Evidence Hub

Metabolic syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a post hoc analyses of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial

João Pedro Ferreira, Subodh Verma, David Fitchett, Anne Pernille Ofstad, Sabine Lauer, Isabella Zwiener, Jyothis Thomas George, Christoph Wanner et al.

Research Square, 2020

7,020 participants · 31 citations

Abstract

Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) are at greater cardiovascular risk than those with T2D without MetS. In the current report we aim to study the characteristics, cardio-renal outcomes and the effect of empagliflozin in patients with MetS enrolled in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial.

Methods: A total of 7020 patients with T2D and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were treated with empagliflozin (10 mg or 25 mg) or placebo for a median of 3.1 years. The World Health Organization MetS criteria could be determined for 6985 (99.5%) patients. We assessed the association between baseline MetS and multiple cardio-renal endpoints using Cox regression models, and we studied the change in the individual component over time of the MetS using mixed effect models.

Results: MetS at baseline was present in 5740 (82%) patients; these were more often white and had more often albuminuria and heart failure, had lower eGFR and HDL-cholesterol, and higher blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, and triglycerides. In the placebo group, patients with MetS had a higher risk of all outcomes including cardiovascular death: HR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.01-2.98), heart failure hospitalization: HR = 2.64 (95% CI 1.22, 5.72), and new or worsening nephropathy: HR = 3.11 (95% CI 2.17-4.46). The beneficial effect of empagliflozin was consistent on all cardio-renal outcomes regardless of presence of MetS.

Conclusions: A large proportion of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 7,020 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