Comparative Cardiovascular Effectiveness of Empagliflozin Versus Dapagliflozin in Adults With Treated Type 2 Diabetes: A Target Trial Emulation.

IF 35.5 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Kasper Bonnesen, Uffe Heide-Jørgensen, Diana H Christensen, Timothy L Lash, Sean Hennessy, Anthony Matthews, Lars Pedersen, Reimar W Thomsen, Morten Schmidt
{"title":"Comparative Cardiovascular Effectiveness of Empagliflozin Versus Dapagliflozin in Adults With Treated Type 2 Diabetes: A Target Trial Emulation.","authors":"Kasper Bonnesen, Uffe Heide-Jørgensen, Diana H Christensen, Timothy L Lash, Sean Hennessy, Anthony Matthews, Lars Pedersen, Reimar W Thomsen, Morten Schmidt","doi":"10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.068613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Empagliflozin and dapagliflozin have proven cardiovascular benefits in people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, but their comparative effectiveness is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used nationwide, population-based Danish health registries to emulate a hypothetical target trial comparing empagliflozin versus dapagliflozin initiation, in addition to standard care, among people with treated type 2 diabetes from 2014 through 2020. The outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, heart failure (HF), or cardiovascular death (major adverse cardiovascular event). Participants were followed until an outcome, emigration, or death occurred; 6 years after initiation; or December 31, 2021, whichever occurred first. Logistic regression was used to compute inverse probability of treatment and censoring weights, controlling for 57 potential confounders. In intention-to-treat analyses, 6-year adjusted risks, risk differences, and risk ratios considering noncardiovascular death competing risks were estimated. Analyses were stratified by coexisting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and HF. A per-protocol design was performed as a secondary analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 36 670 eligible empagliflozin and 20 606 eligible dapagliflozin initiators. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the adjusted 6-year absolute risk of major adverse cardiovascular event was not different between empagliflozin and dapagliflozin initiators (10.0% versus 10.0%; risk difference, 0.0% [95% CI, -0.9% to 1.0%]; risk ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.11]). The findings were consistent in people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (risk difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -8.2% to 3.5%]; risk ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.14]) and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (risk difference, 0.3% [95% CI, -0.6% to 1.2%]; risk ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16]) and in people with HF (risk difference, 1.1% [95% CI, -6.5% to 8.6%]; risk ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.37]) and without HF (risk difference, -0.1% [95% CI, -1.0% to 0.8%]; risk ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.09]). The 6-year risks of major adverse cardiovascular event were also not different in the per-protocol analysis (9.1% versus 8.8%; risk difference, 0.2% [95% CI, -2.1% to 2.5%]; risk ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.32]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Empagliflozin and dapagliflozin initiators had no differences in 6-year cardiovascular outcomes in adults with treated type 2 diabetes with or without coexisting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or HF.</p>","PeriodicalId":10331,"journal":{"name":"Circulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":35.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.068613","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Empagliflozin and dapagliflozin have proven cardiovascular benefits in people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, but their comparative effectiveness is unknown.

Methods: This study used nationwide, population-based Danish health registries to emulate a hypothetical target trial comparing empagliflozin versus dapagliflozin initiation, in addition to standard care, among people with treated type 2 diabetes from 2014 through 2020. The outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, heart failure (HF), or cardiovascular death (major adverse cardiovascular event). Participants were followed until an outcome, emigration, or death occurred; 6 years after initiation; or December 31, 2021, whichever occurred first. Logistic regression was used to compute inverse probability of treatment and censoring weights, controlling for 57 potential confounders. In intention-to-treat analyses, 6-year adjusted risks, risk differences, and risk ratios considering noncardiovascular death competing risks were estimated. Analyses were stratified by coexisting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and HF. A per-protocol design was performed as a secondary analysis.

