Terlipressin vs Midodrine Plus Octreotide for Hepatorenal Syndrome-Acute Kidney Injury: A Propensity Score–Matched Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence on the comparison of treatments for hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) in a US population is limited. An indirect comparison of terlipressin plus albumin vs midodrine and octreotide plus albumin (MO) may provide further insight into treatment efficacy. METHODS: Cohorts of patients treated for HRS-AKI characterized by inclusion of patients with serum creatinine (SCr) <5 mg/dL and baseline acute-on-chronic liver failure grades 0-2 and exclusion of patients listed for transplant if model for end-stage liver disease scores ≥35 were pooled from (i) the CONFIRM and REVERSE randomized controlled trials (N = 159 meeting eligibility criteria from N = 216 overall, treated with terlipressin) and (ii) a retrospective review of medical records from 10 US tertiary hospitals (2016-2019; N = 55 treated with MO meeting eligibility criteria from N = 200 overall). The primary end point comparing the 2 cohorts was HRS reversal defined as achieving SCr ≤1.5 mg/dL at least once during the treatment. Covariate balancing propensity scoring was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: HRS-AKI reversal was achieved in 52.35% of terlipressin-treated patients compared with 20% of MO-treated patients (adjusted mean difference 32.35%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.40-47.30, P < 0.0001). Terlipressin-treated patients had increased overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.93, P = 0.02) but similar transplant-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.53-1.17, P = 0.24). Achievement of HRS-AKI reversal was associated with increased OS and TFS regardless of treatment ( P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Consistent with prior reports, terlipressin plus albumin is more effective in improving kidney function and achieving HRS-AKI reversal than MO plus albumin based on indirect comparison in a US population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".