Nicola Logallo1, Vojtech Novotny2, Jörg Assmus3, Christopher E Kvistad2, Lars Alteheld4, Ole Morten Rønning5, Bente Thommessen6, Karl-Friedrich Amthor7, Hege Ihle-Hansen8, Martin Kurz9, Håkon Tobro10, Kamaljit Kaur11, Magdalena Stankiewicz12, Maria Carlsson13, Åse Morsund14, Titto Idicula15, Anne Hege Aamodt16, Christian Lund16, Halvor Næss17, Ulrike Waje-Andreassen2, Lars Thomassen2. 1. Department of Neurology, Centre for Neurovascular Diseases, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Electronic address: nicola.logallo@helse-bergen.no. 2. Department of Neurology, Centre for Neurovascular Diseases, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 3. Centre for Clinical Research, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 4. Department of Neurology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Norway. 5. Department of Neurology, Division of Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 6. Department of Neurology, Division of Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. 7. Department of Neurology, Drammen Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Norway. 8. Department of Medicine, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Bærum Hospital, Norway. 9. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Department of Neurology and Neuroscience Research Group, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway. 10. Department of Neurology, Telemark Hospital, Skien, Norway. 11. Department of Neurology, Haugesund Hospital, Haugesund, Norway. 12. Department of Neurology, Førde Central Hospital, Norway. 13. Department of Neurology, Nordland Hospital, Bodø, Norway; Department of Clinical Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway. 14. Department of Neurology, Molde, Helse Møre og Romsdal, Norway. 15. Department of Neurology, St Olav University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. 16. Department of Neurology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 17. Department of Neurology, Centre for Neurovascular Diseases, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; Centre for Age-Related Medicine, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tenecteplase is a newer thrombolytic agent with some pharmacological advantages over alteplase. Previous phase 2 trials of tenecteplase in acute ischaemic stroke have shown promising results. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase versus alteplase in patients with acute stroke who were eligible for intravenous thrombolysis. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, superiority trial was done in 13 stroke units in Norway. We enrolled adults with suspected acute ischaemic stroke who were eligible for thrombolysis and admitted within 4·5 h of symptom onset or within 4·5 h of awakening with symptoms, or who were eligible for bridging therapy before thrombectomy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous tenecteplase 0·4 mg/kg (to a maximum of 40 mg) or alteplase 0·9 mg/kg (to a maximum of 90 mg), via a block randomisation schedule stratified by centre of inclusion. Patients were not informed of treatment allocation; treating physicians were aware of treatment allocation but those assessing the primary and secondary endpoints were not. The primary outcome was excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-1 at 3 months. The primary analysis was an unadjusted and non-stratified intention-to-treat analysis with last observation carried forward for imputation of missing data. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01949948. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2012, and Sept 30, 2016, 1107 patients met the inclusion criteria and seven patients were excluded because informed consent was withdrawn or eligibility for thrombolytic treatment was reconsidered. 1100 patients were randomly assigned to the tenecteplase (n=549) or alteplase (n=551) groups. The median age of participants was 77 years (IQR 64-79) and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at baseline was 4 points (IQR 2-8). A final diagnosis other than ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack was found in 99 (18%) patients in the tenecteplase group and 91 (17%) patients in the alteplase group. The primary outcome was achieved by 354 (64%) patients in the tenecteplase group and 345 (63%) patients in the alteplase group (odds ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·84-1·38; p=0·52). By 3 months, 29 (5%) patients had died in the tenecteplase group compared with 26 (5%) in the alteplase group. The frequency of serious adverse events was similar between groups (145 [26%] in the tenecteplase group vs 141 [26%] in the alteplase group; p=0·74). INTERPRETATION: Tenecteplase was not superior to alteplase and showed a similar safety profile. Most patients enrolled in this study had mild stroke. Further trials are needed to establish the safety and efficacy in patients with severe stroke and whether tenecteplase is non-inferior to alteplase. FUNDING: Research Council of Norway.