Evidence Hub

Abstract 4144695: Comparative cardiovascular efficacy of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Muhammad Ammar Samad, Eman Mahboob, Mushood Ahmed, S. Farooqui, Shaikh Tahir Ali, Shanzay Akhtar, Adeel Ahmad, Asad Rahman et al.

Circulation, 2024

172,293 participants

Abstract

Background:

The favorable safety profile of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, notably empagliflozin and dapagliflozin, make them a suitable treatment option for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, their comparative efficacy and cardiovascular (CV) benefits still remain unclear. This meta-analysis aims to compare the CV outcomes between Dapagliflozin and Empagliflozin in T2DM patients, exploring their varying effectiveness.

Methods:

A comprehensive search of electronic databases, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar was conducted from inception till May 2024. The study was conducted adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Following a thorough screening and quality assessment, primary outcomes including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and all-cause death along with secondary outcomes including stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and heart failure (HF), were extracted. The random effects model was used to pool the odds ratio (OR) along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

We pooled 6 studies with a total of 172,293 participants. The evaluation of pool results showed a significant association between the use of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin for reducing CV mortality (OR 1.15, 95 % CI 1.01- 1.30; p=0.04) and MACE (OR 1.15, 95 % CI 1.01- 1.30; p=0.04). However, we found no statistically significant difference…

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: 172,293 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