therefore needs to be addressed proactively,” she concluded.

Ms. Fitzgerald and Dr. Michat have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition.

BUENOS AIRES – The Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES) has demanded “urgent reconsideration” of the decision to downgrade the strength of the recommendation for revascularization or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for multivessel disease in the new guideline on coronary artery revascularization, putting it in the same class as the recommendation for percutaneous coronary intervention, which has no apparent advantage over optimal medical therapy.

With the prevalence of stable ischemic heart disease in patients with multivessel disease, the contradiction between the evidence and the new recommendation “may affect the lives and survival of millions of patients worldwide and have a major socio-economic impact,” the association warned in a public letter.

In the 2011 guideline, CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease was given a class I recommendation, which means that it is considered useful and effective and should be performed in the majority of patients in most circumstances. But the new, much weaker class IIb recommendation suggests that the benefit only marginally exceeds the risk and that it should be used selectively and only after careful consideration.

“It is an incomprehensible rollercoaster drop in the recommendation level. We totally disagree. In the absence of evidence, a IIb level provides equal freedom to send a patient to surgery or not. And in patients who are not being sent to surgery, it could take years of survival before we can be sure that we are doing the right thing,” said LACES president Víctor Dayan, MD, PhD, from the cardiovascular center at the Hospital de Clínicas “Dr. Manuel Quintela”, which is part of the School of Medicine at the University of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay.

The change in the recommendation for this indication “reflects new evidence showing no advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over medical therapy alone to improve survival in patients with three-vessel coronary disease with preserved left ventricular function and no left main disease,” according to the authors of the guideline, issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). In particular, they cite the 2019 ISCHEMIA clinical study that failed to show that an early invasive strategy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with optimal medical therapy and a handful of meta-analyses.

However, ISCHEMIA did not discriminate between the two types of invasive strategy – CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) – so cannot be considered as a basis to downgrade the CABG recommendation, Dr. Dayan explained.

“Furthermore, the authors neglected previous RCTs that have shown the survival benefit of CABG in these patients and decided to put PCI in the same [class of recommendation], although no RCT has been able to show any survival advantage of PCI compared to optimal medical treatment,” the LACES letter states.

Basis should be evidence, ‘not inferences’

Three large randomized clinical trials and a 1994 meta-analysis with individual patient data from seven studies firmly established that survival is better with CABG than with medical treatment, the letter continues. However, the guideline authors did not provide any additional randomized clinical trials that refute this evidence.

“Furthermore, the committee disregarded data from the Ten-Year Follow-up Survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) randomized control[led] trial, which showed a lower incidence of cardiac mortality (as part of its secondary outcomes) following CABG compared to optimal medical therapy and PCI,” the letter explains.

The guideline authors might have judged current optimal medical therapy to be better than what existed 10, 15, or 30 years ago, diluting the relative benefits of surgery, but the “recommendation in a guideline must act on evidence, not inferences. And there is no evidence to support this drop in recommendation class,” Dr. Dayan said.

Other experts have drawn attention to the fact that two surgical societies – the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AAST) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) – did not endorse the final document, despite having participated in its review, reported this news organization.

“This is a very disappointing update that will negatively affect the lives of many people,” tweeted Marc Pelletier, MD, head of cardiac surgery at University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Contradictions in the text that examines the evidence and the final recommendations, are “unclear” and “open to various interpretations, when they should be a pillar for decisionmaking,” said Javier Ferrari Ayarragaray, MD, president of the Argentine College of Cardiovascular Surgeons (CACCV) and vice president of LACES.

The new guidelines “show no additional randomized controlled trial to support this downgrade in the level of evidence,” according to a recent CACCV statement. “The inclusion, approval and endorsement of this type of [recommendation,] including [other] international surgical scientific societies, such as STS, AATS, EACTS, LACES[,] is necessary to obtain a better understanding and agreement on the current evidence.”

In a Dec. 17, 2021 response to LACES, Patrick O’Gara, MD, who was chair of the ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines at the time, and his successor, Joshua Beckman, MD, explained that both organizations approved the guideline for publication and support its authors “in their interpretation of the published evidence and findings.”

The pair pointed out that the drafting committee members, who have extensive clinical judgment and experience, deliberated extensively on the issue and that the change from a class I to a class IIb recommendation was “carefully considered after a review of the entire available and relevant evidence.”

“When we bring together multiple organizations to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of published and peer-reviewed literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” said Thomas Getchius, director of guideline strategy and operations at the AHA.

“The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for coronary artery revascularization, as agreed upon by the ACC, AHA, SCAI, and the full drafting committee,” Mr. Getchius said.

