Tenecteplase in ischemic stroke offers improved recanalization: Analysis of 2 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether patients with complete vessel occlusion show greater recanalization at 24 hours and have improved clinical outcomes at 24 hours and 90 days when treated with tenecteplase compared to alteplase. METHODS: Pooled clinical and imaging data from 2 phase 2 randomized trials comparing tenecteplase with alteplase allowed CT angiography (CTA) scans to be assessed centrally for occlusion status at baseline and at 24 hours post thrombolysis using the modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) scale. Twenty-four-hour poststroke NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were also compared between treatment groups using linear regression to generate odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: From 146 pooled patients, 69 had a TICI 0/1 occlusion overall at baseline. Tenecteplase-treated patients with a complete vessel occlusion had greater complete recanalization rates at 24 hours (71% for tenecteplase vs 43% for alteplase, p < 0.001). Patients with a TICI 0/1 occlusion who were treated with tenecteplase also showed greater early clinical improvement (median NIHSS change with tenecteplase was 9, interquartile range [IQR] 6, alteplase 1, IQR 1, p = 0.001) and higher rates of favorable 90-day outcomes (mRS 0-1 of tenecteplase compared with alteplase, OR 4.82, 95% confidence interval 1.02-7.84, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Tenecteplase may offer greater recanalization efficacy compared to alteplase, possibly exaggerated in patients with complete vessel occlusions on baseline CTA.

The Impact of CT Perfusion Threshold on Predicted Viable and Nonviable Tissue Volumes in Acute Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Perfusion imaging is used for patient selection in clinical practice and trials. Postprocessing and definitions of tissue viability are nevertheless not standardized. We compared the lesion volumes generated with two well-recognized perfusion tissue definitions in a single-center phase 2 thrombolysis study. METHODS: We analyzed perfusion imaging data from the Alteplase-Tenecteplase Trial Evaluation for Stroke Thrombolysis (ATTEST) study using two popular tissue viability thresholds (ischemic core definition: (1) cerebral blood volume < 2.0 mL/100 g-1 or (2) relative cerebral blood flow < 40% that of the contralesional hemisphere and relative delay time >2 seconds; penumbra definitions: (1) mean transit time > 145% of contralesional hemisphere or (2) relative delay time < 2 seconds). We compared volumes of core and penumbra, mismatch ratio, percentage, and volume of penumbra salvaged at 24 hours. RESULTS: We included 73 (tenecteplase = 36, alteplase = 37) patients who had analyzable perfusion lesions at baseline. Significant differences were found in core volumes using the two thresholds (33 ± 37 mL vs. 26 ± 32 mL, P < .001), as was mismatch ratio (2.5 ± .9 vs. 4.2 ± 3.7, P < 0.001). The volume of penumbra salvaged at 24 hours (30 ± 19 mL vs. 35 ± 26 mL, P = .043) differed significantly, although the percentages of penumbra salvaged did not (P = .2). No difference was found between the two thrombolytic agents in the percentages of penumbra salvaged using either threshold. CONCLUSION: Two commonly used tissue definitions generated significantly different lesion volumes and mismatch ratios. Threshold selection may have significant impact on patient selection for trials or reperfusion therapies.

Impact of Computed Tomography Perfusion Imaging on the Response to Tenecteplase in Ischemic Stroke: Analysis of 2 Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: We pooled 2 clinical trials of tenecteplase compared with alteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, 1 that demonstrated superiority of tenecteplase and the other that showed no difference between the treatments in patient clinical outcomes. We tested the hypotheses that reperfusion therapy with tenecteplase would be superior to alteplase in improving functional outcomes in the group of patients with target mismatch as identified with advanced imaging. METHODS: We investigated whether tenecteplase-treated patients had a different 24-hour reduction in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and a favorable odds ratio of a modified Rankin scale score of 0 to 1 versus 2 to 6 compared with alteplase-treated patients using linear regression to generate odds ratios. Imaging outcomes included rates of vessel recanalization and infarct growth at 24 hours and occurrence of large parenchymal hematoma. Baseline computed tomography perfusion was analyzed to assess whether patients met the target mismatch criteria (absolute mismatch volume >15 mL, mismatch ratio >1.8, baseline ischemic core <70 mL, and volume of severely hypoperfused tissue <100 mL). Patients meeting target mismatch criteria were analyzed as a subgroup to identify whether they had different treatment responses from the pooled group. RESULTS: Of 146 pooled patients, 71 received alteplase and 75 received tenecteplase. Tenecteplase-treated patients had greater early clinical improvement (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score change: tenecteplase, 7; alteplase, 2; P=0.018) and less parenchymal hematoma (2 of 75 versus 10 of 71; P=0.02). The pooled group did not show improved patient outcomes when treated with tenecteplase (modified Rankin scale score 0-1: odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-3.51; P=0.102) compared with alteplase therapy. However, in patients with target mismatch (33 tenecteplase, 35 alteplase), treatment with tenecteplase was associated with greater early clinical improvement (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score change: tenecteplase, 6; alteplase, 1; P<0.001) and better late independent recovery (modified Rankin scale score 0-1: odds ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-5.94; P=0.032) than those treated with alteplase. CONCLUSIONS: Tenecteplase may offer an improved efficacy and safety profile compared with alteplase, benefits possibly exaggerated in patients with baseline computed tomography perfusion-defined target mismatch. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01472926. URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifier: ACTRN12608000466347.

