Evidence Hub

Comparative cardiovascular and renal effectiveness of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin: Scandinavian cohort study

Arvid Engström, J. Söderling, A. Hviid, B. Eliasson, S. Gudbjörnsdottir, V. Wintzell, K. Hveem, C. Jonasson et al.

European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy, 2024

16 citations

Abstract

Abstract Aims To assess the comparative cardiovascular and renal effectiveness and safety of empagliflozin vs. dapagliflozin among patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice. Methods and results Cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, from June 2014 to June 2021 included 141 065 new users of empagliflozin and 58 306 new users of dapagliflozin. Coprimary outcomes were major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death), heart failure (hospitalization or death because of heart failure) and serious renal events (renal replacement therapy, hospitalization for renal events, and death from renal causes). Secondary outcomes were the individual components of the primary outcomes, any cause death, and diabetic ketoacidosis. Use of empagliflozin vs. dapagliflozin was associated with similar risk of major cardiovascular events [adjusted incidence rate: 15.9 vs. 15.8 events per 1000 person-years; HR 1.02, (95% confidence interval 0.97–1.08)], heart failure [6.5 vs. 6.3 events per 1000 person-years; HR 1.05 (0.97–1.14)] and serious renal events [3.7 vs. 4.1 events per 1000 person-years; HR 0.97 (0.87–1.07)]. In secondary outcome analyses, the HRs for use of empagliflozin vs. dapagliflozin were 1.00 (0.93–1.07) for myocardial infarction, 1.03 (0.95–1.12) for stroke, 1.01 (0.92–1.13) for cardiovascular death, 1.06 (1.00–1.11) for any cause death, 0.77 (0.60–0.99) for renal replacement therapy, 1.20…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free