Conversion From Intravenous Alteplase to Tenecteplase for Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke Across a Large Community Hospital Health System.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests tenecteplase at an intravenous dose of 0.25 mg/kg is as safe and efficacious as intravenous alteplase standard dose and demonstrates a more favorable pharmacokinetic profile for treatment of acute ischemic stroke. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of alteplase versus tenecteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke at a large community hospital health system following conversion in the preferred formulary thrombolytic. METHODS: Prior to converting, medication safety and operationalization analyses were conducted. A multicenter, retrospective medical record review was performed for patients who received alteplase 6 months prior to formulary thrombolytic conversion and for tenecteplase 6 months post-conversion for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Primary outcomes included the rate of symptomatic intracranial and extracranial hemorrhage complications. Secondary outcomes included door-to-needle time, reduction in National Institute Health Stroke Scale at 24 hours and at discharge, order-to-administration time, and thrombolytic errors. The rates of hemorrhage were compared using binomial regression. RESULTS: Of the 287 patients reviewed, 115 received alteplase and 172 received tenecteplase. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhagic complications occurred in 1 patient (1%) who received alteplase compared with 3 patients (2%) who received tenecteplase (P = 0.9). There was no statistical difference in rates of symptomatic intracranial or extracranial hemorrhagic complications. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Conversion from alteplase to tenecteplase can be safely and effectively achieved at a large community hospital health system with differing levels of stroke certification. There were also additional cost savings and practical advantages including workflow benefits.

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Urea and Tolvaptan for the Management of Hyponatremia.

Background: The optimal management of euvolemic and hypervolemic hyponatremia remains controversial. The effectiveness of the vasopressin receptor antagonist tolvaptan on serum sodium normalization has been well described in the literature, although the associated risk of serum sodium overcorrection limits its use. Urea has been proposed as an alternative treatment option due to its milder serum sodium raising effects and adverse event profile. Objective: This study aimed to compare urea and tolvaptan for their serum sodium raising effects and potential for overcorrection. Methods: In a multicenter retrospective review, 46 hospitalized patients who received either urea or tolvaptan for the management of hyponatremia were evaluated for the rate of serum sodium normalization and overcorrection. Results: Mean serum sodium concentrations at baseline were 125.91 mEq/L and 123.83 mEq/L for patients treated with urea and tolvaptan, respectively. After 12 hours, tolvaptan was associated with a significantly higher rate of serum sodium increase compared with urea (5.05 mEq/L vs 1.10 mEq/L; P = .001). However, no statistically significant differences were observed in the mean change in serum sodium concentrations at 24 hours, 48 hours, or with the proportion of patients who reached a serum sodium concentration of 135 mEq/L. Overcorrection rates were significantly higher with tolvaptan compared with urea at 43% and 9%, respectively. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that urea has a comparable effectiveness profile to tolvaptan for the management of hyponatremia with a significantly reduced risk of overcorrection.