MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407867088 · doi:10.1681/asn.20233411b13c

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

2023· article· en· W4407867088 on OpenAlexaff
Vikas S. Sridhar, Ayodele Odutayo, Satish K. 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 · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineType 2 diabetesType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineIntensive care medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: People with T1D, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and poor glycemic control are at high risk of kidney failure and cardiovascular events. Sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors improve glycemic control in adults with T1D but with an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of sotagliflozin (SOTA), a dual SGLT1 & 2 inhibitor, in patients with T1D and CKD. Methods: Using patient-level data from in Tandem 1 & 2, the effects of SOTA (200 or 400 mg daily) added to optimized insulin therapy on A1C, body weight (BW), systolic blood pressure (SBP), eGFR, total insulin dose, adjudicated severe hypoglycemia (SH) and DKA were compared to placebo in a patient subgroup with T1D and CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and/or UACR ≥30 mg/g). Results: In the 1575 patients, 237 (15%) had CKD. At baseline, patients with CKD were older, had longer T1D duration, lower eGFR, lower insulin pump use, higher total daily insulin dose, SBP, and UACR compared to the overall cohort. Relative to placebo, treatment with SOTA provided similar significant reductions in A1C, SBP and BW in the CKD and overall cohorts, but numerically smaller % reduction in total insulin dose at week 24 in the CKD cohort (Table 1). SOTA vs.placebo was associated with lower SH and higher DKA risk. However, the relative risk of SH and DKA appeared to be lower in the CKD vs. overall cohort over 52 weeks (Table 1). The expected acute eGFR decline followed by stabilization with SOTA was preserved in the CKD cohort. Table 1. - Selected key efficacy and safety endpoints by study treatment and cohort. CKD Cohort Overall Cohort Placebo N = 76 Sotagliflozin 200 mg N = 85 Sotagliflozin 400 mg N = 76 Placebo N = 526 Sotagliflozin 200 mg N = 524 Sotagliflozin 400 mg N = 525 AIC, % -0.13 (-0.29, 0.03) -0.48 (-0.63, -0.33)* -0.45 (-0.61, -0.29)* -0.13 (-0.29, 0.03) -0.48 (-0.63, -0.33)* -0.45 (-0.61, -0.29)* Body weight, kg -0.15 (-0.83, 0.53) -1.55 (-2.20, -0.91)* -2.58 (-3.25, -1.91)* 0.47 (0.20, 0.74) -1.70 (-1.97, -1.44)* -2.55 (-2.82, -2.28)* SBP, mmHg -2.1 (-5.0, 0.7) -4.8 (-7.5, -2.0) -6.9 (-9.7, -4.1)* -0.6 (-1.5, 0.3) -2.6 (-3.5, -1.7)* -4.1 (-5.0, -3.2)* Total insulin dose, % 0.4 (-3.5, 4.2) -4.2 (-8.0, -0.5) -5.2 (-9.0, -1.4)** 1.1 (-0.5, 2.8) -6.1 (-7.7, -4.4)* -8.4 (-10.1, -6.8)* Severe hypoglycemia, n (%) 13 (17.1) 6 (7.1) 3 (3.9) 39 (7.4) 30 (5.7) 23 (4.4) HR (95% CI) - 0.34 (0.13, 0.91) 0.20 (0.06, 0.70) - 0.76 (0.47, 1.22) 0.58 (0.35, 0.97) DKA, n (%) 1 (1.3) 4 (4.7) 2 (2.6) 1 (0.2) 15 (2.9) 20 (3.8) HR (95% CI) - 3.2 (0.4, 29.0) 1.9 (0.2, 20.8) - 15.0 (2.0, 113.3) 20.3 (2.7, 151.2) HR = Hazard Ratio, CI = confidence interval.*p<0.01,**p<0.05 for the difference in LS mean change between sotagliflozin and placebo.Efficacy endpoints were presented as LS mean change from baseline at Week 24 (95% CI) to be consistent with the primary endpoint time point in the individual trials.Safety endpoints were presented from the entire 52 week follow up plus 30 days after last study dose. Conclusions: In patients with T1D and CKD, treatment with SOTA had similar A1C and SBP lowering effects, and a lower relative risk of SH and DKA vs. the overall cohort. Funding: Commercial Support - Lexicon Pharmaceuticals

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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