Trial reportHepatology communications2026
Midodrine versus placebo in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure with ascites-A randomized trial (MIDAS trial).
Trial report in Hepatology communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Global ACLF Consensus : the 'Istanbul Document'.Hepatology international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAscites is common in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) and can complicate the course of ACLF due to circulatory dysfunction and hemodynamic compromise. Oral midodrine has been variably reported to improve hemodynamics and reduce complications of ascites in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, but its role in patients with high MELD ACLF remains unknown, which we aimed to assess.
methodsIn this single-center, double-blind, randomized trial, patients with ACLF were assigned 1:1 to receive midodrine (5-7.5 mg tid) or a placebo for 30 days, alongside standard care. Transplant-free survival (TFS) at 1 month was the primary outcome, while secondary outcomes included TFS at 3 months, the proportion of patients achieving ascites control, changes in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and plasma renin activity at 1 month, the incidence of cirrhosis complications, and diuretic-related complications.
resultsOne hundred thirty patients with ACLF were enrolled. Midodrine use was not associated with improvement in TFS at 1 (HR, 0.99 [95% CI: 0.37-2.65]) and 3 months (HR, 0.93 [95% CI: 0.48-1.8]). Ascites control at day 30 (placebo: 9.2% [95% CI: 3.5-19] vs. midodrine: 20% [95% CI: 12.3-33.5]; p=0.08) and 90 (placebo: 44.6% [95% CI: 32.2-57.5] vs. midodrine: 53.8% [95% CI: 41-66.3]; p=0.29) was comparable. Midodrine increased the MAP (1.9 vs. 6.9 mm Hg; p=0.003) with an insignificant reduction in plasma renin activity levels (delta change: 0.22±1.6 vs. -1.6±2.2; p=0.09). Cirrhosis-related and diuretic-related complications were similar in both groups.
conclusionsMidodrine increases MAP in patients with ACLF and high MELD scores without TFS benefit and does not reduce the rate of ascites-related complications.
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.