Evidence Hub

Comparative Cardiovascular Outcomes of Dapagliflozin Versus Empagliflozin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis

Rhuna Dhana, Yousef Aqel, Anurag Rawat, Aakash Mahato, Abdelaziz Maali Abusal, Nazish Munawar, Calvin R. Wei, Adil Amin

Cureus, 2025

280,617 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have demonstrated significant cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, head-to-head comparisons between dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, two widely prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors, remain limited. This meta-analysis aimed to directly compare the cardiovascular outcomes of these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes. We conducted a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases and included eight retrospective studies enrolling 280,617 patients (158,352 receiving empagliflozin and 122,265 receiving dapagliflozin). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), with secondary outcomes including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Our pooled analysis revealed no significant difference in MACE risk between empagliflozin and dapagliflozin (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.13). Similarly, no significant differences were observed for all-cause mortality (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.15), myocardial infarction (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.16), or stroke (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.09). Subgroup analyses by gender, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease status showed consistent results. However, in patients with heart failure, a trend toward reduced MACE risk was observed with empagliflozin (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00). Despite pharmacokinetic differences between these agents, our findings suggest comparable cardiovascular outcomes…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 280,617 participants or records.

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