Results: There were 36 670 eligible empagliflozin and 20 606 eligible dapagliflozin initiators. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the adjusted 6-year absolute risk of major adverse cardiovascular event was not different between empagliflozin and dapagliflozin initiators (10.0% versus 10.0%; risk difference, 0.0% [95% CI, -0.9% to 1.0%]; risk ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.11]). The findings were consistent in people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (risk difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -8.2% to 3.5%]; risk ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.14]) and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (risk difference, 0.3% [95% CI, -0.6% to 1.2%]; risk ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16]) and in people with HF (risk difference, 1.1% [95% CI, -6.5% to 8.6%]; risk ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.37]) and without HF (risk difference, -0.1% [95% CI, -1.0% to 0.8%]; risk ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.09]). The 6-year risks of major adverse cardiovascular event were also not different in the per-protocol analysis (9.1% versus 8.8%; risk difference, 0.2% [95% CI, -2.1% to 2.5%]; risk ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.32]).

Conclusions: Empagliflozin and dapagliflozin initiators had no differences in 6-year cardiovascular outcomes in adults with treated type 2 diabetes with or without coexisting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or HF.

Empagliflozin与Dapagliflozin对成人2型糖尿病患者心血管疗效的比较:目标试验模拟。
背景经证实,恩格列净和达帕格列净对心血管风险较高的2型糖尿病患者有益,但它们的比较效果尚不清楚:本研究利用丹麦全国范围内的人群健康登记来模拟一项假定目标试验,在 2014 年至 2020 年期间,在接受治疗的 2 型糖尿病患者中,除了标准治疗外,还比较安格列酮与达帕格列酮的起始疗效。研究结果是心肌梗死、缺血性中风、心力衰竭(HF)或心血管死亡(主要不良心血管事件)的综合结果。对参与者进行随访,直至出现结果、移民或死亡;启动后 6 年;或 2021 年 12 月 31 日(以先发生者为准)。在控制 57 个潜在混杂因素的情况下,使用逻辑回归计算治疗的逆概率和删减权重。在意向治疗分析中,估算了6年调整风险、风险差异和考虑非心血管死亡竞争风险的风险比。根据并存的动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病和心房颤动进行了分层分析。作为辅助分析,还进行了一项按方案设计的分析:符合条件的恩格列净和达帕格列净患者分别为36 670人和20 606人。在意向治疗分析中,调整后的6年主要不良心血管事件绝对风险在恩格列净和达帕格列净的初始患者之间没有差异(10.0%对10.0%;风险差异为0.0% [95% CI, -0.9% to 1.0%];风险比为1.00 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.11])。在患有动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病(风险差异为-2.3% [95% CI, -8.2% to 3.5%];风险比为 0.92 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.14])和未患有动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病(风险差异为 0.3% [95% CI, -0.6% to 1.2%];风险比为1.04[95% CI,0.93至1.16]),以及患有心房颤动的患者(风险差为1.1%[95% CI,-6.5%至8.6%];风险比为1.04[95% CI,0.79至1.37])和未患有心房颤动的患者(风险差为-0.1%[95% CI,-1.0%至0.8%];风险比为0.99[95% CI,0.90至1.09])。在每方案分析中,主要不良心血管事件的6年风险也没有差异(9.1%对8.8%;风险差异为0.2% [95% CI, -2.1% to 2.5%];风险比为1.03 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.32]):对于合并或不合并动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病或心房颤动的成人2型糖尿病患者,Empagliflozin和dapagliflozin起始治疗者的6年心血管预后没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Circulation
Circulation 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
45.70
自引率
2.10%
发文量
1473
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Circulation is a platform that publishes a diverse range of content related to cardiovascular health and disease. This includes original research manuscripts, review articles, and other contributions spanning observational studies, clinical trials, epidemiology, health services, outcomes studies, and advancements in basic and translational research. The journal serves as a vital resource for professionals and researchers in the field of cardiovascular health, providing a comprehensive platform for disseminating knowledge and fostering advancements in the understanding and management of cardiovascular issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信