Evidence Hub

Abstract 12476: Dapagliflozin versus Empagliflozin and the Risk for Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Population-Based Study

Jae-kyu Lim, Bongseong Kim, You-jung Choi, Hyun-Jung Lee, K. Han, Heesun Lee, Jun‐Bean Park, Hyung‐Kwan Kim et al.

Circulation, 2022

145,502 participants

Abstract

Introduction:

Dapagliflozin and empagliflozin are the two most widely used sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) worldwide. The study was conducted to compare the cardiovascular outcomes of two SGLT2i, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin.

Methods:

We conducted a nationwide cohort study using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database and an active-comparator new-user design. Patients newly prescribed either dapagliflozin or empagliflozin between 2016 and 2018 for T2DM were retrospectively analyzed and matched in a 1:1 ratio based on propensity scores estimated using 53 potential confounding variables. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which is a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, heart failure (HF) events (i.e., hospitalization for HF or HF-related death), and cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were HF events, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality.

Results:

A total of 145,502 patients were included in the final analysis (mean age 57±12 years, 57% male). During mean follow-up of 2.1±0.7 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between the two groups (incidence rate 6.95 vs. 7.33 per 1000 person-years). The hazard ratio [HR] for dapagliflozin to empagliflozin users was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.03; P= 0.199). Regarding secondary outcomes, however, compared with empagliflozin users, dapagliflozin users had a lower risk of…

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. Reported size: 145,502 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