Evidence Hub

Dapagliflozin vs. empagliflozin in patients with chronic heart failure: a single-center registry analysis

Jurin I, Hadžibegović I, Jurin H, Rudan D, Pavlović N, Radić M, Manola Š, Trkulja V

2024

393 participants

Abstract

Purpose: : To assess relative efficacy of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in routinely treated chronic heart failure (CHF) patients. Methods. In this single-center registry analysis, prevalent and incident CHF patients with a wide range of left ventricular ejection fraction values started on dapagliflozin or empagliflozin in addition to other guideline-directed therapy were mutually balanced on a range of characteristics, and were assessed for incidence of a composite of all-cause death/major adverse cardiac events (primary outcome) over the initial 6 months of treatment, and for New Your Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at 6 months (secondary outcome). Frequentist and Bayes (with a moderately informed skeptical prior) estimates were generated for dapagliflozin vs. empagliflozin comparison. Results. In both prevalent (dapagliflozin n=393, empagliflozin n=328) and incident (dapagliflozin n=124, empagliflozin n=116) patients, those prescribed dapagliflozin had somewhat higher incidence of the primary outcome and were more likely to present with a worse NYHA class at 6 months, but the estimates were imprecise. In the pooled data, primary events (102 in total) were more common in dapagliflozin-prescribed patients (frequentist estimate RR=1.519, 95%CI 1.239-1.861; Bayes RR=1.380, 95%CrI 0.981-1.944). Dapagliflozin-prescribed patients were also were more likely to have a worse NYHA class at 6 months (OR=1.540, 95%CI 1.208-1.962; Bayes OR=1.425, 95%CrI 1.098-1.781).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 393 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