Abstract 14962: Empagliflozin’s Cardiovascular Impact in High-Risk Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: An Inquiry From EMPA-REG OUTCOME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often co-exist yielding increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) complications, including heart failure (HF). In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, empagliflozin (EMPA) reduced the risk of CV death and hospitalization for HF (HHF) in patients with T2D and CV disease (CVD). We hypothesized that patients with COPD had a higher risk of CV outcomes than those without COPD, but similar treatment benefits on CV outcomes from EMPA as the overall population. Methods: In total, 7020 patients were treated with EMPA 10mg, 25mg, or placebo (PBO) with median follow-up of 3.1 years. We defined COPD at baseline (BL) by investigator reported presence of COPD or emphysema, or the use of medications for obstructive airways disease. We explored the effect of pooled EMPA groups vs. PBO within the subgroups of patients with vs. without COPD on CV death, HHF, HHF or CV death (excluding fatal stroke), all-cause death and 3-point-MACE by Cox regression adjusted for baseline risk factors. Results: The 707 (10.1%) patients with COPD at BL were slightly older (65±8 vs. 63±9 yrs), had more often HF at BL (17 vs. 9%) and coronary artery disease (84 vs. 75%), used insulin (56 vs. 47%) and diuretics (57 vs. 42%,) more frequently, but had similar beta-blocker use (64 vs. 65%) as compared to those without COPD. During follow-up, those with COPD in the placebo group had increased risk of HHF (HR 2.15 [95%CI 1.32-3.49], p=0.002), HHF or CV death (HR 1.60 [1.10-2.33], p<0.015), and all-cause death (HR 1.60 [1.09-2.35], p<0.02). EMPA consistently reduced all CV outcomes irrespective of COPD status (Fig). Conclusions: In EMPA-REG OUTCOME, 10% of patients had concomitant COPD. COPD patients were at increased risk of HHF, HHF or CV death, as well as all-cause death. EMPA consistently reduced these outcomes vs PBO among patients with and without COPD. These data suggest that EMPA’s benefits in patients with T2D and CVD are not attenuated by presence of COPD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".