Key result
Empagliflozin linked to ~23% lower MACE risk vs. DPP4 inhibitors in older diabetes patients.
Why the study?
The heterogeneity of empagliflozin treatment effects on cardiovascular outcomes across sociodemographic and cardiovascular disease subgroups in adults with type 2 diabetes was unclear.
Does empagliflozin reduce major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, and all-cause mortality in older adults with type 2 diabetes compared with DPP4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists?
Cohort
Does empagliflozin reduce major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, and all-cause mortality in older adults with type 2 diabetes compared with DPP4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists?
Hazard Ratio: 0.77 (95% CI 0.69–0.85)
Empagliflozin reduces cardiovascular events across sociodemographic and CVD subgroups in older adults with type 2 diabetes compared with DPP4is and GLP-1RAs, with greater absolute benefits in patients with prevalent CVD.
Adds real-world evidence favoring empagliflozin over DPP4is in older T2D; extends trial data across subgroups but requires RCT confirmation.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the heterogeneity of empagliflozin treatment effects on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and all-cause mortality (ACM) across sociodemographic and cardiovascular disease (CVD) subgroups of adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using 2014-2020 Medicare claims data, we examined rates of MACE (e.g., composite myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause mortality [ACM]), HHF, and ACM among propensity score-matched individuals aged ≥65 years with T2D initiating empagliflozin compared with those prescribed dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) and those prescribed GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and incidence rate differences (IRDs) overall and by age, sex, race or ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, and baseline CVD. RESULTS: Empagliflozin was associated with decreased risk of MACE (HR 0.77, 99.9% CI [0.69, 0.85]; IRD = -10.3 [-14.1, -6.4]); HHF (HR 0.72 [0.67, 0.79]; IRD = -18.3 [-22.9, -13.6]); and ACM (HR 0.66 [0.57, 0.76]; IRD = -8.6 [-11.4, -5.8]) compared with DPP4is. Effect heterogeneity by baseline CVD was present across all outcomes on the IRD scale but only for HHF on the HR scale. Empagliflozin was also associated with decreased risk of HHF (HR 0.88 [0.81, 0.95]; IRD = -6.9 [-10.8, -3.1]) versus GLP-1RAs, with effect heterogeneity by baseline CVD on the IRD scale. No effect heterogeneity was observed by sociodemographic factors, although a numeric trend suggested greater absolute benefit in patients aged ≥75 years compared with those aged 65-74 years. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced cardiovascular events across sociodemographic and CVD subgroups compared with both DPP4is and GLP-1RAs, with higher absolute benefits observed in those with prevalent CVD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
CROMER et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Type 2 diabetes. Empagliflozin vs. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) and GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.85). Empagliflozin was associated with a significantly decreased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with DPP4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes (HR 0.77; 99.9% CI 0.69-0.85).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: