Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41153706›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2025

Head-to-Head in Heart Failure: Comparative Insights on Empagliflozin and Dapagliflozin.

Dragos Cozma, Cristina Văcărescu, Claudiu Stoicescu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dragos CozmaInstitute of Cardiovascular Diseases Timisoara, 300310 Timisoara, Romania.ORCID 0009-0008-7378-7787
Cristina VăcărescuInstitute of Cardiovascular Diseases Timisoara, 300310 Timisoara, Romania.
Claudiu StoicescuCardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila, 030167 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-2686-8778

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heart failure (HF) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, with increasing prevalence driven by aging populations and comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus. Recent advances have highlighted sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, particularly empagliflozin and dapagliflozin, as effective agents in HF management across a broad spectrum of ejection fractions. Initially developed for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, both drugs have demonstrated significant cardiovascular benefits, including reductions in HF hospitalizations and improvements in symptoms and quality of life. Their mechanisms extend beyond glucose lowering, involving natriuresis, osmotic diuresis, improved myocardial energetics, reduced sympathetic activation, and anti-inflammatory effects. While empagliflozin and dapagliflozin share a core renal mechanism via selective SGLT2 inhibition, subtle differences in pharmacokinetics, potency, and tissue selectivity may influence their clinical profiles. Emerging evidence suggests empagliflozin may confer stronger benefits in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), while dapagliflozin could offer enhanced efficacy in heart failure with preserved ejection franction (HFpEF), although head-to-head comparisons are lacking. This review synthesizes current evidence comparing the mechanisms of action and clinical performance of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin in HF, providing insight into agent selection and future directions in therapy personalization.

Indexed as

beyond glycemic controlcardiorenal protectionempagliflozin vs. dapagliflozinheart failure therapySGLT2 inhibitors advancements

Identifiers

PMID41153706
PMCPMC12561480

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.