Key result
Empagliflozin and sitagliptin both significantly improved global myocardial perfusion reserve at 6 months, with no significant difference between the two treatments (P=0.934).
Why the study?
SGLT2 inhibitors reduce cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetic patients with CAD, but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.
Does empagliflozin improve myocardial perfusion reserve compared to sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=100)
randomized
Does empagliflozin improve myocardial perfusion reserve compared to sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 34.5% vs 22.4%
p-value: p=0.934
Empagliflozin and sitagliptin provide similar improvements in myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.
Both may improve myocardial perfusion reserve similarly; hypothesis-generating and requires validation in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetic patients with coronary artery disease (CAD); however, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: We compared the effects of empagliflozin vs. sitagliptin therapy on myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) using dynamic single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging. METHODS: In total, 100 patients with type 2 diabetes, CAD and an MPR <2.5 were randomized to receive either empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or sitagliptin (100 mg once daily). Dynamic SPECT examinations were performed at baseline and at 6 months. The primary endpoint was the percent change of global MPR. Evaluable SPECT data were available for 98 patients. RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics and SPECT data were well balanced between the two groups. At a 6-month follow-up, the fasting glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels significantly decreased in both groups. Hematocrit and hemoglobin levels significantly increased in the empagliflozin group but not in the sitagliptin group. The global MPR significantly improved after treatment in both groups (34.5 ± 70.6%; P = 0.005 for empagliflozin vs. 22.4 ± 45.7%; P = 0.024 for sitagliptin). However, there was no significant difference in the global MPR between the two groups (P = 0.934). Similar findings were detected with regard to the regional MPR. CONCLUSION: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and CAD, both empagliflozin and sitagliptin significantly improved the global MPR with no significant difference between the groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oh et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease (n=100). Empagliflozin vs. Sitagliptin (100 mg once daily) was evaluated on percent change of global myocardial perfusion reserve (p=0.934). Empagliflozin and sitagliptin both significantly improved global myocardial perfusion reserve at 6 months, with no significant difference between the two treatments (P=0.934).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: