Abstract WMP4: Tenecteplase For The Treatment Of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis Of Real World Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Tenecteplase is being evaluated as an alternative intravenous (IV) thrombolytic agent for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) within ongoing randomized controlled clinical trials. However, several research teams have published their real-world experience with tenecteplase for the treatment of AIS. Methods: We searched Medline and Scopus for non-randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) comparing IV tenecteplase (at any dose) to IV alteplase for patients with AIS. We calculated the unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for the association of tenecteplase vs. alteplase use and outcomes of interest. We pooled estimates using random-effects models. The primary outcome was the probability of modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at 90 days. Non-inferiority of tenecteplase vs. alteplase for the primary outcome in the meta-analysis was set at margins of 1.3% and 5% based on a recent survey. Results: We identified 6 studies comparing IV tenecteplase (n=583) to IV alteplase (n=904). Patients receiving tenecteplase had higher odds of successful recanalization (OR=2.82, 95%CI: 1.12, 7.11; adjusted OR=2.38, 95%CI: 1.18, 4.81) and early neurological improvement (OR=4.88, 95%CI: 2.03, 11.71; adjusted OR=7.60, 95%CI: 1.97, 29.41) when compared to alteplase. Tenecteplase was non-inferior (when applying the 5% non-inferiority margin) to alteplase for the primary outcome of mRS 0-2 at 90 days (absolute risk difference=0.06, 95%CI: -0.04, 0.15; OR=1.20, 95%CI: 0.86, 1.67; adjusted OR=1.24, 95%CI: 0.88, 1.76). No difference in the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was uncovered between the two groups (OR=0.96, 95%CI: 0.45, 2.07; adjusted OR=0.92, 95%CI: 0.47, 1.81). Conclusion: Real world evidence suggests that tenecteplase has a comparable efficacy and safety profile to alteplase for the treatment of AIS, while being possibly superior in achieving successful reperfusion and early neurological improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".