Intravenous tenecteplase compared with alteplase for minor ischaemic stroke: a secondary analysis of the AcT randomised clinical trial
Abstract
Background In ischaemic stroke, minor deficits (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≤5) at presentation are common but often progress, leaving patients with significant disability. We compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase versus alteplase in patients who had a minor stroke enrolled in the Alteplase Compared to Tenecteplase in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke (AcT) trial. Methods The AcT trial included individuals with ischaemic stroke, aged >18 years, who were eligible for standard-of-care intravenous thrombolysis. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) or alteplase (0.9 mg/kg). Patients with minor deficits pre-thrombolysis were included in this post-hoc exploratory analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients with a modified Rankin Score (mRS) of 0–1 at 90–120 days. Safety outcomes included mortality and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH). Results Of the 378 patients enrolled in AcT with an NIHSS of ≤5, the median age was 71 years, 39.7% were women; 194 (51.3%) received tenecteplase and 184 (48.7%) alteplase. The primary outcome (mRS score 0–1) occurred in 100 participants (51.8%) in the tenecteplase group and 86 (47.5 %) in the alteplase group (adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.14 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.40)). There were no significant differences in the rates of sICH (2.9% in tenecteplase vs 3.3% in alteplase group, unadjusted RR 0.79 (0.24 to 2.54))…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 378 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.