Evidence Hub

Abstract 12579: Empagliflozin and the Risk of Atherosclerotic Events and Hospitalization for Heart Failure: Updated Analysis From the Empagliflozin Comparative Effectiveness and Safety (EMPRISE) Study

P. Htoo, Helen Tesfaye, M. Najafzadeh, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Dureshahwar Jawaid, Deborah J. Wexler, Robert Glynn, L. Koeneman et al.

Circulation, 2021

Abstract

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial reported cardioprotective effects of empagliflozin (EMPA) in patients with established cardiovascular diseases (CVD). We evaluated the association between EMPA and the risk of cardiovascular events, versus GLP1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) or DPP4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) in the Empagliflozin Comparative Effectiveness and Safety (EMPRISE) study of type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients in routine care, updating a prior analysis using data from 08/2014 through 09/2018. Using 2 commercial and Medicare claims databases, we identified 88,826 pairs of 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) T2D patients ≥18 years initiating EMPA or a GLP-1RA [Cohort 1], and 69,610 pairs initiating EMPA or a DPP-4i [Cohort 2]. Our outcomes were (i) a composite of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD): MI, stroke, unstable angina and coronary revascularization and (ii) heart failure hospitalization in primary discharge (HHF-Primary) or any position (HHF-Any). In each cohort, we estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 1-year numbers needed to treat (NNT), accounting for death as a competing risk, pooled across databases adjusting for >140 baseline covariates. After PSM, exposure groups had similar characteristics (Table 1). Compared to GLP-1RA, EMPA had a similar risk of ASCVD [HR (95% CI): 1.05 (0.96,1.15)] and a decreased risk of HHF-Primary: 0.64 (0.54,0.76) and HHF-Any: 0.83 (0.77,0.90). One-year NNTs for EMPA vs GLP-1RA were 235 for HHF-Primary and 133 for HHF-Any. Results for EMPA vs…

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