MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403968408 · doi:10.1681/asn.0000000540

Efficacy and Safety of Sotagliflozin in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes and CKD

2024· article· en· W4403968408 on OpenAlexafffund
Vikas S. Sridhar, Ayodele Odutayo, Subhash Vishal Garg, Thomas Danne, Alessandro Doria, Michael Mauer, Michael J. Davies, Phillip Banks, Manon Girard, David Z.I. Cherney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesBanting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of TorontoCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKidney Foundation of CanadaDiabetes CanadaCanadian Society of NephrologyUniversity of TorontoAmerican Society of Nephrology
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineType 2 diabetesInternal medicineType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key Points Poor glycemic control in type 1 diabetes and CKD is associated with a higher risk of CKD progression. In a subgroup of inTandem participants with type 1 diabetes and CKD, adding sotagliflozin to insulin reduced HbA1c, body weight, and systolic BP without increasing severe hypoglycemia, compared with adding placebo. In participants with type 1 diabetes and CKD, sotagliflozin did not significantly increase the risk of DKA, however, there were a small number of diabetic ketoacidosis events. Background This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of sotagliflozin, a dual sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and 2 inhibitor, added to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and CKD. Methods We used data from the 52-week pooled inTandem 1 and 2 trials and the 24-week inTandem 3 trial to assess the effects of sotagliflozin (200 mg [inTandem 1 and 2 only] or 400 mg daily) versus placebo on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c; primary end point), body weight, systolic BP, insulin dose, and safety end points including adjudicated severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), stratified by CKD. Results CKD was identified in 237/1575 inTandem 1 and 2 participants and 228/1402 inTandem 3 participants. At week 24, significant, placebo-adjusted reductions in HbA1c were observed—inTandem 1 and 2: non-CKD subgroup (sotagliflozin 200 mg: −0.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.4 to −0.3; 400 mg: −0.4%, 95% CI, −0.5 to −0.3) and CKD subgroup (sotagliflozin 200 mg: −0.4%, 95% CI, −0.6 to −0.1; 400 mg: −0.3%, 95% CI, −0.5 to −0.1). For systolic BP, there was a significant reduction at week 24 with sotagliflozin in the non-CKD subgroup, but no effect in the CKD subgroup in inTandem 1 and 2. At week 52, the incidence of severe hypoglycemia was lower with sotagliflozin (7% on 200 mg and 4% on 400 mg) compared with placebo (17%) in the CKD subgroup of inTandem 1 and 2, whereas the incidence of severe hypoglycemia was 5%–6% across non-CKD subgroups. The incidence of adjudicated DKA at week 52 was 1%, 5%, and 3% for placebo, 200, and 400 mg in the CKD subgroup compared with 0%, 3%, and 4% in the non-CKD subgroup, respectively. The results were generally similar in inTandem 3, except systolic BP was significantly reduced with sotagliflozin versus placebo in CKD and non-CKD subgroups. Conclusions In participants with type 1 diabetes and CKD, sotagliflozin treatment had similar HbA1c, body weight, and systolic BP lowering effects as in participants with type 1 diabetes without CKD. In addition, sotagliflozin was associated with a lower to neutral risk of severe hypoglycemia and did not significantly increase the risk of DKA among a small number of DKA events. Clinical Trial registration numbers: NCT02384941, NCT02421510, NCT02531035.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207