Dr. Dayan and Dr. Ferrari Ayarragaray have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Getchius is an employee of the American Heart Association.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BUENOS AIRES – The Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES) has demanded “urgent reconsideration” of the decision to downgrade the strength of the recommendation for revascularization or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for multivessel disease in the new guideline on coronary artery revascularization, putting it in the same class as the recommendation for percutaneous coronary intervention, which has no apparent advantage over optimal medical therapy.

With the prevalence of stable ischemic heart disease in patients with multivessel disease, the contradiction between the evidence and the new recommendation “may affect the lives and survival of millions of patients worldwide and have a major socio-economic impact,” the association warned in a public letter.

In the 2011 guideline, CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease was given a class I recommendation, which means that it is considered useful and effective and should be performed in the majority of patients in most circumstances. But the new, much weaker class IIb recommendation suggests that the benefit only marginally exceeds the risk and that it should be used selectively and only after careful consideration.

“It is an incomprehensible rollercoaster drop in the recommendation level. We totally disagree. In the absence of evidence, a IIb level provides equal freedom to send a patient to surgery or not. And in patients who are not being sent to surgery, it could take years of survival before we can be sure that we are doing the right thing,” said LACES president Víctor Dayan, MD, PhD, from the cardiovascular center at the Hospital de Clínicas “Dr. Manuel Quintela”, which is part of the School of Medicine at the University of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay.

The change in the recommendation for this indication “reflects new evidence showing no advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over medical therapy alone to improve survival in patients with three-vessel coronary disease with preserved left ventricular function and no left main disease,” according to the authors of the guideline, issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). In particular, they cite the 2019 ISCHEMIA clinical study that failed to show that an early invasive strategy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with optimal medical therapy and a handful of meta-analyses.

However, ISCHEMIA did not discriminate between the two types of invasive strategy – CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) – so cannot be considered as a basis to downgrade the CABG recommendation, Dr. Dayan explained.

“Furthermore, the authors neglected previous RCTs that have shown the survival benefit of CABG in these patients and decided to put PCI in the same [class of recommendation], although no RCT has been able to show any survival advantage of PCI compared to optimal medical treatment,” the LACES letter states.

Basis should be evidence, ‘not inferences’

Three large randomized clinical trials and a 1994 meta-analysis with individual patient data from seven studies firmly established that survival is better with CABG than with medical treatment, the letter continues. However, the guideline authors did not provide any additional randomized clinical trials that refute this evidence.

“Furthermore, the committee disregarded data from the Ten-Year Follow-up Survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) randomized control[led] trial, which showed a lower incidence of cardiac mortality (as part of its secondary outcomes) following CABG compared to optimal medical therapy and PCI,” the letter explains.

The guideline authors might have judged current optimal medical therapy to be better than what existed 10, 15, or 30 years ago, diluting the relative benefits of surgery, but the “recommendation in a guideline must act on evidence, not inferences. And there is no evidence to support this drop in recommendation class,” Dr. Dayan said.

Other experts have drawn attention to the fact that two surgical societies – the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AAST) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) – did not endorse the final document, despite having participated in its review, reported this news organization.

“This is a very disappointing update that will negatively affect the lives of many people,” tweeted Marc Pelletier, MD, head of cardiac surgery at University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Contradictions in the text that examines the evidence and the final recommendations, are “unclear” and “open to various interpretations, when they should be a pillar for decisionmaking,” said Javier Ferrari Ayarragaray, MD, president of the Argentine College of Cardiovascular Surgeons (CACCV) and vice president of LACES.

The new guidelines “show no additional randomized controlled trial to support this downgrade in the level of evidence,” according to a recent CACCV statement. “The inclusion, approval and endorsement of this type of [recommendation,] including [other] international surgical scientific societies, such as STS, AATS, EACTS, LACES[,] is necessary to obtain a better understanding and agreement on the current evidence.”

In a Dec. 17, 2021 response to LACES, Patrick O’Gara, MD, who was chair of the ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines at the time, and his successor, Joshua Beckman, MD, explained that both organizations approved the guideline for publication and support its authors “in their interpretation of the published evidence and findings.”

The pair pointed out that the drafting committee members, who have extensive clinical judgment and experience, deliberated extensively on the issue and that the change from a class I to a class IIb recommendation was “carefully considered after a review of the entire available and relevant evidence.”

“When we bring together multiple organizations to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of published and peer-reviewed literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” said Thomas Getchius, director of guideline strategy and operations at the AHA.

“The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for coronary artery revascularization, as agreed upon by the ACC, AHA, SCAI, and the full drafting committee,” Mr. Getchius said.

