{"title":"Navigating the Shift: Comparing Safety and Cost of Tenecteplase versus Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke.","authors":"Carina Cassano, Daryl Schiller, Magda Fulman","doi":"10.1177/19418744251321530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Recently, institutions have been transitioning to tenecteplase (TNK) as the primary agent for stroke management instead of alteplase (tPA) due to its comparable safety and cost-effectiveness. Despite TNK's potential cost benefits, there's limited literature on how wasted doses impact the overall cost. This study aimed to compare the safety and cost of TNK to tPA following the transition to TNK as the primary agent for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) management at a community hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study compared patients treated with tPA or TNK for AIS. The primary outcome was a composite of intracranial hemorrhage, any other bleed, and death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome, length of hospitalization, time from administration decision to medication administration, readmission rate, medication costs, and wasted doses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>48 AIS patients who received either tPA or TNK between November 2021 and February 2024 were included. TNK didn't result in more occurrences of the primary outcome compared to tPA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.03). The TNK group had a shorter median length of hospitalization and decreased elapsed time from administration decision to administration. The cost difference between a 50 mg kit of TNK and a 100 mg vial of tPA is about $1100. The total number of wasted doses was 10 for tPA and 12 for TNK.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no difference in safety between TNK and tPA. While TNK offers cost savings, poor waste management could undermine its overall cost-effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":46355,"journal":{"name":"Neurohospitalist","volume":" ","pages":"19418744251321530"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11830155/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurohospitalist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19418744251321530","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and purpose: Recently, institutions have been transitioning to tenecteplase (TNK) as the primary agent for stroke management instead of alteplase (tPA) due to its comparable safety and cost-effectiveness. Despite TNK's potential cost benefits, there's limited literature on how wasted doses impact the overall cost. This study aimed to compare the safety and cost of TNK to tPA following the transition to TNK as the primary agent for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) management at a community hospital.
Methods: This retrospective study compared patients treated with tPA or TNK for AIS. The primary outcome was a composite of intracranial hemorrhage, any other bleed, and death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome, length of hospitalization, time from administration decision to medication administration, readmission rate, medication costs, and wasted doses.
Results: 48 AIS patients who received either tPA or TNK between November 2021 and February 2024 were included. TNK didn't result in more occurrences of the primary outcome compared to tPA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.03). The TNK group had a shorter median length of hospitalization and decreased elapsed time from administration decision to administration. The cost difference between a 50 mg kit of TNK and a 100 mg vial of tPA is about $1100. The total number of wasted doses was 10 for tPA and 12 for TNK.
Conclusions: There was no difference in safety between TNK and tPA. While TNK offers cost savings, poor waste management could undermine its overall cost-effectiveness.
背景和目的:最近,由于替普酶(tPA)的安全性和成本效益可与替普酶相比,各机构已将替普酶(TNK)作为卒中管理的主要药物。尽管TNK具有潜在的成本效益,但关于浪费剂量如何影响总体成本的文献有限。本研究旨在比较一家社区医院将TNK作为急性缺血性卒中(AIS)治疗的主要药物后,TNK与tPA的安全性和成本。方法:本回顾性研究比较了接受tPA或TNK治疗AIS的患者。主要结局是颅内出血、任何其他出血和任何原因导致的死亡。次要结局包括主要结局的各个组成部分、住院时间、从给药决定到给药的时间、再入院率、药物费用和浪费剂量。结果:纳入了48名在2021年11月至2024年2月期间接受tPA或TNK治疗的AIS患者。与tPA相比,TNK没有导致更多主要结局的发生(OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25至4.03)。TNK组的中位住院时间较短,从给药决定到给药的时间缩短。50毫克的TNK和100毫克的tPA之间的成本差异大约是1100美元。tPA的总浪费剂量为10剂,TNK的总浪费剂量为12剂。结论:TNK与tPA在安全性上无差异。虽然秋明公司可以节省成本,但废物管理不善可能会损害其整体成本效益。