Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Should sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors be first-line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes?

Carl van Walraven
CMAJ April 06, 2020 192 (14) E375-E376; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.200426
Carl van Walraven
Departments of Medicine, and Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; ICES uOttawa, Ottawa, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

See related article at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.191283

KEY POINTS
  • Although good glucose control in type 2 diabetes significantly improves patient outcomes, having many options for oral therapy can complicate treatment decisions.

  • In this context, a drug’s risk of adverse effects can strongly influence choices.

  • Health Canada warned in 2015 that sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were associated with acute kidney injury (AKI), but new, high-quality research has found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to reduce risk of AKI.

  • Guidelines still rightly recommend metformin as initial pharmacotheray for patients with type 2 diabetes because of its efficacy, good safety profile and low cost, with SGLT2 inhibitors as second line therapy.

The treatment landscape for type 2 diabetes has expanded extensively over the last few decades. Previously, the only decision required of physicians initiating oral pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes was to choose between biguanides and sulfonylureas. Now physicians can consider medications from 5 other drug classes: thiazolidinediones, glinides, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor antagonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors and sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Although having many drug options allows identification of effective and tolerable treatments for each patient, it also complicates treatment decision-making because few adequately powered and randomized studies have directly compared these drug classes in trials that measure micro- or macrovascular outcomes. In this situation, adverse drug effects can become important drivers of drug selection.

Should the findings of related population-based research by Iskander and colleagues1 — which shows that SGLT2 inhibitors do not cause acute kidney injury (AKI) as previously thought — prompt us to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes rather than guideline-recommended metformin? Because the population prevalence of diabetes is high, such a decision could have a large effect on outcomes and should be considered carefully.

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) showed that attaining intensive glucose control (i.e., target fasting glucose at 6 mmol/L) in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes with metformin, sulfonylureas or insulin significantly decreased microvascular complication risks despite a small difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of only 0.9% between treatment groups.2 In addition, the study showed that metformin significantly decreased all-cause mortality in those with obesity. Posttrial analyses of UKPDS (with a median follow-up of 18 yr from random assignment) found that intensive control by any treatment significantly decreased risks of diabetes-related outcomes, myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality.3 These results were attained despite identical HbA1c levels between treatment groups during posttrial monitoring. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD)4 and Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax Diamicron Modified release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE)5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) both subsequently showed that intensive glucose control significantly decreased microvascular disease in those with long-standing type 2 diabetes. This research highlights the importance of good glucose control in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Choosing the best of 7 hypoglycemic drug classes to achieve this goal can be simplified by eliminating those with concerning risks of important adverse effects. This makes drug adverse event warnings by Health Canada and the US Food and Drug Administration important and potentially influential. In October 2015, Health Canada identified SGLT2 inhibitors as contributing to risk of AKI based on reports of 2 patients receiving canagliflozin who had AKI, with additional cases cited by the manufacturers and a literature review that returned “limited evidence on the topic.”6 As is common in detection of adverse events, Health Canada was working with numerators only and were unable to calculate absolute or relative event risks. It concluded in its safety review that “the evidence supported the existence of a link between the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and the risk of acute kidney injury.”6

Iskander and colleagues’ definitive examination of this proposed association captured every older Ontarian (i.e., > 66 yr of age) who was newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor and had record of a serum creatinine level performed, at the most, 1 year before starting their medication.1 Patients were followed for 90 days to determine if they visited the emergency department or were admitted to hospital with AKI, defined by standard diagnostic criteria using laboratory data and not diagnostic codes. Risk of AKI in patients prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors was compared with patients prescribed a DPP4 inhibitor. The authors extensively adjusted for covariates and performed multiple sensitivity analyses, and conclusively showed that AKI risk in patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors does not exceed that for patients treated with DPP4 inhibitors.

The adjective definitive at the start of the previous paragraph is not used lightly to describe Iskander and colleagues’ study. It has numerous and considerable strengths including large numbers of unselected people from the population of Ontario; an absence of any selection bias because every person meeting the reasonable inclusion criteria was included; in-depth adjustment for possible confounding; and use of gold-standard data to define both exposures and outcomes. When considering these findings alongside those from a 2019 systematic review involving 58 181 patients in 30 RCTs that found a significantly decreased risk of AKI with use of SGLT2 inhibitors (odds ratio [OR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–0.80),7 we can be confident that initiating SGLT2 inhibitors does not increase AKI risk.

