Real-World Indirect Treatment Comparison of Terlipressin vs Midodrine Plus Octreotide in Hepatorenal Syndrome-Acute Kidney Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence 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. METHODS: Using 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. RESULTS: At 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.
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".