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

IF 2.6 1区 医学
Yunyun Xiong, Liyuan Wang, Yuesong Pan, Mengxing Wang, Lee H Schwamm, Chunmiao Duan, Bruce C V Campbell, Shuya Li, Manjun Hao, Na Wu, Zhixin Cao, Shuangzhe Wu, Zixiao Li, Yongjun Wang
{"title":"Tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke in the elderly patients: a post hoc analysis of the TRACE-2 trial.","authors":"Yunyun Xiong, Liyuan Wang, Yuesong Pan, Mengxing Wang, Lee H Schwamm, Chunmiao Duan, Bruce C V Campbell, Shuya Li, Manjun Hao, Na Wu, Zhixin Cao, Shuangzhe Wu, Zixiao Li, Yongjun Wang","doi":"10.1136/svn-2023-003048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48733,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2023-003048","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

特奈普酶与阿替普酶治疗老年急性缺血性中风:TRACE-2 试验的事后分析。
背景:急性缺血性卒中(AIS)老年患者使用替奈普酶的获益-风险情况尚不确定。我们试图研究 0.25 mg/kg 替奈普酶与阿替普酶相比,对年龄≥80 岁的 AIS 患者的疗效和安全性:我们对 "替奈普酶再灌注疗法治疗急性缺血性脑血管事件-2试验 "进行了事后分析,这是一项随机、三期、非劣效性临床试验。2021年6月至2022年5月,中国53个中心招募了年龄≥80岁、在症状出现后4.5小时内开始静脉溶栓治疗的致残性AIS患者,随机分配接受0.25毫克/千克替奈普酶或0.9毫克/千克阿替普酶治疗。主要疗效指标是90天后改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分为0-1分的参与者比例。安全性结果为36小时内出现症状性颅内出血(sICH):在137名参与者中,替奈普酶组75人中有37人(49.3%)在90天后出现mRS 0-1,阿替普酶组59人中有20人(33.9%)出现mRS 0-1(风险比(RR)为1.47,95% CI为0.96至2.23);替奈普酶组76人中有3人(4.0%)在36小时内出现sICH,阿替普酶组61人中有2人(3.3%)出现sICH(RR为1.30,95% CI为0.20至8.41):在老年患者中,替奈普酶溶栓的风险-收益特征得以保留,这进一步支持了静脉注射0.25 mg/kg替奈普酶作为阿替普酶的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Investigative Medicine
Journal of Investigative Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNALMEDICINE, RESE-MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Journal of Investigative Medicine (JIM) is the official publication of the American Federation for Medical Research. The journal is peer-reviewed and publishes high-quality original articles and reviews in the areas of basic, clinical, and translational medical research. JIM publishes on all topics and specialty areas that are critical to the conduct of the entire spectrum of biomedical research: from the translation of clinical observations at the bedside, to basic and animal research to clinical research and the implementation of innovative medical care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信