Intravenous tenecteplase compared with alteplase for minor ischaemic stroke: a secondary analysis of the AcT randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND

In ischaemic stroke, minor deficits (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≤5) at presentation are common but often progress, leaving patients with significant disability. We compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase versus alteplase in patients who had a minor stroke enrolled in the Alteplase Compared to Tenecteplase in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke (AcT) trial.

METHODS

The AcT trial included individuals with ischaemic stroke, aged >18 years, who were eligible for standard-of-care intravenous thrombolysis. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) or alteplase (0.9 mg/kg). Patients with minor deficits pre-thrombolysis were included in this post-hoc exploratory analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients with a modified Rankin Score (mRS) of 0-1 at 90-120 days. Safety outcomes included mortality and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH).

RESULTS

Of the 378 patients enrolled in AcT with an NIHSS of ≤5, the median age was 71 years, 39.7% were women; 194 (51.3%) received tenecteplase and 184 (48.7%) alteplase. The primary outcome (mRS score 0-1) occurred in 100 participants (51.8%) in the tenecteplase group and 86 (47.5 %) in the alteplase group (adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.14 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.40)). There were no significant differences in the rates of sICH (2.9% in tenecteplase vs 3.3% in alteplase group, unadjusted RR 0.79 (0.24 to 2.54)) and death within 90 days (5.5% in tenecteplase vs 11% in alteplase group, adjusted HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.02)).

CONCLUSION

In this post-hoc analysis of patients with minor stroke enrolled in the AcT trial, safety and efficacy outcomes with tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg were not different from alteplase 0.9 mg/kg.

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: TF has received consulting fees from Roche Canada and is on the board of DESTINE Health. SBC is the principal investigator for the TEMPO-2 trial for which Boehringer Ingelheim has provided in-kind support. BM has stock options in Circle NVI and has consulted for Biogen and Boehringer Ingelheim. All other authors declare no competing interests.