This retrospective review of ten cystinuric patients who received off-label SGLT2 inhibitors showed 70% of patients experienced fewer stone events after initiating the medication compared to their historic rate. In addition, half of our patients experienced no stone growth while on the medication. The medication was well tolerated with limited adverse effects.
Cystine is formed by the oxidation of two cysteine molecules connected by a disulfide bond. The initial management of cystinuria has traditionally relied on aggressive hydration, dietary modifications and alkalinization of urine.5 Failing these preliminary strategies, targeted medication management has relied solely on the use of thiol (-SH) containing medications targeting the disulfide bond to form a more soluble drug-cysteine complex. Use of these medications however has been limited by side effects such as fatigue, arthritis, mucosal ulcers, liver abnormalities, blood dyscrasias, nephrotic syndrome, and skin rashes.4,5 These medications are also expensive and require frequent dosing throughout the day limiting patient compliance. Though these medications were first used in treatment of cystinuria in 1963, these substantial limitations have restricted their widespread use and there have not been meaningful advances in alternative medication strategies.
We considered a novel approach to treat cystinuria and hypothesized that the Maillard reaction may be an alternative, effective mechanism to impact stone growth and stone recurrence. The biochemical basis for this reaction was initially reported in 1912 when Louis-Camille Maillard was the first to describe that mixtures of amino acids and sugars would become intensely brown with heating; laying the foundation for the understanding of non-enzymatic browning reactions that occur during food preparation.12 These same reactions occur at body temperature (37oC) and underly the formation of hemoglobin A1c through glycation of hemoglobin and other advanced-glycation end products (AGEs).13,14 These AGEs are a heterogeneous group of molecules implicated in diabetes15,16 and autoimmune or rheumatic diseases.17,18 As an amino acid, cysteine will also undergo the Maillard reaction when exposed to glucose at physiologic temperatures to form adducts which are expected to be more soluble than cystine. With this hypothetical mechanism to inhibit precipitation of cysteine and possibly induce crystal breakdown leveraging glucosuria, the question was then then how to safely induce this state in our patients.
Sodium/Glucose Cotransporter 2 inhibitors block renal glucose reabsorption, leading to a significant increase in glycosuria.8,9 These inhibitors predominantly target SGLT2, a protein found in the renal proximal tubules. When administered at therapeutic doses, these inhibitors facilitate the excretion of approximately 60–100 grams of glucose per day (equivalent to 40-70mgs of glucose/mL of urine, assuming 1.5Lit of 24h urine volume) in the urine leading to lower systemic levels of glucose. The glucosuria indued by SGLT2 inhibitors is far in excess to the plasma glucose (1.5-2.0mg/mL) in blood of diabetic patients responsible for the formation of hemoglobin A1c through glycation of hemoglobin and other advanced-glycation end products (AGEs) suggesting bimolecular reaction between cystine and glucose should be favored. The enhanced urinary glucose excretion induces an osmotic diuresis that also may promote increased fluid intake. While these medications were initially developed to treat type 2 diabetes, there is a growing body of literature to support its cardiovascular and renal benefits as well.7,8
While SGLT2 inhibitors are well tolerated and widely prescribed, they do have adverse reactions including polyuria due to diuresis and fungal genital infections.7 There also may be an increased risk of bacterial urinary tract infections however meta-analyses and observational studies suggest the risk is similar to that of type 2 diabetes.10,19 Our patients tolerated the medication well with three experiencing self-resolving minor adverse reactions and only one patient discontinuing the treatment due to adverse reaction. No patients experienced perineal or urinary tract infections while on medication. These medications are also well reported to cause weight loss which several of our patients reported as a positive ancillary effect of taking these medications.
Urinary citrate excretion was significantly increased in patients while on SGLT2 inhibitors. Citrate reabsorption is tightly regulated by pH such that even small decreases in cellular proximal tubule pH from 7.4 to 7.2 will significantly increase citrate reabsorption whereas alkalosis will limit this reabsorption resulting in increased urinary citrate.20 Therefore, the increase in urinary citrate we observed may be due to decreases in serum potassium leading to a chronic metabolic alkalosis from SGLT2 inhibitor use leading to increases in urinary citrate.21 While we did not find any differences in cystine capacity or supersaturation as measured with 24-hour urine collections, sulfhydryl medications are known to cause interference with these measurements in vitro so it is possible imines may have a similar effect.22 Additionally, we observed a modest increase in voided volume and decrease in capacity though neither was statistically significant. The absolute increase in fluid intake is likely limited as our cystinuria patients already demonstrate excellent hydration. It is possible that in a larger study, these differences would become more apparent.
In this context, we hypothesize that SGLT2 inhibitors may be able to induce sufficient levels of glucosuria to inhibit stone growth in patients with cystinuria. In our cohort of patients who received this medication off-label, most experienced fewer symptomatic stone events compared to their own historic event rate and there were few minor side effects from the medication. An alternative mechanism or at least a synergistic aspect of SGLT2 inhibitors is that they induce an osmotic diuresis (due to the increased excretion of both glucose and sodium) which also may have led to increased urinary excretion of cystine and/or encouraged fluid intake.
Our study has several important limitations. First, this was a retrospective study with a limited follow up duration on SGLT2 inhibitors. Our patients were managed with standard of care follow up which meant that the follow-up intervals and duration were not as rigid as that of a rigid clinical trial. Nonetheless, our patients had a median of 1 year of follow up while on medication and 64 months overall which points to good patient compliance with rigorous follow up. Second, treating the stone event rate as its own control may introduce healthcare utilization bias as interfacing with the medical system could have led to improved dietary habits which had a major impact on stone event rates. Most patients were typically registered on ReSKU for several years before initiating the SGLT2 inhibitor, so their historic stone event rate was less subject to variations in control of their cystinuria. In addition, most of our patients had a negative cystine capacity at baseline before starting the SGLT2 inhibitor signifying severe disease. Third, patients with cystinuria are known to develop symptomatic calculi in clusters for unknown reasons. It is possible that we captured our patients during a period of quiescence however as stated previously, we had a median follow up of over five years, so this is less likely. Fourth, our overall sample size was small. Yet cystinuria is a rare disease and our practice at UCSF has amassed a large cystinuric patient cohort of at least 60 patients that have enrolled in numerous trials in hopes of finding an alternative to the thiol-type prophylactic medications. Lastly, part of the historic data collected on the stone event rate includes time on clinical trials however all patients had at least 30 days off trial medication prior to starting the SGLT2 inhibitor. In addition, 90% were previously on randomized trials so the effect of these trial medications on their baseline stone rate would have decreased any detectable difference in the event rate on the SGLT2 inhibitor making the difference we captured an underestimate.