Empagliflozin for Patients With Presumed Resistant Hypertension: A <i>Post Hoc</i> Analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and resistant hypertension often coexist, greatly increasing risk of target-organ damage and death. We explored the effects of empagliflozin in patients with and without presumed resistant hypertension (prHT) in a post hoc analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME (NCT01131676). METHODS: Overall, 7,020 patients received empagliflozin 10, 25 mg, or placebo with median follow-up of 3.1 years. We defined baseline prHT as ≥3 classes of antihypertensive drugs including a diuretic and uncontrolled blood pressure (BP; systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg) or ≥4 classes of antihypertensive, including a diuretic, and controlled BP. We explored the effect of empagliflozin on cardiovascular (CV) death, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 3-point major adverse cardiac events, all-cause death, and incident/worsening nephropathy by Cox regression and BP over time by a mixed-repeated-measures-model analysis. RESULTS: 1,579 (22.5%) patients had prHT. The mean difference in change in SBP from baseline to week 12 vs. placebo was -4.5 (95% confidence interval, -5.9 to -3.1) mm Hg (P < 0.001) in prHT and -3.7 (-4.5, -2.9) mm Hg (P < 0.001) in patients without prHT. SBP was more frequently controlled (<130/80 mm Hg) with empagliflozin than with placebo. Patients with prHT had 1.5- to 2-fold greater risk of HF hospitalization, incident/worsening nephropathy, and CV death compared with those without prHT. Empagliflozin improved all outcomes in patients with and without prHT (interaction P > 0.1 for all outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin induced a clinically relevant reduction in SBP and consistently improved all outcomes regardless of prHT status. Due to these dual effects, empagliflozin should be considered for patients with hypertension and T2D.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".