Evidence Hub

19-LB: Consistent Cardiovascular (CV) Benefits from Empagliflozin across the Spectrum of CV Risk Factor Control: Post Hoc Analysis from EMPA-REG OUTCOME

S. Inzucchi, K. Khunti, D. Fitchett, C. Wanner, M. Mattheus, J. George, Anne Pernille Ofstad, B. Zinman

Diabetes, 2019

7,020 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial of 7020 patients with T2DM and CV disease, empagliflozin (EMPA) significantly reduced risk for 3P-MACE, CV death, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and the composite of HHF or CV death, compared to placebo (PBO). We explored these outcomes in subgroups based on achievement of 7 CV risk factor goals at baseline, defined as: HbA1c Within the PBO group alone, the hazard ratio (HR) for 3P-MACE was 2.21 (95% CI 1.53, 3.19) and 1.42 (1.06, 1.89) for patients achieving 0-3 or 4-5 risk factor goals at baseline, respectively, compared to those reaching 6-7. Similarly, patients achieving only 0-3 or 4-5 goals had increased risk for CV death (HR 4.00 [2.26, 7.11] and 2.48 [1.52, 4.06], respectively), HHF or CV death (HR 2.89 [1.82, 4.57] and 1.90 [1.31, 2.78]) and an increased point estimate for HHF (HR 1.91 [0.96, 3.79] and 1.67 [1.00, 2.80]) versus those achieving 6-7 goals at baseline. EMPA consistently reduced the risk for these CV events versus PBO across all subgroups (p for interaction=NS for all; Figure). In conclusion, CV risk increases with fewer CV risk factors controlled, but the cardioprotective effect of EMPA was consistent regardless of the number of risk factors controlled. Disclosure S.E. Inzucchi: Consultant; Self; vTv Therapeutics, Zafgen, Inc. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. K. Khunti: Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen Inc.,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis. 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