Trial reportStroke and vascular neurology2024
Outcomes associated to the time to treatment with intravenous tenecteplase for acute ischaemic stroke: subgroup analysis of the TRACE-2 randomised controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 12 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is time-dependent. Tenecteplase is non-inferior to alteplase among patients with AIS. We aimed to delineate the association of the stroke onset to treatment time (OTT) with tenecteplase compared with alteplase on therapeutic benefit and clinical risks.
methodsThis is a post hoc analysis of the Tenecteplase Reperfusion therapy in Acute ischaemic Cerebrovascular Events-2 an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferior trial. A total of 1430 AIS within 4.5 hours onset at 53 sites in China from 12 June 2021 to 29 May 2022 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg or alteplase 0.9 mg/kg. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of participants with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1 at 90 days. A post hoc subgroup analysis was conducted with the OTT divided into three intervals (0-90 min, 91-180 min and 181-270 min). The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage within 36 hours post-thrombolytic treatment.
resultsTreatment was initiated within 270 min of stroke onset in 1412 patients who were randomly allocated to either tenecteplase (n=707) or alteplase (n=705). The OR of primary efficacy outcome was similar as OTT increased (p=0.84). Adjusted odds of an excellent functional outcome were 0.99 (95% CI 0.37 to 2.67) for 0-90 min, 1.23 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.71) for 91-180 min and 1.21 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.65) for 181-270 min. All were in favour of the tenecteplase group. Meta-analysis of 2949 patients yielded a pooled risk difference of 5.54 (95% CI -0.18 to 11.26; p=0.82) in favour of tenecteplase for more than 180 min and 1.77 (95% CI -2.66 to 6.20; p=0.58) for 0-180 min.
conclusionsIn AIS patients who were treated with either tenecteplase or alteplase within 4.5 hours onset, there was no difference observed in the efficacy and safety between the two groups at the three different OTT time intervals.
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.