Evidence Hub

Can the cardiovascular risk reductions observed with empagliflozin in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial be explained by concomitant changes seen in conventional cardiovascular risk factor levels?

Coleman RL, Gray AM, Broedl Md UC, Fitchett D, George JT, Woerle HJ, Zinman B, Holman RR

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2020

16 citations

Abstract

Aim: To perform post-hoc analyses of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial examining the degree to which empagliflozin-induced changes in conventional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors might explain the observed CV benefits.

Materials and methods: We estimated 3-year EMPA-REG OUTCOME CV event rates using a type 2 diabetes-specific clinical outcomes simulation model applied to annual patient-level data. Variables included were atrial fibrillation, smoking, albuminuria, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, glycated haemoglobin, heart rate, white cell count, haemoglobin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and histories of ischaemic heart disease, heart failure, amputation, blindness, renal failure, stroke, myocardial infarction or diabetic ulcer. Multiple simulations were performed for each participant to minimize uncertainty and optimize confidence interval precision around CV risk point estimates. Observed and simulated cardiovascular relative risk reductions were compared.

Results: Model-predicted relative risk reductions were smaller than those observed in the trial, with empagliflozin-associated changes in conventional CV risk factor values appearing to explain only 12% of the observed relative risk reduction for all-cause death (4% of 32%), 7% for CV death (3% of 39%) and 15% for heart failure (4% of 29%).

Conclusions: Empagliflozin-associated changes in conventional CV risk factors in EMPA-REG OUTCOME appear to explain only a small proportion of the CV and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, 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