ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Cardiovascular Outcomes of Dapagliflozin Versus Empagliflozin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiorenal Outcomes of Empagliflozin Versus Dapagliflozin in Secondary Prevention Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Comparative Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcomes of Empagliflozin and Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure Patients After Coronary Revascularization: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have demonstrated significant cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, head-to-head comparisons between dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, two widely prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors, remain limited. This meta-analysis aimed to directly compare the cardiovascular outcomes of these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes. We conducted a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases and included eight retrospective studies enrolling 280,617 patients (158,352 receiving empagliflozin and 122,265 receiving dapagliflozin). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), with secondary outcomes including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Our pooled analysis revealed no significant difference in MACE risk between empagliflozin and dapagliflozin (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.13). Similarly, no significant differences were observed for all-cause mortality (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.15), myocardial infarction (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.16), or stroke (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.09). Subgroup analyses by gender, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease status showed consistent results. However, in patients with heart failure, a trend toward reduced MACE risk was observed with empagliflozin (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00). Despite pharmacokinetic differences between these agents, our findings suggest comparable cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, with potentially enhanced benefits of empagliflozin in those with heart failure. However, due to lack of studies, this finding should be interpreted with caution. These results provide valuable insights for clinical decision-making when selecting SGLT2 inhibitors for cardiovascular risk reduction in diabetic patients. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings and explore potential mechanistic differences between these agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.