Intravenous Thrombolysis With Tenecteplase in Patients With Large Vessel Occlusions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Background and Purpose:
Accumulating evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials suggests that tenecteplase may represent an effective treatment alternative to alteplase for acute ischemic stroke. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of intravenous tenecteplase to intravenous alteplase administration for acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusions (LVOs).
Methods:
We searched MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and Scopus for published randomized controlled clinical trials providing outcomes of acute ischemic stroke with confirmed LVO receiving intravenous thrombolysis with either tenecteplase at different doses or alteplase at a standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg. The primary outcome was the odds of modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2 at 3 months.
Results:
We included 4 randomized controlled clinical trials including a total of 433 patients. Patients with confirmed LVO receiving tenecteplase had higher odds of modified Rankin Scale scores of 0 to 2 (odds ratio, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.15–3.69]), successful recanalization (odds ratio, 3.05 [95% CI, 1.73–5.40]), and functional improvement defined as 1-point decrease across all modified Rankin Scale grades (common odds ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.18–2.87]) at 3 months compared with patients with confirmed LVO receiving alteplase. There was little or no heterogeneity between the results provided from included studies regarding the aforementioned outcomes (I2≤20%). No difference in the outcomes of early neurological improvement, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, any intracranial hemorrhage, and the rates of modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 1 or all-cause mortality at 3 months was detected between patients with LVO receiving intravenous thrombolysis with either tenecteplase or alteplase.
Conclusions:
Acute ischemic stroke patients with LVO receiving intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase have significantly better recanalization and clinical outcomes compared with patients receiving intravenous alteplase.
Although alteplase remains to date the only approved intravenous thrombolytic medication for acute ischemic stroke (AIS),1 accumulating evidence from clinical trials suggests that tenecteplase may represent an effective treatment agent compared with alteplase for AIS.2,3 In a recently published randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT), tenecteplase administration was associated with a 2-fold increase in the odds of successful recanalization of AIS patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) before the initiation of endovascular treatment compared with patients receiving pretreatment with intravenous alteplase. Patients randomized to intravenous tenecteplase before endovascular treatment also had better functional outcomes at 3 months compared with patients receiving intravenous alteplase.4
In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of intravenous tenecteplase to intravenous alteplase administration for AIS patients with confirmed LVO.
Methods
The authors declare that all supporting data are available within the article and its Data Supplement. The present systematic review and meta-analysis is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.
We searched for published RCTs reporting outcomes of AIS patients with confirmed LVO randomized to intravenous thrombolytic treatment with either tenecteplase or alteplase. Further information on the literature search and data analysis is available in the Data Supplement.
Risk of bias for each included study was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool, while the quality of summary evidence for each outcome of interest was evaluated using the methodology developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group.5
The primary outcome of interest was the odds of favorable functional outcome defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 at 3 months. Secondary outcomes of interest included the odds of (1) excellent outcome defined as 3-month mRS scores of 0 or 1, (2) 3-month all-cause mortality, (3) 3-month functional improvement (assessed with ordinal logistic regression analysis on the per 1-point decline in the ordinal mRS score [range, 0–6] at 3 months), (4) any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), (5) symptomatic ICH (according to the definition used in each study), (6) successful recanalization (according to the definition used in each study), and (7) early neurological improvement (according to the definition used in each study).
Results
Our literature search is outlined in Figure I in the Data Supplement. After excluding duplicate records (n=47), retrieved records from database search, or full-text articles (n=6) not qualifying our systematic review inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table I in the Data Supplement), we included 4 RCTs including a total of 433 patients (Table II in the Data Supplement).4,6–8 Risk of other bias was marked as high in 2 publications reporting analyses on subgroups of patients with confirmed LVO randomized within the original RCTs. The risk for performance bias was considered unclear in all RCTs, since neither participants nor treating physicians but only the outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment (Figure II in the Data Supplement).
All analyses and quality of summary evidence for each outcome of interest are briefly summarized in the Table. Patients with confirmed LVO receiving tenecteplase had higher odds of successful recanalization (odds ratio, 3.05 [95% CI, 1.73–5.40]; Figure [A]), higher odds of mRS scores of 0 to 2 (odds ratio, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.15–3.69]; Figure [B]), and functional improvement (common odds ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.18–2.87]; Figure [C]) at 3 months compared with patients with confirmed LVO receiving alteplase. There was little or no heterogeneity between the results provided from included studies regarding the aforementioned outcomes (I2≤20%; P for Cochran Q>0.25).
