Tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
OBJECTIVE: Alteplase is the current standard of care for acute ischemic stroke. Tenecteplase is a newer fibrinolytic agent with preferable administration and lower costs; however, its comparative effectiveness to alteplase remains uncertain. We set out to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish the benefits and harms of tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to April 2023 for randomized and non-randomized studies that compared tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke. Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed both conventional meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) with random-effects models and used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Our primary efficacy outcome was excellent functional outcome at 3 months, defined as a score of 0-1 on the modified Rankin Scale. Our primary safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were eligible for review, including 12 randomized (n = 5533) and 24 non-randomized studies (n = 44,956). Moderate certainty evidence showed that there was no difference between tenecteplase and alteplase in increasing the proportion of patients achieving excellent functional outcome at 3 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; 95% CI 0.98-1.23; risk difference [RD] 2.4%, 95% CI - 0.5 to 5.2), while moderate certainty evidence from NMA suggested that 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase significantly improved excellent functional outcome at 3 months (OR, 1.16; 95% credible interval 1.02-1.32). Moderate certainty evidence showed that, compared to alteplase, tenecteplase may make little to no difference in the prevalence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 1.12; 95% CI 0.79-1.59; RD 0.3%, 95% CI - 0.5 to 1.4), and probably reduces all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.44; 95% CI 0.30-0.64; RD - 4.6%; 95% CI - 5.8 to - 2.9). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence suggested that there was little to no difference between tenecteplase and alteplase in increasing the proportion of patients achieving excellent functional outcome at 3 months and the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, while compared to alteplase, tenecteplase probably reduce all-cause mortality. Administration of 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase after acute ischemic stroke is suggestive of increasing the proportion of patients that achieve excellent functional outcome at 3 months.