But does it then follow that SGLT2 inhibitors should become our first choice for treatment of type 2 diabetes? A 2019 meta-analysis involving 34 322 patients from 3 placebo-controlled RCTs found significant reductions in the risk of heart failure and cardiovascular death (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71–0.84) and renal disease progression (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.48–0.64) in patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors, and, in those with established atherosclerosis, major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83–0.96).8 However, despite these encouraging findings, SGLT2 inhibitors should not become first-line pharmacologic treatment for type 2 diabetes. Regardless of its comparator drug class, metformin achieved equivalent or better intermediate outcomes (including glucose control, patient weight and hypoglycemic events) compared with sulfonylureas and moderate evidence exists for reduced cardiovascular mortality with metformin.9 Furthermore, no RCT has directly compared long-term outcomes for metformin versus SGLT2 inhibitors.

This explains why 2 recent guidelines10,11 recommended metformin for initial pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes because of its efficacy, good safety profile, our long-term experience with it and its low cost. When additional treatment is required and the patient’s estimated glomerular filtration rate exceeds 45 (and probably 30) mL/min/1.73 m2, these guidelines recommended SGLT2 inhibitors as the next agent to be started in almost all patients with type 2 diabetes, including those with concurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure or chronic kidney disease; concerns about weight gain; and situations where avoidance of hypoglycemic events is important.10 The only group of patients with diabetes in whom SGLT2 inhibitors are not recommended after metformin are those for whom cost of treatment is an issue. Framed like that, treatment of type 2 diabetes today is not that much more complicated than it used to be.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • This article was solicited and has not been peer reviewed.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Iskander C,
    2. Cherney DZ,
    3. Clemens KK,
    4. et al
    . Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor and risk of acute kidney injury in older adults with diabetes: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ 2020;192:E351–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group [published erratum in Lancet 1998;352:1558]. Lancet 1998;352:854–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Holman RR,
    2. Paul SK,
    3. Bethel MA,
    4. et al
    . 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1577–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study GroupGerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2545–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    ADVANCE Collaborative GroupPatel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2560–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Summary safety review: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors INVOKANA (canagliflozin) and FORXIGA (dapagliflozin) — Evaluation of a potential risk of acute kidney injury. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2015. Available: www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medeffect-canada/safety-reviews/summary-safety-review-sodium-glucose-cotransporter-2-sglt2-inhibitors-invokana-canagliflozin-forxiga-dapagliflozinl-risk.html (accessed 2020 Mar. 10).
  7. ↵
    1. Menne J,
    2. Dumann E,
    3. Haller H,
    4. et al
    . Acute kidney injury and adverse renal events in patients receiving SGLT2-inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2019;16:e1002983.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Zelniker TA,
    2. Wiviott SD,
    3. Raz I,
    4. et al
    . SGLT2 inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials [published erratum in Lancet 2019;393:30]. Lancet 2019;393:31–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Maruthur NM,
    2. Tseng E,
    3. Hutfless S,
    4. et al
    . Diabetes medications as monotherapy or metformin-based combination therapy for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2016;164:740–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Davies MJ,
    2. D’Alessio DA,
    3. Fradkin J,
    4. et al
    . Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 2018;41:2669–701.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Qaseem A,
    2. Barry MJ,
    3. Humphrey LL,
    4. et al.
    Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Oral pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a clinical practice guideline update from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2017;166:279–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 192 (14)
CMAJ
Vol. 192, Issue 14
6 Apr 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Should sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors be first-line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Should sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors be first-line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes?
Carl van Walraven
CMAJ Apr 2020, 192 (14) E375-E376; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.200426

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Should sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors be first-line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes?
Carl van Walraven
CMAJ Apr 2020, 192 (14) E375-E376; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.200426
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and risk of acute kidney injury in older adults with diabetes: a population-based cohort study
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Antiracism as a foundational competency: reimagining CanMEDS through an antiracist lens
  • Keeping the front door open: ensuring access to primary care for all in Canada
  • Improving post-tuberculosis care in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Diabetes
    • Family medicine, general practice, primary care
    • Geriatric medicine
    • Nephrology

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire