Skip to main content

Table 3 Meta-analysis for major cardiovascular outcomes in empagliflozin and DPP-4i initiators, stratified by pre-existing heart failure

From: Empagliflozin is associated with lower cardiovascular risk compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in adults with and without cardiovascular disease: EMPagliflozin compaRative effectIveness and SafEty (EMPRISE) study results from Europe and Asia

Outcomesa,b

With pre-existing heart failure (HF)

Without pre-existing heart failure (HF)

Empagliflozin

DPP-4i

RE Meta-analysis

Empagliflozin

DPP-4i

RE Meta-analysis

Events

PY

Events

PY

HR (95% CI)c

Events

PY

Events

PY

HR (95% CI)c

Hospitalization for heart failure (broad definition)d

303

1370.72

374

1252.09

0.84 (0.66–1.06)

177

21,389.20

266

20,353.68

0.63 (0.44–0.88)e

Hospitalization for heart failure (specific definition)f

288

2725.00

389

3153.48

0.81 (0.69–0.95)

134

41,098.91

288

48,555.36

0.52 (0.33–0.82)e

Hospitalization for heart failure (broad + specific)g

483

3038.36

646

3402.54

0.79 (0.70–0.89)

251

51,196.32

443

57,957.65

0.55 (0.40–0.76)e

Cardiovascular mortalityh

34

1615.69

89

2176.87

0.53 (0.31–0.92)

71

26,862.74

148

34,375.92

0.63 (0.47–0.85)

Composite outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular mortalityi

106

1191.61

223

1690.05

0.63 (0.50–0.79)

90

20,299.44

268

27,804.26

0.47 (0.33–0.68)

Myocardial infarction (MI)j

52

2999.34

53

3473.32

1.16 (0.63–2.15)e

302

52,779.97

327

59,614.27

1.05 (0.89–1.24)

Strokek

35

3109.95

51

3571.70

0.86 (0.55–1.34)

341

52,779.86

456

59,569.77

0.85 (0.73–0.98)

3-point MACE (MI, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality)l

64

1597.45

58

2152.65

1.34 (0.94–1.93)

323

26,703.95

426

34,147.88

1.03 (0.88–1.21)

Coronary revascularization proceduresm

177

2334.38

179

2572.69

1.17 (0.75–1.80)e

500

46,333.01

575

53,681.66

0.93 (0.78–1.10)

  1. CI confidence interval, CPRD Clinical Practice Research Datalink, DPP-4i dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, HR hazard ratio, PY person-years, THIN The Health Improvement Network, UK United Kingdom
  2. aAn as-treated approach was used and 100% grace period with no risk window was applied
  3. bCountries with insufficient number of outcome events were omitted from the individual outcome meta-analysis. The number of countries included in each analysis therefore may vary
  4. cBased on random-effects model
  5. dDefined as any diagnosis of heart failure associated with hospitalizations, specialist outpatient and primary care encounters, and/or a dispensation/record of high-ceiling or loop diuretics. Includes Israel, Japan, South Korea, Spain and Taiwan
  6. eThese analyses showed high level of heterogeneity I2 ≥ 50% or p < 0.1
  7. fDefined as a diagnosis of heart failure during hospitalization or heart failure diagnosis during hospitalization that led to hospitalization, required most healthcare resources, or was coded as the main disease on the hospital claim. Includes Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Japan, Norway, Sweden and Taiwan
  8. gIncludes broad definition in Japan, South Korea, Spain and Taiwan and specific definition in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Sweden and Norway
  9. hIncludes Finland, Norway, Sweden, Taiwan and UK CPRD (in without HF)
  10. iIncludes Finland, Norway, Sweden and UK CPRD (broad definition in without HF)
  11. jIncludes Denmark, Finland, Germany (in without HF), Israel (in without HF), Japan, Norway, South Korea, Spain (in without HF), Sweden, Taiwan and UK CPRD and THIN (in without HF)
  12. kIncludes Denmark, Finland, Germany (in without HF), Israel (in without HF), Japan, South Korea, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan and UK CPRD and THIN (in without HF)
  13. lIncludes Finland, Norway, Sweden, Taiwan and UK CPRD (in without HF)
  14. mIncludes Denmark, Finland (in without HF), Israel, Japan, South Korea, Norway (in without HF), Sweden, Taiwan and UK CPRD and THIN (in without HF)
Back to article page

Cardiovascular Diabetology

ISSN: 1475-2840