SGLT2 inhibitors for type 1 diabetes: Doctors debate the merits

The case against ...

On the other side of the debate was David M. Nathan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Clinical Research Center and Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who acknowledged the benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes.

However, he pointed to findings from a 2015 trial of canagliflozin as an add-on in type 1 diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2015;38[12]:2258-65). In that 18-week, randomized phase 2 trial, the investigators found that patients who took the drug had significantly higher rates of serious adverse events (7.7% or 6.8%, depending on dose, vs. 0% for placebo), urinary tract infections (4.3% and 5.1% vs. 1.7%), and DKA (4.3% and 6.0% vs. 0%).

“It would have cost $400 a month for the ‘pleasure’ of those side effects,” Dr. Nathan said.

He also noted a 2015 report on a 29-day, randomized, placebo-controlled study of sotagliflozin, the dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor drug, as an add-on treatment for type 1 diabetes, in which investigators reported two episodes of DKA (13%) in the SGLT2 group, compared with none in placebo (Diabetes Care. 2015;38[7]:1181-8).

Dr. Nathan also pointed to a recent FDA warning about cases of Fournier gangrene, a rare type of serious genital infection, in patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors.

“To me, the risk [of using SGLT2 inhibitors in type 1 diabetes] outweighs the benefit by a lot,” he said, echoing comments he made in an editorial he wrote in 2017, that “any added benefits of adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes must be carefully balanced against their added risk and cost. Physicians and patients should beware” (N Engl J Med. 2017; 377:2390-1).
 

The outcome...

The audience was not sufficiently convinced by Dr. Nathan to swing the final vote fully in his favor, but he did manage to dent the initial support for using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 1 disease. Before the debate, the show of hands suggested that roughly 80% of the audience thought SGLT2 inhibitors would be an appropriate therapy option for patients with type 1 diabetes. When the moderator asked the same question again after the arguments had been presented, that initial support had been eroded to about 70%. Dr. Nathan had clearly raised some doubts among the attendees, but Dr. Perkins’ perspective prevailed.

Dr. Perkins reported speaker fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Sanofi and Lilly; advisory panel service for Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Insulet; and research support to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bank of Montreal. Dr. Nathan reports no disclosures.