ArticleCroatian medical journal2025
Dapagliflozin vs empagliflozin in patients with chronic heart failure: a registry analysis.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
aimTo assess the relative efficacy of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in routinely treated chronic heart failure (CHF) patients.
methodsData from a registry of prevalent and incident CHF patients were used to set up cohorts (new-user design) of patients started on dapagliflozin or empagliflozin in addition to other guideline-directed therapy. Cohorts were mutually balanced on a range of characteristics, and were assessed for the incidence of a composite of all-cause death/major adverse cardiac events (primary outcome) over the initial 6 months of treatment, and for New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at 6 months (secondary outcome). Frequentist and Bayes estimates were generated for the dapagliflozin vs empagliflozin comparison.
resultsIn both prevalent (dapagliflozin n=393, empagliflozin n=328) and incident (dapagliflozin n=124, empagliflozin n=116) patients, those prescribed dapagliflozin had somewhat higher incidence of the primary outcome, but the confidence intervals were wide (RR=1.385, 95%CI 0.882-2.173 [prevalent], RR=2.192, 95%CI 0.765-6.282 [incident]), and were more likely to present with a worse NYHA class at 6 months (OR=1.552, 95%CI 1.142-2.108 [prevalent], OR=1.503, 95%CI 0.844-2.676 [incident]). In the pooled data, primary events (n=102) were more common in dapagliflozin-prescribed patients (frequentist estimate RR=1.519, 95%CI 1.239-1.861; Bayes RR=1.380, 95%CrI 0.981-1.944). Dapagliflozin-prescribed patients were also more likely to have a worse NYHA class at 6 months (OR=1.540, 95%CI 1.208-1.962; Bayes OR=1.425, 95%CrI 1.098-1.781).
conclusionCHF patients prescribed with dapagliflozin had poorer outcomes than their empagliflozin-prescribed peers over the initial 6 months of treatment. Data emphasize a need for a direct randomized comparison of the two treatments in this setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40343436PMC12093124What 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.