Empagliflozin Reduces Blood Pressure in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients (N = 825) with type 2 diabetes and hypertension (mean seated systolic blood pressure [SBP] 130-159 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 80-99 mmHg) were randomized (double blind) to 10 mg or 25 mg empagliflozin or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. RESULTS: At week 12, adjusted mean difference versus placebo in change from baseline in mean 24-h SBP (ambulatory blood pressure monitoring [ABPM]) was -3.44 mmHg (95% CI -4.78, -2.09) with 10 mg empagliflozin and -4.16 mmHg (-5.50, -2.83) with 25 mg empagliflozin (both P < 0.001). At week 12, adjusted mean difference versus placebo in change from baseline in mean 24-h DBP (ABPM) was -1.36 mmHg (95% CI -2.15, -0.56) with 10 mg empagliflozin and -1.72 mmHg (95% CI -2.51, -0.93) with 25 mg empagliflozin (both P < 0.001). Changes in office BP were consistent with ABPM. Adjusted mean difference versus placebo in change from baseline in HbA1c at week 12 was -0.62% (95% CI -0.72, -0.52) (-6.8 mmol/mol [95% CI -7.9, -5.7]) with 10 mg empagliflozin and -0.65% (95% CI -0.75, -0.55) (-7.1 mmol/mol [95% CI -8.2, -6.0]) with 25 mg empagliflozin (both P < 0.001). Empagliflozin was well tolerated. One patient on placebo and one patient on 10 mg empagliflozin reported events consistent with volume depletion. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin was associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in BP and HbA1c versus placebo and was well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".