ArticleEuropean stroke journal2023
Cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase versus alteplase for stroke thrombolysis evaluation trial in the ambulance.
Article in European stroke journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thrombolytic therapy for patients with acute ischemic stroke: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Thrombolytics in Ischemic Stroke Beyond the 4.5-Hour Time Window: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Assessment of Reperfusion Efficacy of Altelyse Versus Actilyse in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Non-inferiority Clinical Trial.Clinical drug investigation · 2025Trial
- Trial-Based Economic Evaluations Conducted alongside Studies Embedded in Australian Healthcare Services and Programs: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Review
- Tenecteplase is here: navigating the shift of a stroke thrombolytic in the United States prior to FDA approval: a mini-review on rationale, barriers, and pathways.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Thrombolytic Therapy for Central Retinal Artery Occlusion in an Academic Multi-Site Stroke Centre.Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 2024Article
- Establishing an MSU service in a medium-sized German urban area-clinical and economic considerations.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTenecteplase administered to patients with ischaemic stroke in a mobile stroke unit (MSU) has been shown to reduce the perfusion lesion volumes and result in ultra-early recovery. We now seek to assess the cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase in the MSU.
methodsA within-trial (TASTE-A) economic analysis and a model-based long-term cost-effectiveness analysis were performed. This post hoc within-trial economic analysis utilised the patient-level data (intention to treat, ITT) prospectively collected over the trial to calculate the difference in both healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, estimated from modified Rankin scale score). A Markov microsimulation model was developed to simulate the long-term costs and benefits.
resultsIn total, there were 104 patients with ischaemic stroke randomised to tenecteplase (
conclusionsTreatment of ischaemic stroke patients with tenecteplase appeared to be cost-effective and improve QALYs in the MSU setting based on Phase II data. The reduced total cost from tenecteplase was driven by savings from acute hospitalisation and reduce need for nursing home care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.