Evidence Hub

Cardio/Kidney Composite End Points: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial

Ferreira JP, Kraus BJ, Zwiener I, Lauer S, Zinman B, Fitchett DH, Koitka-Weber A, George JT et al.

Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021

7,020 participants · 21 citations

Abstract

Background Cardio/kidney composite end points are clinically relevant but rarely analyzed in cardiovascular trials. This post hoc analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) trial evaluated cardio/kidney composite end points by 2 statistical approaches. Methods and Results A total of 7020 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease were treated with empagliflozin 10 or 25 mg (n=4687) or placebo (n=2333) on top of standard care. Cardio/kidney composite end points studied were: (1) cardiac or kidney death, kidney failure, hospitalization for heart failure, sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥40% from baseline, or sustained progression to macroalbuminuria; (2) cardiac or kidney death, kidney failure, hospitalization for heart failure, or sustained estimated glomerular filtration rate decline ≥40% from baseline; and (3) cardiac or kidney death, kidney failure, hospitalization for heart failure, or sustained doubling in serum creatinine from baseline. Cox regression using time-to-first-event analysis and win ratio (WR) using hierarchical order of events were applied. Empagliflozin reduced the risk of all cardio/kidney composites. The results varied only slightly between Cox and WR (eg, composite 1: hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.49-0.64]; WR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.53-2.02]. WR prioritizes events by clinical importance; in particular, all fatal events are…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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. Reported size: 7,020 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