Trial reportClinical drug investigation2025
Assessment of Reperfusion Efficacy of Altelyse Versus Actilyse in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Non-inferiority Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical drug investigation, 2025. 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.
- Application of Large Language Models in Stroke Rehabilitation Health Education: 2-Phase Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and fibrinolytic or thrombolytic therapy are common treatments for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is more effective than thrombolytic therapy, but fibrinolytic therapy is still a preferable option for patients with limited access to healthcare. Alteplase is a tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) used to treat acute myocardial infarction, acute ischemic stroke, and pulmonary embolism.
objectiveThis study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of Altelyse (bio-similar Alteplase, Arena Life Science Company, Tehran, IRAN) versus the brand name Actilyse
methodsIn this phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with STEMI to receive Altelyse or Actilyse, an intravenous bolus of 15 mg followed by an infusion of 0.75 mg/kg over 30 min (with a maximum dose of 50 mg) and continued with 0.50 mg/kg over 60 min (with a maximum dose of 35 mg). The primary endpoint was total ST-segment resolution (STR) in all leads with ST-segment elevations after 90 min of receiving fibrinolytic therapy.
resultsA total of 153 STEMI patients received Actilyse (79 patients) or Altelyse (74 patients). The mean total STR in all leads with ST elevation after 90 min was - 45.89 ± 32.92% and - 37.11 ± 35.28% in the Altelyse and Actilyse groups, respectively (the mean difference [95% confidence interval]: - 8.77 [- 19.92, 2.36]; p-value for non-inferiority: 0.0004).
conclusionsAmong patients with STEMI, Altelyse was non-inferior to Actilyse with respect to STR after 90 min. TRIAL REGISTRY: Trial Registration Number, Date: IRCT20190729044366N1, 2019-05-25.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39873854What 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.