English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:  To compare the effects of empagliflozin and linagliptin use on kidney outcomes of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in a real-world setting.   Methods:  The study involved a propensity score-matched cohort comprising new users of empagliflozin or linagliptin with T2DM between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018 from a large healthcare delivery system in Taiwan. Clinical outcomes assessed: acute kidney injury (AKI), post-AKI dialysis, and mortality. Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate the relative risk of empagliflozin or linagliptin use; a linear mixed model was used to compare the average change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time.   Results:  Of the 7,042 individuals, 67 of 3,521 (1.9%) in the empagliflozin group and 144 of 3,521 (4.1%) in the linagliptin group developed AKI during the 2 years follow-up. Patients in the empagliflozin group were at a 40% lower risk of developing AKI compared to those in the linagliptin group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45–0.82,  p  = 0.001). Stratified analysis showed that empagliflozin users ≥65 years of age (aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.43–1.13,  p  = 0.148), or with a baseline eGFR &amp;lt;60 ml/min/1.73 m 2  (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.57–1.65,  p  = 0.899), or with a baseline glycohemoglobin ≦7% (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.51–2.00,  p = 0.973) experienced attenuated benefits with respect to AKI risk. A smaller decline in eGFR was observed in empagliflozin users compared to linagliptin users regardless of AKI occurrence (adjusted β = 1.51; 95% CI, 0.30–2.72 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ,  p =  0.014).   Conclusion:  Empagliflozin users were at a lower risk of developing AKI and exhibited a smaller eGFR decline than linagliptin users. Thus, empagliflozin may be a safer alternative to linagliptin for T2DM patients.

Comparison of Adverse Kidney Outcomes With Empagliflozin and Linagliptin Use in Patients With Type 2 Diabetic Patients in a Real-World Setting