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Tenecteplase is a newer thrombolytic agent with some pharmacological advantages over alteplase. Previous phase 2 trials of tenecteplase in acute ischaemic stroke have shown promising results. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase versus alteplase in patients with acute stroke who were eligible for intravenous thrombolysis. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, superiority trial was done in 13 stroke units in Norway. We enrolled adults with suspected acute ischaemic stroke who were eligible for thrombolysis and admitted within 4·5 h of symptom onset or within 4·5 h of awakening with symptoms, or who were eligible for bridging therapy before thrombectomy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous tenecteplase 0·4 mg/kg (to a maximum of 40 mg) or alteplase 0·9 mg/kg (to a maximum of 90 mg), via a block randomisation schedule stratified by centre of inclusion. Patients were not informed of treatment allocation; treating physicians were aware of treatment allocation but those assessing the primary and secondary endpoints were not. The primary outcome was excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-1 at 3 months. The primary analysis was an unadjusted and non-stratified intention-to-treat analysis with last observation carried forward for imputation of missing data. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01949948. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2012, and Sept 30, 2016, 1107 patients met the inclusion criteria and seven patients were excluded because informed consent was withdrawn or eligibility for thrombolytic treatment was reconsidered. 1100 patients were randomly assigned to the tenecteplase (n=549) or alteplase (n=551) groups. The median age of participants was 77 years (IQR 64-79) and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at baseline was 4 points (IQR 2-8). A final diagnosis other than ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack was found in 99 (18%) patients in the tenecteplase group and 91 (17%) patients in the alteplase group. The primary outcome was achieved by 354 (64%) patients in the tenecteplase group and 345 (63%) patients in the alteplase group (odds ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·84-1·38; p=0·52). By 3 months, 29 (5%) patients had died in the tenecteplase group compared with 26 (5%) in the alteplase group. The frequency of serious adverse events was similar between groups (145 [26%] in the tenecteplase group vs 141 [26%] in the alteplase group; p=0·74). INTERPRETATION: Tenecteplase was not superior to alteplase and showed a similar safety profile. Most patients enrolled in this study had mild stroke. Further trials are needed to establish the safety and efficacy in patients with severe stroke and whether tenecteplase is non-inferior to alteplase. FUNDING: Research Council of Norway.
Authors: Shahid M Nimjee; David Dornbos; George A Pitoc; Debra G Wheeler; Juliana M Layzer; Nicholas Venetos; Allyson Huttinger; Spencer E Talentino; Nicholas J Musgrave; Holly Moody; Rachel E Rempel; Cheyenne Jones; Kendyl Carlisle; Jenna Wilson; Camille Bratton; Matthew E Joseph; Shoeb Khan; Maureane R Hoffman; Laura Sommerville; Richard C Becker; Jay L Zweier; Bruce A Sullenger Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: Babikir Kheiri; Mohammed Osman; Ahmed Abdalla; Tarek Haykal; Sahar Ahmed; Mustafa Hassan; Ghassan Bachuwa; Mohammed Al Qasmi; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Peter J Mitchell; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Timothy J Kleinig; Richard J Dowling; Bernard Yan; Steven J Bush; Vincent Thijs; Rebecca Scroop; Marion Simpson; Mark Brooks; Hamed Asadi; Teddy Y Wu; Darshan G Shah; Tissa Wijeratne; Henry Zhao; Fana Alemseged; Felix Ng; Peter Bailey; Henry Rice; Laetitia de Villiers; Helen M Dewey; Philip M C Choi; Helen Brown; Kendal Redmond; David Leggett; John N Fink; Wayne Collecutt; Thomas Kraemer; Martin Krause; Dennis Cordato; Deborah Field; Henry Ma; Bill O'Brien; Benjamin Clissold; Ferdinand Miteff; Anna Clissold; Geoffrey C Cloud; Leslie E Bolitho; Luke Bonavia; Arup Bhattacharya; Alistair Wright; Abul Mamun; Fintan O'Rourke; John Worthington; Andrew A Wong; Christopher R Levi; Christopher F Bladin; Gagan Sharma; Patricia M Desmond; Mark W Parsons; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jose Fernandez-Ferro; Lee H Schwamm; Miguel A Descalzo; Rachael MacIsaac; Patrick D Lyden; Kennedy R Lees Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2020-02-06
Authors: Paula Muñoz Venturelli; Jason P Appleton; Craig S Anderson; Philip M Bath Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 5.081