Dr. Dayan and Dr. Ferrari Ayarragaray have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Getchius is an employee of the American Heart Association.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BUENOS AIRES – The Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES) has demanded “urgent reconsideration” of the decision to downgrade the strength of the recommendation for revascularization or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for multivessel disease in the new guideline on coronary artery revascularization, putting it in the same class as the recommendation for percutaneous coronary intervention, which has no apparent advantage over optimal medical therapy.

With the prevalence of stable ischemic heart disease in patients with multivessel disease, the contradiction between the evidence and the new recommendation “may affect the lives and survival of millions of patients worldwide and have a major socio-economic impact,” the association warned in a public letter.

In the 2011 guideline, CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease was given a class I recommendation, which means that it is considered useful and effective and should be performed in the majority of patients in most circumstances. But the new, much weaker class IIb recommendation suggests that the benefit only marginally exceeds the risk and that it should be used selectively and only after careful consideration.

“It is an incomprehensible rollercoaster drop in the recommendation level. We totally disagree. In the absence of evidence, a IIb level provides equal freedom to send a patient to surgery or not. And in patients who are not being sent to surgery, it could take years of survival before we can be sure that we are doing the right thing,” said LACES president Víctor Dayan, MD, PhD, from the cardiovascular center at the Hospital de Clínicas “Dr. Manuel Quintela”, which is part of the School of Medicine at the University of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay.

The change in the recommendation for this indication “reflects new evidence showing no advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over medical therapy alone to improve survival in patients with three-vessel coronary disease with preserved left ventricular function and no left main disease,” according to the authors of the guideline, issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). In particular, they cite the 2019 ISCHEMIA clinical study that failed to show that an early invasive strategy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with optimal medical therapy and a handful of meta-analyses.

However, ISCHEMIA did not discriminate between the two types of invasive strategy – CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) – so cannot be considered as a basis to downgrade the CABG recommendation, Dr. Dayan explained.

“Furthermore, the authors neglected previous RCTs that have shown the survival benefit of CABG in these patients and decided to put PCI in the same [class of recommendation], although no RCT has been able to show any survival advantage of PCI compared to optimal medical treatment,” the LACES letter states.

Basis should be evidence, ‘not inferences’

Three large randomized clinical trials and a 1994 meta-analysis with individual patient data from seven studies firmly established that survival is better with CABG than with medical treatment, the letter continues. However, the guideline authors did not provide any additional randomized clinical trials that refute this evidence.

“Furthermore, the committee disregarded data from the Ten-Year Follow-up Survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) randomized control[led] trial, which showed a lower incidence of cardiac mortality (as part of its secondary outcomes) following CABG compared to optimal medical therapy and PCI,” the letter explains.

The guideline authors might have judged current optimal medical therapy to be better than what existed 10, 15, or 30 years ago, diluting the relative benefits of surgery, but the “recommendation in a guideline must act on evidence, not inferences. And there is no evidence to support this drop in recommendation class,” Dr. Dayan said.

Other experts have drawn attention to the fact that two surgical societies – the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AAST) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) – did not endorse the final document, despite having participated in its review, reported this news organization.

“This is a very disappointing update that will negatively affect the lives of many people,” tweeted Marc Pelletier, MD, head of cardiac surgery at University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Contradictions in the text that examines the evidence and the final recommendations, are “unclear” and “open to various interpretations, when they should be a pillar for decisionmaking,” said Javier Ferrari Ayarragaray, MD, president of the Argentine College of Cardiovascular Surgeons (CACCV) and vice president of LACES.

The new guidelines “show no additional randomized controlled trial to support this downgrade in the level of evidence,” according to a recent CACCV statement. “The inclusion, approval and endorsement of this type of [recommendation,] including [other] international surgical scientific societies, such as STS, AATS, EACTS, LACES[,] is necessary to obtain a better understanding and agreement on the current evidence.”

In a Dec. 17, 2021 response to LACES, Patrick O’Gara, MD, who was chair of the ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines at the time, and his successor, Joshua Beckman, MD, explained that both organizations approved the guideline for publication and support its authors “in their interpretation of the published evidence and findings.”

The pair pointed out that the drafting committee members, who have extensive clinical judgment and experience, deliberated extensively on the issue and that the change from a class I to a class IIb recommendation was “carefully considered after a review of the entire available and relevant evidence.”

“When we bring together multiple organizations to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of published and peer-reviewed literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” said Thomas Getchius, director of guideline strategy and operations at the AHA.

“The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for coronary artery revascularization, as agreed upon by the ACC, AHA, SCAI, and the full drafting committee,” Mr. Getchius said.

Dr. Dayan and Dr. Ferrari Ayarragaray have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Getchius is an employee of the American Heart Association.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.