Effect of Time to Thrombolysis on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Treated with Tenecteplase Compared to Alteplase: Analysis from the AcT Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Alteplase compared to Tenecteplase (AcT) randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that tenecteplase is non-inferior to alteplase in treating acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours of symptom onset. The effect of time to treatment on clinical outcomes with alteplase is well known, however the nature of this relationship is yet to be described with tenecteplase. We assessed whether the association of time to thrombolysis treatment with clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke differs by whether they receive intravenous tenecteplase versus alteplase. Methods Patients included were from AcT, a pragmatic, registry linked, phase 3 RCT comparing intravenous tenecteplase to alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Eligible patients were >18 years old, with disabling neurological deficits, presenting within 4·5 hours of symptom onset, and eligible for thrombolysis. Primary outcome was modified Rankin scale(mRS) 0-1 at 90 days. Safety outcomes included 24-hour symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) and 90-day mortality rates. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to assess a)the association of stroke symptom onset to needle time (ONT), b)door (hospital arrival) to needle time(DNT) with outcomes and c)if these associations were modified by type of thrombolytic administered (tenecteplase vs. alteplase), after adjusting for age, sex, baseline stroke severity and site of intracranial occlusion. Results Of the 1538 patients included in this analysis, 1146(74.5%)[591: tenecteplase, 555 alteplase] presented within 3 hours vs. 392 (25.5%)[196: TNK, 196 alteplase] who presented within 3-4.5 hours of symptom onset. Baseline patient characteristics in the 0-3 hour versus 3-4.5-hour time window were similar, except patients in the 3-to-4.5-hour window had lower median baseline NIHSS (10 vs 7 respectively) and lower proportion of patients with large vessel occlusion on baseline CT Angiography (26.9% vs 18.7% respectively). Type of thrombolytic agent (tenecteplase vs. alteplase) did not modify the association between ONT(p interaction = 0.161) or DNT(p interaction = 0.972) and primary clinical outcome. Irrespective of the thrombolytic agent used, each 30-min reduction in ONT was associated with a 1.8% increase while every 10 min reduction in DNT was associated with a 0.2% increase in the probability of achieving 90-day mRS 0-1 respectively. Conclusion The effect of time to tenecteplase administration on clinical outcomes is like that of alteplase, with faster administration resulting in better clinical outcomes. Key points: Question In patients with acute ischemic stroke, does the effect of time to thrombolysis on clinical outcomes differ with tenecteplase vs. alteplase administration? Findings In this analysis from the alteplase compared to tenecteplase (AcT) trial, a pragmatic, registry linked, phase 3 randomized controlled trial, each 30-min reduction in stroke onset to thrombolysis start time was associated with a 1.8% increase in the probability of achieving excellent functional outcome, which means that for every 30-minute reduction in onset to needle time two more of a 100 people achieved an excellent outcome. This effect was not modified by type of thrombolytic used (alteplase versus tenecteplase) Meaning The effect of time to tenecteplase administration on clinical outcomes is like that of alteplase, with faster administration resulting in better clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".