Andrew Bivard1, Xuya Huang2, Patrick McElduff2, Christopher R Levi2, Bruce C V Campbell2, Bharath Kumar Cheripelli2, Dheeraj Kalladka2, Fiona Catherine Moreton2, Ian Ford2, Christopher F Bladin2, Stephen M Davis2, Geoffrey A Donnan2, Keith W Muir2, Mark W Parsons2. 1. From Department of Neurology, John Hunter Hospital, University of Newcastle, Australia (A.B., P.M., C.R.L., M.W.D.); Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Scotland, UK (X.H., B.K.C., D.K., F.C.M., I.F., K.W.M.); Department of Medicine and Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital (B.C.V.C., S.M.D.), and The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health (C.F.B., G.A.D.), University of Melbourne, Australia; and Department of Neurology, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (C.F.B.). andrew.bivard@hotmail.com. 2. From Department of Neurology, John Hunter Hospital, University of Newcastle, Australia (A.B., P.M., C.R.L., M.W.D.); Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Scotland, UK (X.H., B.K.C., D.K., F.C.M., I.F., K.W.M.); Department of Medicine and Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital (B.C.V.C., S.M.D.), and The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health (C.F.B., G.A.D.), University of Melbourne, Australia; and Department of Neurology, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (C.F.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We pooled 2 clinical trials of tenecteplase compared with alteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, 1 that demonstrated superiority of tenecteplase and the other that showed no difference between the treatments in patient clinical outcomes. We tested the hypotheses that reperfusion therapy with tenecteplase would be superior to alteplase in improving functional outcomes in the group of patients with target mismatch as identified with advanced imaging. METHODS: We investigated whether tenecteplase-treated patients had a different 24-hour reduction in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and a favorable odds ratio of a modified Rankin scale score of 0 to 1 versus 2 to 6 compared with alteplase-treated patients using linear regression to generate odds ratios. Imaging outcomes included rates of vessel recanalization and infarct growth at 24 hours and occurrence of large parenchymal hematoma. Baseline computed tomography perfusion was analyzed to assess whether patients met the target mismatch criteria (absolute mismatch volume >15 mL, mismatch ratio >1.8, baseline ischemic core <70 mL, and volume of severely hypoperfused tissue <100 mL). Patients meeting target mismatch criteria were analyzed as a subgroup to identify whether they had different treatment responses from the pooled group. RESULTS: Of 146 pooled patients, 71 received alteplase and 75 received tenecteplase. Tenecteplase-treated patients had greater early clinical improvement (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score change: tenecteplase, 7; alteplase, 2; P=0.018) and less parenchymal hematoma (2 of 75 versus 10 of 71; P=0.02). The pooled group did not show improved patient outcomes when treated with tenecteplase (modified Rankin scale score 0-1: odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-3.51; P=0.102) compared with alteplase therapy. However, in patients with target mismatch (33 tenecteplase, 35 alteplase), treatment with tenecteplase was associated with greater early clinical improvement (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score change: tenecteplase, 6; alteplase, 1; P<0.001) and better late independent recovery (modified Rankin scale score 0-1: odds ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-5.94; P=0.032) than those treated with alteplase. CONCLUSIONS: Tenecteplase may offer an improved efficacy and safety profile compared with alteplase, benefits possibly exaggerated in patients with baseline computed tomography perfusion-defined target mismatch. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01472926. URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifier: ACTRN12608000466347.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We pooled 2 clinical trials of tenecteplase compared with alteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, 1 that demonstrated superiority of tenecteplase and the other that showed no difference between the treatments in patient clinical outcomes. We tested the hypotheses that reperfusion therapy with tenecteplase would be superior to alteplase in improving functional outcomes in the group of patients with target mismatch as identified with advanced imaging. METHODS: We investigated whether tenecteplase-treated patients had a different 24-hour reduction in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and a favorable odds ratio of a modified Rankin scale score of 0 to 1 versus 2 to 6 compared with alteplase-treated patients using linear regression to generate odds ratios. Imaging outcomes included rates of vessel recanalization and infarct growth at 24 hours and occurrence of large parenchymal hematoma. Baseline computed tomography perfusion was analyzed to assess whether patients met the target mismatch criteria (absolute mismatch volume >15 mL, mismatch ratio >1.8, baseline ischemic core <70 mL, and volume of severely hypoperfused tissue <100 mL). Patients meeting target mismatch criteria were analyzed as a subgroup to identify whether they had different treatment responses from the pooled group. RESULTS: Of 146 pooled patients, 71 received alteplase and 75 received tenecteplase. Tenecteplase-treated patients had greater early clinical improvement (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score change: tenecteplase, 7; alteplase, 2; P=0.018) and less parenchymal hematoma (2 of 75 versus 10 of 71; P=0.02). The pooled group did not show improved patient outcomes when treated with tenecteplase (modified Rankin scale score 0-1: odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-3.51; P=0.102) compared with alteplase therapy. However, in patients with target mismatch (33 tenecteplase, 35 alteplase), treatment with tenecteplase was associated with greater early clinical improvement (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score change: tenecteplase, 6; alteplase, 1; P<0.001) and better late independent recovery (modified Rankin scale score 0-1: odds ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-5.94; P=0.032) than those treated with alteplase. CONCLUSIONS: Tenecteplase may offer an improved efficacy and safety profile compared with alteplase, benefits possibly exaggerated in patients with baseline computed tomography perfusion-defined target mismatch. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01472926. URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifier: ACTRN12608000466347.
Authors: Andrew Bivard; Tim Kleinig; Ferdinand Miteff; Kenneth Butcher; Longting Lin; Christopher Levi; Mark Parsons Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Chushuang Chen; Mark W Parsons; Christopher R Levi; Neil J Spratt; Longting Lin; Timothy Kleinig; Kenneth Butcher; Xin Cheng; Qiang Dong; Billy O'Brien; Richard I Avivi; Martin Krause; P N Sylaja; Philip Choi; Sandeep Bhuta; Congguo Yin; Jianhong Yang; Peng Wang; Weiwen Qiu; Andrew Bivard Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Andrew Bivard; Henry Zhao; Skye Coote; Bruce Campbell; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Bernard Yan; Michael Valente; Angelos Sharobeam; Anna Balabanski; Angela Dos Santos; Felix Ng; Francesca Langenberg; Michael Stephenson; Karen Smith; Steve Bernard; Vincent Thijs; Geoffrey Cloud; Philip Choi; Henry Ma; Tissa Wijeratne; Chushuang Chen; Liudmyla Olenko; Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan; Mark Parsons Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Penny Reeves; Kim Edmunds; Christopher Levi; Longting Lin; Xin Cheng; Richard Aviv; Tim Kleinig; Kenneth Butcher; Jingfen Zhang; Mark Parsons; Andrew Bivard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 3.240