ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2026
Real-World Indirect Treatment Comparison of Terlipressin vs Midodrine Plus Octreotide in Hepatorenal Syndrome-Acute Kidney Injury.
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEvidence on the comparative real-world effectiveness of terlipressin vs midodrine plus octreotide (MO) for hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) in the United Kingdom and the United States is limited.
methodsUsing individual-level chart review data for patients across the United Kingdom (2013-2017) and the United States (2016-2019), an indirect treatment comparison was conducted comparing the efficacy of terlipressin (UK cohort) with MO (US cohort). Covariate balancing propensity scoring matched the cohorts on baseline serum creatinine (SCr), presence of encephalopathy and/or ascites, albumin use and duration, age, and sex. The primary endpoint was HRS reversal, defined as achieving SCr ≤1.5 mg/dL by the last day of treatment.
resultsAt treatment initiation, 90.2% of UK patients received terlipressin (194/215), while 89.2% of US patients received MO (140/157). Concomitant albumin was administered in 67.9% of UK and 98.7% of US patients. In a covariate balancing propensity score-adjusted cohort, HRS reversal was achieved in 53.2% of terlipressin-treated patients (the United Kingdom, weighted effective sample size of 75) compared with 16.9% of MO-treated patients (the United States, n = 89) (adjusted mean difference (95% CI) 36.3% (22.4, 50.2), P < 0.0001). In adjusted analysis, individuals treated with terlipressin experienced an overall reduction in SCr at completion of treatment (SCr decrease 1.00 mg/dL vs increase of 0.08 mg/dL for MO-treated patients, P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: HRS-AKI treatment and outcomes differ between the United Kingdom and the United States, attributed to the historical standard of care MO in the United States. In adjusted analyses, real-world use of terlipressin was more effective than MO at improving kidney function and achieving HRS-AKI reversal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.