Literature DB >> 35525250

Tenecteplase versus alteplase for the management of acute ischaemic stroke in Norway (NOR-TEST 2, part A): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, non-inferiority trial.

Christopher Elnan Kvistad1, Halvor Næss2, Bernt H Helleberg3, Titto Idicula4, Guri Hagberg5, Linn Marie Nordby6, Kristian N Jenssen7, Håkon Tobro8, Dag M Rörholt9, Kamaljit Kaur10, Agnethe Eltoft11, Kristin Evensen12, Judit Haasz13, Guruparan Singaravel13, Annette Fromm14, Lars Thomassen15.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tenecteplase is a modified tissue plasminogen activator with pharmacological and practical advantages over alteplase-which is currently the only approved thrombolytic drug for ischaemic stroke. The NOR-TEST trial showed that 0·4 mg/kg tenecteplase had an efficacy and safety profile similar to that of a standard dose (0·9 mg/kg) of alteplase, albeit in a patient population with a high prevalence of minor stroke. The aim of NOR-TEST 2 was to establish the non-inferiority of tenecteplase 0·4 mg/kg to alteplase 0·9 mg/kg for patients with moderate or severe ischaemic stroke.
METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, non-inferiority trial was performed at 11 hospitals with stroke units in Norway. Patients with suspected acute ischaemic stroke with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 6 or more who were eligible for thrombolysis and admitted within 4·5 h of symptom onset were consecutively included. Random assignment, done by a computer with a block size of 4 and with allocations placed into opaque envelopes to be opened consecutively, was 1:1 between intravenous tenecteplase (0·4 mg/kg) or standard dose alteplase (0·9 mg/kg). Doctors and nurses providing acute care were not masked to treatment, but primary outcome assessment at 3 months was masked. The primary outcome was favourable functional outcome defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1 at 3 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding patients who did not qualify for thrombolysis after randomisation or who withdrew informed consent). The non-inferiority margin was 3%. This trial (NOR-TEST 2) is registered with EudraCT (number 2018-003090-95) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03854500). The trial was stopped early for safety reasons and is designated part A for analysis. Part B is ongoing with a lower dose of tenecteplase (0·25 mg/kg).
FINDINGS: Between Oct 28, 2019, and Sept 26, 2021, 216 patients were enrolled. Patient enrolment was stopped after a per-protocol safety review showed an imbalance in the rates of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage between the treatment groups, which surpassed the prespecified criteria for stopping the trial. Of 204 patients entering the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 100 were randomly allocated tenecteplase and 104 were allocated alteplase. All patients were followed up within 14 days of the end of the 3-months' follow-up period. A favourable functional outcome was reported less frequently in patients receiving tenecteplase (31 [32%] of 96 patients) compared with alteplase (52 [51%] of 101 patients; unadjusted OR 0·45 [95% CI 0·25-0·80]; p=0·0064). Any intracranial haemorrhage was significantly more frequent with tenecteplase (21 [21%] of 100 patients) than with alteplase (seven [7%] of 104 patients; unadjusted OR 3·68 [95% CI 1·49-9·11]; p=0·0031). Mortality at 3 months was also significantly higher with tenecteplase (15 [16%] of 96 patients) than with alteplase (five [5%] of 101 patients; unadjusted OR 3·56 [95% CI 1·24-10·21]; p=0·013). Numerically more cases of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage were reported with tenecteplase (six [6%] of 100 patients) than with alteplase (one [1%] of 104 patients; unadjusted OR 6·57 [95% CI 0·78-55·62]; p=0·061).
INTERPRETATION: In this prematurely terminated study (terminated to fulfil the prespecified safety criteria), tenecteplase at a dose of 0·4 mg/kg yielded worse safety and functional outcomes compared with alteplase. Our study consequently could not show that 0·4 mg/kg tenecteplase is non-inferior to alteplase in moderate and severe ischaemic stroke. Future stroke trials should assess a lower dose of tenecteplase versus alteplase in patients with moderate or severe stroke. FUNDING: The Norwegian National Programme for Clinical Therapy Research.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35525250     DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00124-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Neurol        ISSN: 1474-4422            Impact factor:   44.182


  3 in total

Review 1.  Tenecteplase vs. alteplase for the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Pengju Ma; Yi Zhang; Li Chang; Xiangsheng Li; Yuling Diao; Haigang Chang; Lei Hui
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 6.682

Review 2.  Tenecteplase or Alteplase: What Is the Thrombolytic Agent of the Future?

Authors:  Ammad Mahmood; Keith W Muir
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Neurol       Date:  2022-07-30       Impact factor: 3.972

Review 3.  Alteplase or tenecteplase for thrombolysis in ischemic stroke: An illustrated review.

Authors:  Annie Zhu; Phavalan Rajendram; Eric Tseng; Shelagh B Coutts; Amy Y X Yu
Journal:  Res Pract Thromb Haemost       Date:  2022-09-20
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.