Tenecteplase for Ischemic Stroke at 4.5 to 24 Hours without Thrombectomy.

BACKGROUND: Tenecteplase is an effective thrombolytic agent for eligible patients with stroke who are treated within 4.5 hours after the onset of stroke. However, data regarding the effectiveness of tenecteplase beyond 4.5 hours are limited. METHODS: In a trial conducted in China, we randomly assigned patients with large-vessel occlusion of the middle cerebral artery or internal carotid artery who had salvageable brain tissue as identified on perfusion imaging and who did not have access to endovascular thrombectomy to receive tenecteplase (at a dose of 0.25 mg per kilogram of body weight; maximum dose, 25 mg) or standard medical treatment within 4.5 to 24 hours after the time that the patient was last known to be well (including after stroke on awakening and unwitnessed stroke). The primary outcome was the absence of disability, which was defined as a score of 0 or 1 on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability), at day 90. The key safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and death. RESULTS: A total of 516 patients were enrolled; 264 were randomly assigned to receive tenecteplase and 252 to receive standard medical treatment. Less than 2% of the patients (4 in the tenecteplase group and 5 in the standard-treatment group) underwent rescue endovascular thrombectomy. Treatment with tenecteplase resulted in a higher percentage of patients with a modified Rankin scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days than standard medical treatment (33.0% vs. 24.2%; relative rate, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.81; P = 0.03). Mortality at 90 days was 13.3% with tenecteplase and 13.1% with standard medical treatment, and the incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours after treatment was 3.0% and 0.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving Chinese patients with ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion, most of whom did not undergo endovascular thrombectomy, treatment with tenecteplase administered within 4.5 to 24 hours after stroke onset resulted in less disability and similar survival as compared with standard medical treatment, and the incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage appeared to be higher. (Funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others; TRACE-III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05141305.).

Comprehensive Review of Tenecteplase for Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Although intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase remains the primary treatment for acute ischemic stroke, tenecteplase has shown potential advantages over alteplase. Animal studies have demonstrated the favorable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tenecteplase. Moreover, it is easier to administer. Clinical trials have demonstrated that tenecteplase is not inferior to alteplase and may even be superior in cases of acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion. Current evidence supports the time and cost benefits of tenecteplase, suggesting that it could potentially replace alteplase as the main option for thrombolytic therapy, especially in patients with large vessel occlusion.

Safety and efficacy of tight versus loose glycemic control in acute stroke patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Hyperglycemia is associated with worse stroke outcomes, but it is uncertain whether tight glycemic control during the acute stroke period is associated with a better outcome. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the effect of tight glycemic control versus loose glycemic control in the acute phase of stroke patients. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of tight glycemic control with a relatively loose control of blood glucose of acute stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) patients within 24 h after stroke onset. We required that the blood glucose level of the patients should not be lower than 6.11 mmol/L at the time of enrollment, and for the intensive blood glucose control range, we defined the blood glucose level as lower than that of the control group. The primary efficacy outcome measure was deaths from any cause at 90 days. Secondary efficacy outcomes comprised the number of participants with modified Rankin score (mRS). We define mRS scores 0-2 as favorable scores, recurrent stroke, and the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale or the European Stroke Scale scores. We defined the number of participants with hypoglycemia as our primary safety outcome. Subgroup analysis was performed according to age, the variety of interventions, maintained glucose level, and status of hypoglycemia on National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores or European Stroke Scale (ESS) scores. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2957 participants meeting the including criteria were identified and included in this meta-analysis, although not all included data on every outcome measure. Data on the primary efficacy endpoint, mortality at 90 days, was available in 11 RCTs, a total of 2575 participants. There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (odds ratio (OR): 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-1.23; P = 0.99). For secondary endpoints, there was no difference between intervention and control groups for a mRS from 0 to 2 (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.80-1.15; P = 0.69; data from 9 RCTs available), or recurrent stroke (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.92-1.96; P = 0.13; data from 3 RCTs available). For NIHSS scores or ESS scores, there was a small difference in favor of intensive controls (standardized mean difference: -0.29; 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.04; P = 0.02). There was a marked increase in hypoglycemia with tight control: (OR of 9.46 (95% CI: 4.59-19.50; P < 0.00001; data from 9 RCTs available). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between tight and loose glycemic control on mortality, independence, or recurrent stroke outcome in acute stroke, but an increase in hypoglycemia. There was a small effect improvement on neurological scales, but the relevance of this needs to be confirmed in future adequately powered studies.

Tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke in the elderly patients: a post hoc analysis of the TRACE-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The benefit-risk profile of tenecteplase in the elderly patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is uncertain. We sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase compared with alteplase for AIS patients aged ≥80 years. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the Tenecteplase Reperfusion Therapy in Acute Ischaemic Cerebrovascular Events-2 Trial, a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority clinical trial. Disabling AIS patients aged ≥80 years who initiated intravenous thrombolytics within 4.5 hours of symptom onset were enrolled from June 2021 to May 2022 across 53 centres in China and were randomly allocated to receive 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase or 0.9 mg/kg alteplase. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of participants with a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) within 36 hours was the safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 137 participants, mRS 0-1 at 90 days occurred in 37 (49.3%) of 75 in the tenecteplase group vs 20 (33.9%) of 59 in the alteplase group (risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.23). sICH within 36 hours was observed in 3 (4.0%) of 76 in the tenecteplase group and two (3.3%) of 61 in the alteplase group (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.20 to 8.41). CONCLUSIONS: The risk-benefit profile of tenecteplase thrombolysis was preserved in the elderly patients, which lends further support to intravenous 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase in these patients.