Outcomes | No. of participants (studies); follow-up | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Effect with alteplase | Effect difference with TNK | ||||
SR | 315 (3 studies); before EVT | ⨁⨁⨁◯Moderate* | OR, 3.05 (1.73–5.40) | 227 per 1000 | 245 more per 1000 (109 more to 385 more) |
mRS 0–2 | 277 (2 studies); 3 mo | ⨁⨁⨁◯Moderate† | OR, 2.06 (1.15–3.69) | 500 per 1000 | 173 more per 1000 (35 more to 287 more) |
mRS 0–1 | 433 (4 studies); 3 mo | ⨁⨁⨁◯Moderate‡ | OR, 1.49 (0.95–2.32) | 368 per 1000 | 97 more per 1000 (12 fewer to 207 more) |
Functional improvement | 315 (3 studies); 3 mo | ⨁⨁⨁◯Moderate* | cOR, 1.84 (1.18–2.87) | … | … |
ENI | 395 (3 studies); 72 h | ⨁◯◯◯Very low*‡§ | OR, 1.09 (0.37–3.16) | 510 per 1000 | 22 more per 1000 (232 fewer to 257 more) |
Mortality | 395 (3 studies); 3 mo | ⨁⨁◯◯Low*‡ | OR, 0.93 (0.31–2.80) | 130 per 1000 | 8 fewer per 1000 (86 fewer to 165 more) |
Symptomatic ICH | 395 (3 studies); 48 h | ⨁⨁◯◯Low*‡ | OR, 0.66 (0.19–2.23) | 31 per 1000 | 10 fewer per 1000 (25 fewer to 36 more) |
Any ICH | 395 (3 studies); 48 h | ⨁⨁◯◯Low*‡ | OR, 0.87 (0.35–2.17) | 115 per 1000 | 13 fewer per 1000 (71 fewer to 105 more) |
cOR indicates common odds ratio; ENI, early neurological improvement; EVT, endovascular treatment; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; ICH, intracranial hemorrhage; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; OR, odds ratio; SR, successful recanalization; and TNK, tenecteplase.
*
Three of 4 studies contributing to this outcome.
†
Two of 4 studies contributing to this outcome.
‡
CI fails to exclude important benefit or important harms.
§
Significant heterogeneity between studies.
No treatment group differences in the outcomes of early neurological improvement, symptomatic ICH, any ICH, mRS score of 0 to 1, or all-cause mortality (Figures III through VII in the Data Supplement) at 3 months were detected. No evidence of funnel plot asymmetry was uncovered in any of the outcomes with >2 studies included in the meta-analysis (Figures VIII through XIII in the Data Supplement).
Discussion
We found that AIS patients with LVO receiving intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase have a 3-fold higher odds of achieving successful recanalization and a 2-fold higher odds of having favorable clinical outcomes at 3 months compared with patients receiving intravenous alteplase.
The favorable outcomes of patients randomized to intravenous tenecteplase compared with alteplase could be attributed to the higher fibrin specificity and more potent clot dissolution with tenecteplase,1 leading to faster vessel recanalization.9 The pharmacological properties of tenecteplase enable its administration as a single bolus injection compared with alteplase, which requires a 1-hour infusion after the initial bolus injection.1,9 The ease of tenecteplase administration constitutes an indisputable advantage in the acute stroke setting, enabling prompt AIS treatment in the emergency department or even in an ambulance. The clinical benefit of tenecteplase compared with alteplase has been reported to be more pronounced for patients with viable penumbra and considerable mismatch in baseline neuroimaging,10 providing further support to the hypothesis that earlier and more complete tenecteplase-induced reperfusion in patients with LVO is likely the mechanism for the better clinical outcomes uncovered in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. Despite the higher rates of successful vessel recanalization and more favorable clinical outcomes of patients with LVO receiving tenecteplase compared with alteplase, further imaging evidence of infarct volume decrease will be needed to prove superiority. TASTEa (Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase for Stroke Thrombolysis Evaluation Trial in the Ambulance) will provide comparative estimates of infarct core growth within the first 24 hours from tenecteplase or alteplase administration.11
