MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225262207 · doi:10.1161/svin.121.000447

Alteplase Compared to Tenecteplase in patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke (AcT) Trial: Protocol for a Pragmatic Registry linked Randomized Clinical Trial

2022· article· en· W4225262207 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tolulope T. Sajobi, Nishita Singh, Mohammed Almekhlafi, Brian Buck, Ayoola Ademola, Shelagh B. Coutts, Yan Deschaintre, Houman Khosravani, Ramana Appireddy, F. Moreau, Stephen Phillips, Gord Gubitz, Aleksander Tkach, Luciana Catanese, Dar Dowlatshahi, George Medvedev, Jennifer Mandzia, Aleksandra Pikula, Jai Shankar, Heather Williams, Thalia S. Field, Alejandro Manosalva, Muzaffar Siddiqui, Atif Zafar, Oje Imoukhoude, Gary Hunter, Arshia Sehgal, Qiao Zhang, Craig Doram, Michael D. Hill, Michel Shamy, Carol Kenney, Richard H. Swartz, Bijoy K. Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British ColumbiaToronto Western HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreKelowna General HospitalWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoMedicine Hat Regional HospitalUniversité de SherbrookeQueen's UniversityUniversity of CalgaryCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalRed Deer Regional HospitalOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of SaskatchewanQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreGrey Nuns Community HospitalFraser HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTenecteplaseThrombolysisClinical endpointModified Rankin ScaleRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Fibrinolytic agentClinical trialTissue plasminogen activatorInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionIschemiaIschemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background : Intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase is widely used in acute ischemic stroke patients presenting early after symptom onset. Recent phase II trials have suggested that intravenous tenecteplase may be safer and associated with higher early reperfusion rates as compared to alteplase. This study investigates whether intravenous tenecteplase is non‐inferior to intravenous alteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Methods : This is a pragmatic, registry‐linked, prospective, randomized (1:1) controlled, open‐label parallel group clinical trial with blinded endpoint assessment of 1600 patients to test if intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight, max dose 25 mg) is non‐inferior to intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg body weight, max dose 90 mg) in patients with acute ischemic stroke eligible for intravenous thrombolysis in clinical routine. Patients are recruited from comprehensive and primary stroke centers and enrolled using deferral of consent. The proposed sample has at least 90% power with a non‐inferiority margin of 5%, assuming incidence of 90‐day mRS 0–1 is 38% in the tenecteplase and 35% in the alteplase groups, and a loss to follow‐up rate < 5%. Results : The blinded primary endpoint is the proportion of subjects achieving a 90‐day mRS (modified Rankin scale) of 0–1. Key safety outcomes include 24‐hour symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and 90‐day all‐cause mortality. All serious adverse events within 24‐hour period will be reported and coded using MedDRA. Outcomes are collected either centrally (primary, key secondary and safety endpoints) or through ongoing Canadian stroke registries. The primary analysis is a simple unadjusted comparison of proportions. Conclusion : Results from the trial will provide real‐world evidence of the effectiveness of intravenous tenecteplase vs. alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke presenting early after stroke onset. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03889249 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03889249 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke Vascular and Interventional NeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207