4.7 Article

Empagliflozin is associated with lower cardiovascular risk compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in adults with and without cardiovascular disease: EMPagliflozin compaRative effectIveness and SafEty (EMPRISE) study results from Europe and Asia

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR DIABETOLOGY
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12933-023-01963-9

关键词

Empagliflozin; Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors; Type 2 diabetes; Cardiovascular disease; Heart failure; Comparative effectiveness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating empagliflozin compared to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) in routine care settings in Europe and Asia. The results showed that regardless of pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) or history of heart failure (HF), the use of empagliflozin resulted in lower risk of cardiovascular events.
BackgroundStudies that have reported lower risk for cardiovascular outcomes in users of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors (SGLT-2i) are limited by residual cofounding and lack of information on prior cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study compared risk of cardiovascular events in patients within routine care settings in Europe and Asia with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating empagliflozin compared to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) stratified by pre-existing CVD and history of heart failure (HF).Methods and resultsAdults initiating empagliflozin and DPP-4i in 2014-2018/19 from 11 countries in Europe and Asia were compared using propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards regression to assess differences in rates of primary outcomes: hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke; and secondary outcomes: cardiovascular mortality (CVM), coronary revascularisation procedure, composite outcome including HHF or CVM, and 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: MI, stroke and CVM). Country-specific results were meta-analysed and pooled hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) from random-effects models are presented.In total, 85,244 empagliflozin/DPP4i PS-matched patient pairs were included with overall mean follow-up of 0.7 years. Among those with pre-existing CVD, lower risk was observed for HHF (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64-0.86), CVM (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.80), HHF or CVM (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.48-0.67) and stroke (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67-0.94) in patients initiating empagliflozin vs DPP-4i. Similar patterns were observed among patients without pre-existing CVD and those with and without pre-existing HF.Methods and resultsAdults initiating empagliflozin and DPP-4i in 2014-2018/19 from 11 countries in Europe and Asia were compared using propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards regression to assess differences in rates of primary outcomes: hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke; and secondary outcomes: cardiovascular mortality (CVM), coronary revascularisation procedure, composite outcome including HHF or CVM, and 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: MI, stroke and CVM). Country-specific results were meta-analysed and pooled hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) from random-effects models are presented.In total, 85,244 empagliflozin/DPP4i PS-matched patient pairs were included with overall mean follow-up of 0.7 years. Among those with pre-existing CVD, lower risk was observed for HHF (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64-0.86), CVM (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.80), HHF or CVM (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.48-0.67) and stroke (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67-0.94) in patients initiating empagliflozin vs DPP-4i. Similar patterns were observed among patients without pre-existing CVD and those with and without pre-existing HF.ConclusionThese results from diverse patient populations in routine care settings across Europe and Asia demonstrate that initiation of empagliflozin compared to DPP-4i results in favourable cardioprotective effects regardless of pre-existing CVD or HF status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据