Coagulation and Fibrinolytic Activity of Tenecteplase and Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We compared the fibrinolytic activity of tenecteplase and alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke, and explored the association between hypofibrinogenaemia and intracerebral hemorrhage. METHODS: Venous blood samples from a subgroup of participants in the Alteplase-Tenecteplase Trial Evaluation for Stroke Thrombolysis (ATTEST) study were obtained at pretreatment, 3 to 12 hours, and 24±3 hours post-intravenous thrombolysis for analyses of plasminogen, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, d-dimer, factor V, fibrinogen, and fibrin(ogen) degradation products, in addition to routine coagulation assays. Related sample Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to test the within-group changes, and independent Mann-Whitney tests for between-group differences. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included (alteplase=14 and tenecteplase=16) with similar baseline demographics. Compared with baseline, alteplase caused significant hypofibrinogenaemia (P=0.002), prolonged prothrombin time (P=0.011), hypoplasminogenaemia (P=0.001), and lower factor V (P=0.002) at 3 to 12 hours after administration with persistent hypofibrinogenaemia at 24 hours (P=0.011), whereas only minor hypoplasminogenaemia (P=0.029) was seen in the tenecteplase group. Tenecteplase consumed less plasminogen (P<0.001) and fibrinogen (P=0.002) compared with alteplase. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute ischemic stroke, alteplase 0.9 mg/kg caused significant disruption of the fibrinolytic system, whereas tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg did not, consistent with the trend toward lower intracerebral hemorrhage incidence with tenecteplase in the ATTEST study. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01472926.

Alteplase versus tenecteplase for thrombolysis after ischaemic stroke (ATTEST): a phase 2, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint study.

BACKGROUND: In most countries, alteplase given within 4·5 h of onset is the only approved medical treatment for acute ischaemic stroke. The newer thrombolytic drug tenecteplase has been investigated in one randomised trial up to 3 h after stroke and in another trial up to 6 h after stroke in patients selected by advanced neuroimaging. In the Alteplase-Tenecteplase Trial Evaluation for Stroke Thrombolysis (ATTEST), we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tenecteplase versus alteplase within 4·5 h of stroke onset in a population not selected on the basis of advanced neuroimaging, and to use imaging biomarkers to inform the design of a definitive phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: In this single-centre, phase 2, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point evaluation study, adults with supratentorial ischaemic stroke eligible for intravenous thrombolysis within 4·5 h of onset were recruited from The Institute of Neurological Sciences, Glasgow, Scotland. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive tenecteplase 0·25 mg/kg (maximum 25 mg) or alteplase 0·9 mg/kg (maximum 90 mg). Treatment allocation used a mixed randomisation and minimisation algorithm including age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, generated by an independent statistician. Patients were not informed of treatment allocation; treating clinicians were aware of allocation but those assessing the primary outcome were not. Imaging comprised baseline CT, CT perfusion, and CT angiography; and CT plus CT angiography at 24-48 h. The primary endpoint was percentage of penumbra salvaged (CT perfusion-defined penumbra volume at baseline minus CT infarct volume at 24-48 h). Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01472926. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2012, and Sept 7, 2013, 355 patients were screened, of whom 157 were eligible for intravenous thrombolysis, and 104 patients were enrolled. 52 were assigned to the alteplase group and 52 to tenecteplase. Of 71 patients (35 assigned tenecteplase and 36 assigned alteplase) contributing to the primary endpoint, no significant differences were noted for percentage of penumbral salvaged (68% [SD 28] for the tenecteplase group vs 68% [23] for the alteplase group; mean difference 1·3% [95% CI -9·6 to 12·1]; p=0·81). Neither incidence of symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (by SITS-MOST definition, 1/52 [2%] tenecteplase vs 2/51 [4%] alteplase, p=0·55; by ECASS II definition, 3/52 [6%] vs 4/51 [8%], p=0·59) nor total intracerebral haemorrhage events (8/52 [15%] vs 14/51 [29%], p=0·091) differed significantly. The incidence of serious adverse events did not differ between groups (32 in the tenecteplase group, three considered probably or definitely related to drug treatment; 16 in the alteplase group, five were considered drug-related). INTERPRETATION: Neurological and radiological outcomes did not differ between the tenecteplase and alteplase groups. Evaluation of tenecteplase in larger trials of patients with acute stroke seems warranted. FUNDING: The Stroke Association.