Evidence Hub

Empagliflozin Use Is Associated With Lower Risk of All-Cause Mortality, Hospitalization for Heart Failure, and End-Stage Renal Disease Compared to DPP-4i in Nordic Type 2 Diabetes Patients: Results From the EMPRISE (Empagliflozin Comparative Effectiveness and Safety) Study

G. Langslet, T. Nyström, D. Vistisen, B. Carstensen, E. T. Grip, P. Casajust, G. Tskhvarashvili, F. Hoti et al.

Journal of Diabetes Research, 2024

2 citations

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of empagliflozin in reducing all-cause mortality (ACM), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiovascular mortality (CVM), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in routine clinical practice in the Nordic countries of the Empagliflozin Comparative Effectiveness and Safety (EMPRISE) study. Methods: This noninterventional, multicountry cohort study used secondary data from four Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway). Propensity score (PS) matched (1:1) adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating empagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor) during 2014–2018 who were compared to those initiating a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i). Cox proportional hazards regression modelling was used to assess the risk for ACM, HHF, MI, stroke, CVM, and ESRD. Meta-analyses were conducted and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from random-effects models were calculated. Results: A total of 43,695 pairs of PS-matched patients were identified. Patients initiating empagliflozin exhibited a 49% significantly lower risk of ACM (HR: 0.51, 95% CI 0.40–0.64) compared to DPP-4i. Additionally, empagliflozin was associated with a 36% significantly lower risk of HHF (HR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.46–0.89), a 52% significantly lower risk of CVM (HR: 0.48, 95% CI 0.37–0.63), and a 66% significantly lower risk of ESRD (HR: 0.34, 95% CI 0.15–0.77) compared to DPP-4i. No significant…

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