Evidence Hub

Differing Efficacy of Dapagliflozin Versus Empagliflozin on the Risk of Incident Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Real‐World Observation Using a Nationwide, Population‐Based Cohort

Jaehyun Lim, S. Kwak, You-jung Choi, Tae-Min Rhee, Chan Soon Park, Bongseong Kim, Kyung-do Han, Heesun Lee et al.

Journal of the American Heart Association : Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease, 2024

137 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

Background Meta‐analyses of large clinical trials investigating SGLT2 (sodium‐glucose cotransporter‐2) inhibitors have suggested their protective effects against atrial fibrillation in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, the results were predominantly driven from trials involving dapagliflozin. Methods and Results We used a nationwide, population‐based cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated either dapagliflozin or empagliflozin between May 2016 and December 2018. An active‐comparator, new‐user design was used, and the 2 groups of patients were matched using propensity scores. The primary outcome was incident nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, which was analyzed using both the main intention‐to‐treat and sensitivity analysis that censored patients who skipped their medications for ≥30 days. Men ≥55 years of age and women ≥60 years of age with ≥1 traditional risk factor or those with established cardiovascular disease were categorized as high cardiovascular risk group. Patients not included in the high‐risk group were categorized as low risk. After 1:1 propensity‐score matching, a total of 137 928 patients (mean age, 55 years; 58% men) were included and followed up for 2.2±0.6 years. The risk of incident atrial fibrillation was significantly lower in the dapagliflozin group in both the main (hazard ratio [HR], 0.885 [95% CI, 0.789–0.992]) and sensitivity analyses (HR, 0.835 [95% CI, 0.719–0.970]). Notably, this was consistent in both the low and high…

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: 137 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