Our meta-analysis adds to the accumulating evidence1,4 and corroborates further the results of previous meta-analyses2,3 highlighting the superiority of tenecteplase over alteplase for AIS treatment. Compared with previous meta-analyses,2,3 our study population is restricted only in AIS patients with documented LVO. Moreover, our meta-analysis is the first to date that provides clear evidence of superiority for tenecteplase compared with alteplase for the treatment of AIS. Despite the strengths of our report, several limitations also need to be acknowledged. First, it should be highlighted that we included the subgroups of patients with confirmed LVO in 2 of the included trials. Subgroup analyses are known to suffer from low power and lack of prespecification. Second, although the risk of intracranial bleeding was not found to be significantly higher with tenecteplase compared with alteplase, CIs are wide, making the results inconclusive (Table). Third, despite that the same alteplase dose was used across trials (0.9 mg/kg), tenecteplase doses varied within included studies (Table II in the Data Supplement). However, in a recently published RCT, similar recanalization, bleeding, and functional outcomes were reported for AIS patients with LVO randomized to intravenous tenecteplase doses of either 0.40 or 0.25 mg/kg before endovascular treatment.12 In addition to the differences in tenecteplase dose, considerable variability on patient populations, ancillary treatments (ie, endovascular treatment), treatment paradigms (drip and ship versus mothership), and outcome definitions that were not centrally adjudicated (ie, symptomatic ICH and early neurological improvement) also exist among included studies (Table II in the Data Supplement). Notably, a recent French report highlights that tenecteplase and alteplase may yield similar complete recanalization rates (21% versus 18%) in LVO patients pretreated with intravenous thrombolysis in the drip-and-ship setting.13 Despite these variations, no evidence of heterogeneity was detected in the vast majority of analyses. Finally, as included studies evaluated patients eligible for intravenous thrombolysis within the first 4.5 hours from stroke onset, the findings of the present report may not be valid for patients eligible for extended-time window intravenous thrombolysis administration. The safety and efficacy of tenecteplase administration outside the conventional 4.5-hour window is currently being investigated by 2 ongoing RCTs.14,15
Footnote
Nonstandard Abbreviations and Acronyms
- AIS
- acute ischemic stroke
- ICH
- intracranial hemorrhage
- LVO
- large vessel occlusion
- mRS
- modified Rankin Scale
- RCT
- randomized controlled clinical trial
- TASTEa
- Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase for Stroke Thrombolysis Evaluation Trial in the Ambulance
Supplemental Material
File (str_stroke-2020-030220_supp1.pdf)
- Download
- 343.22 KB
References
1.
Coutts SB, Berge E, Campbell BC, Muir KW, Parsons MW. Tenecteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke: a review of completed and ongoing randomized controlled trials. Int J Stroke. 2018;13:885–892. doi: 10.1177/1747493018790024
2.
Burgos AM, Saver JL. Evidence that tenecteplase is noninferior to alteplase for acute ischemic stroke: meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials. Stroke. 2019;50:2156–2162. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025080
3.
Kheiri B, Osman M, Abdalla A, Haykal T, Ahmed S, Hassan M, Bachuwa G, Al Qasmi M, Bhatt DL. Tenecteplase versus alteplase for management of acute ischemic stroke: a pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2018;46:440–450. doi: 10.1007/s11239-018-1721-3
4.
Campbell BCV, Mitchell PJ, Churilov L, Yassi N, Kleinig TJ, Dowling RJ, Yan B, Bush SJ, Dewey HM, Thijs V, et al; EXTEND-IA TNK Investigators. Tenecteplase versus alteplase before thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1573–1582. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716405
5.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Montori V, Akl EA, Djulbegovic B, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:407–415. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017
6.
Bivard A, Huang X, Levi CR, Spratt N, Campbell BCV, Cheripelli BK, Kalladka D, Moreton FC, Ford I, Bladin CF, et al. Tenecteplase in ischemic stroke offers improved recanalization: analysis of 2 trials. Neurology. 2017;89:62–67. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004062
7.
Parsons M, Spratt N, Bivard A, Campbell B, Chung K, Miteff F, O’Brien B, Bladin C, McElduff P, Allen C, et al. A randomized trial of tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1099–1107. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1109842
8.
Kvistad CE, Novotny V, Kurz MW, Rønning OM, Thommessen B, Carlsson M, Waje-Andreassen U, Næss H, Thomassen L, Logallo N. Safety and outcomes of tenecteplase in moderate and severe ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2019;50:1279–1281. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025041
9.
Frühwald T, Gärtner U, Stöckmann N, Marxsen JH, Gramsch C, Roessler FC. In vitro examination of the thrombolytic efficacy of tenecteplase and therapeutic ultrasound compared to rt-PA. BMC Neurol. 2019;19:181.
