Safety and Efficacy of Tenecteplase Compared With Alteplase in Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the ACT Randomized Clinical Trial

Fouzi Bala, Nishita Singh, Brian Buck, Ayoola Ademola, Shelagh B. B. Coutts, Yan Deschaintre, Houman Khosravani, Ramana Appireddy, Francois Moreau, Stephen Phillips, Gord Gubitz, Aleksander Tkach, Luciana Catanese, Dar Dowlatshahi, George Medvedev, Jennifer Mandzia, Aleksandra Pikula, Jai Jai Shankar, Heather Williams, Thalia S. S. FieldAlejandro Manosalva Alzate, Muzaffar Siddiqui, Atif Zafar, Oje Imoukhoude, Gary Hunter, Ibrahim Alhabli, Faysal Benali, MacKenzie Horn, Michael D. D. Hill, Michel Shamy, Tolulope T. T. Sajobi, Richard H. H. Swartz, Bijoy K. K. Menon, Mohammed Almekhlafi*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

IMPORTANCE It is unknown whether intravenous thrombolysis using tenecteplase is noninferior or preferable compared with alteplase for patients with acute ischemic stroke. OBJECTIVE To examine the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase compared to alteplase among patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a prespecified analysis of the Intravenous Tenecteplase Compared With Alteplase for Acute Ischaemic Stroke in Canada (ACT) randomized clinical trial that enrolled patients from 22 primary and comprehensive stroke centers across Canada between December 10, 2019, and January 25, 2022. Patients 18 years and older with a disabling ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours of symptom onset were randomly assigned (1:1) to either intravenous tenecteplase or alteplase and were monitored for up to 120 days. Patients with baseline intracranial internal carotid artery (ICA), M1-middle cerebral artery (MCA), M2-MCA, and basilar occlusions were included in this analysis. A total of 1600 patients were enrolled, and 23 withdrew consent.EXPOSURES Intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) vs intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the proportion of modified Rankin scale (mRS) score 0-1 at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were an mRS score from 0 to 2, mortality, and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Angiographic outcomes were successful reperfusion (extended Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale score 2b-3) on first and final angiographic acquisitions. Multivariable analyses (adjusting for age, sex, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score, onset-to-needle time, and occlusion location) were carried out.RESULTS Among 1577 patients, 520 (33.0%) had LVO (median [IQR] age, 74 [64-83] years; 283 [54.4%] women): 135 (26.0%) with ICA occlusion, 237 (45.6%) with M1-MCA, 117 (22.5%) with M2-MCA, and 31(6.0%) with basilar occlusions. The primary outcome (mRS score 0-1) was achieved in 86 participants (32.7%) in the tenecteplase group vs 76 (29.6%) in the alteplase group. Rates of mRS 0-2 (129 [49.0%] vs 131 [51.0%]), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (16 [6.1%] vs 11 [4.3%]), and mortality (19.9% vs 18.1%) were similar in the tenecteplase and alteplase groups, respectively. No difference was noted in successful reperfusion rates in the first (19 [9.2%] vs 21 [10.5%]) and final angiogram (174 [84.5%] vs 177 [88.9%]) among 405 patients who underwent thrombectomy.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The findings in this study indicate that intravenous tenecteplase conferred similar reperfusion, safety, and functional outcomes compared to alteplase among patients with LVO.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)824-832
Number of pages9
JournalJAMA Neurology
Volume80
Issue number8
Early online date1 Jul 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2023

Keywords

  • ACUTE ISCHEMIC-STROKE
  • THROMBUS CHARACTERISTICS
  • INTRAVENOUS ALTEPLASE
  • MANAGEMENT

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Safety and Efficacy of Tenecteplase Compared With Alteplase in Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the ACT Randomized Clinical Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this