10.
Bivard A, Huang X, Levi CR, Campbell BC, Cheripelli BK, Chen C, Kalladka D, Moreton FC, Ford I, Davis SM, et al. Comparing mismatch strategies for patients being considered for ischemic stroke tenecteplase trials. Int J Stroke. 2019;15:507–515
11.
U.S. National Library of Medicine. Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase for Stroke Thrombolysis Evaluation Trial in the Ambulance (TASTEa). Accessed May 1, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04071613.
12.
Campbell BCV, Mitchell PJ, Churilov L, Yassi N, Kleinig TJ, Dowling RJ, Yan B, Bush SJ, Thijs V, Scroop R, et al. Effect of intravenous tenecteplase dose on cerebral reperfusion before thrombectomy in patients with large vessel occlusion ischemic stroke: the EXTEND-IA TNK part 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;323:1257–1265. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1511
13.
Seners P, Caroff J, Chausson N, Turc G, Denier C, Piotin M, Aghasaryan M, Alecu C, Chassin O, Lapergue B, et al. Recanalization before thrombectomy in tenecteplase vs. alteplase-treated drip-and-ship patients. J Stroke. 2019;21:105–107.
14.
U.S. National Library of Medicine. Tenecteplase in Stroke Patients Between 4 and 24 Hours (TIMELESS). Accessed April 4, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03785678.
15.
U.S. National Library of Medicine. A Randomized Controlled Trial of TNK-tPA Versus Standard of Care for Minor Ischemic Stroke With Proven Occlusion (TEMPO-2). Accessed April 4, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02398656.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2020 American Heart Association, Inc.
Versions
You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
History
Received: 14 April 2020
Revision received: 26 July 2020
Accepted: 29 September 2020
Published online: 4 December 2020
Published in print: January 2021
Keywords
Subjects
Authors
Disclosures
Dr Cordonnier is a member of the DSMB of ATTEST-2 (unpaid), serves as associate editor of Stroke, and has received lecture fees from Boerhinger-Ingelheim. Dr Ahmed reports that he is the Chairman of SITS International, which receives grants from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ferrer International, EVER Pharma, Stryker, Covidien, and Phenox in collaboration with Karolinska Institutet for a recently completed study. Dr Ahmed reports no personal grants or financial support from these companies. The department of Dr Khatri has received grant support from Cerenovus and Nervive (NIH SBIR), and consulting fees from Lumosa and Diamedics, for her research efforts. Dr. Khatri is an unpaid consultant to EmstopA, Inc. Dr Leys reports grants from Bayer Pharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Pfizer and other research support from European Stroke Organization and John Wiley & Sons outside the submitted work. Dr Leker has received lecture fees from Boerhinger-Ingelheim. The other authors report no conflicts.
Sources of Funding
None.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
- Ethnic Differences in the Safety and Efficacy of Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Journal of Stroke, 26, 3, (371-390), (2024).https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2024.01284
- Systems-level computational modeling in ischemic stroke: from cells to patients, Frontiers in Physiology, 15, (2024).https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1394740
- Advances in thrombectomy in the acute ischemic stroke, Russian Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27, 10, (137), (2024).https://doi.org/10.17116/profmed202427101137
- The Time Has Come. The Time Is Now. IV Alteplase, Will You Please Go Now?, Neurology, 103, 9, (2024).https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000209961
- Tenecteplase vs Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke Within 4.5 Hours, Neurology, 103, 9, (2024).https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000209903
- Tenecteplase for Acute Ischemic Stroke Thrombolysis, Neurology Clinical Practice, 14, 1, (2024).https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200221
- Improving stroke outcomes in hyperglycemic mice by modulating tPA/NMDAR signaling to reduce inflammation and hemorrhages, Blood Advances, 8, 5, (1330-1344), (2024).https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2023011744
- Tenecteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke in the extended time window: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders, 17, (2024).https://doi.org/10.1177/17562864231221324
- Comprehensive Review of Tenecteplase for Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke, Journal of the American Heart Association, 13, 9, (2024)./doi/10.1161/JAHA.123.031692
- Tenecteplase thrombolysis for stroke up to 24 hours after onset with perfusion imaging selection: the umbrella phase IIa CHABLIS-T randomised clinical trial, Stroke and Vascular Neurology, 9, 5, (551-559), (2024).https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2023-002820
- See more
Loading...
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Personal login Institutional LoginPurchase Options
Purchase this article to access the full text.
eLetters(0)
eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.
Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.