Tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute stroke within 4·5 h of onset (ATTEST-2): a randomised, parallel group, open-label trial

Keith W Muir, Gary A Ford, Ian Ford, Joanna M Wardlaw, Alex McConnachie, Nicola Greenlaw, Grant Mair, Nikola Sprigg, Christopher I Price, Mary Joan MacLeod, Sofia Dima, Marius Venter, Liqun Zhang, Eoin O’Brien, Ranjan Sanyal, John Reid, Laszlo K Sztriha, Syed Haider, William N Whiteley, James Kennedy, Chris Douglass
{"title":"Tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute stroke within 4·5 h of onset (ATTEST-2): a randomised, parallel group, open-label trial","authors":"Keith W Muir, Gary A Ford, Ian Ford, Joanna M Wardlaw, Alex McConnachie, Nicola Greenlaw, Grant Mair, Nikola Sprigg, Christopher I Price, Mary Joan MacLeod, Sofia Dima, Marius Venter, Liqun Zhang, Eoin O’Brien, Ranjan Sanyal, John Reid, Laszlo K Sztriha, Syed Haider, William N Whiteley, James Kennedy, Chris Douglass","doi":"10.1016/s1474-4422(24)00377-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Background</h3>Tenecteplase has potential benefits over alteplase, the standard agent for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke, because it is administered as a single bolus and might have superior efficacy. The ATTEST-2 trial investigated whether tenecteplase was non-inferior or superior to alteplase within 4·5 h of onset.<h3>Methods</h3>We undertook a prospective, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial with masked endpoint evaluation in 39 UK stroke centres. Previously independent adults with acute ischaemic stroke, eligible for intravenous thrombolysis less than 4·5 h from last known well, were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous alteplase 0·9 mg/kg or tenecteplase 0·25 mg/kg, by use of a telephone-based interactive voice response system. The primary endpoint was the distribution of the day 90 modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score and was analysed using ordinal logistic regression in the modified intention-to-treat population. We tested the primary outcome for non-inferiority (odds ratio for tenecteplase <em>vs</em> alteplase non-inferiority limit of 0·75), and for superiority if non-inferiority was confirmed. Safety outcomes were mortality, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, radiological intracranial haemorrhage, and major extracranial bleeding. The trial was prospectively registered on <span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg aria-label=\"Opens in new window\" focusable=\"false\" height=\"20\" viewbox=\"0 0 8 8\"><path d=\"M1.12949 2.1072V1H7V6.85795H5.89111V2.90281L0.784057 8L0 7.21635L5.11902 2.1072H1.12949Z\"></path></svg></span> (<span><span>NCT02814409</span><svg aria-label=\"Opens in new window\" focusable=\"false\" height=\"20\" viewbox=\"0 0 8 8\"><path d=\"M1.12949 2.1072V1H7V6.85795H5.89111V2.90281L0.784057 8L0 7.21635L5.11902 2.1072H1.12949Z\"></path></svg></span>).<h3>Findings</h3>Between Jan 25, 2017, and May 30, 2023, 1858 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group, of whom 1777 received thrombolytic treatment and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (n=885 allocated tenecteplase and n=892 allocated alteplase). The mean age of participants was 70·4 (SD 12·9) years and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 7 (IQR 5–13) at baseline. Tenecteplase was non-inferior to alteplase for mRS score distribution at 90 days, but was not superior (odds ratio 1·07; 95% CI 0·90–1·27; p value for non-inferiority&lt;0·0001; p=0·43 for superiority). 68 (8%) patients in the tenecteplase group compared with 75 (8%) patients in the alteplase group died, symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (defined by SITS-MOST criteria) occurred in 20 (2%) versus 15 (2%) patients, parenchymal haematoma type 2 occurred in 37 (4%) versus 26 (3%) patients, post-treatment intracranial bleed occurred in 94 (11%) versus 78 (9%) patients, significant extracranial haemorrhage occurred in 13 (1%) versus six (1%) patients, respectively, and angioedema occurred in six (1%) participants in both groups.<h3>Interpretation</h3>Tenecteplase 0·25 mg/kg was non-inferior to 0·9 mg/kg alteplase within 4·5 h of symptom onset in acute ischaemic stroke. Easier administration of tenecteplase, especially in the context of interhospital transfers, indicates that tenecteplase should be preferred to alteplase for thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke. The ATTEST-2 population was large and representative of thrombolysis-eligible patients in the UK and, together with findings from other trials, provides robust evidence supporting the introduction of tenecteplase in preference to alteplase.<h3>Funding</h3>The Stroke Association and British Heart Foundation.","PeriodicalId":22676,"journal":{"name":"The Lancet Neurology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Lancet Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(24)00377-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Tenecteplase has potential benefits over alteplase, the standard agent for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke, because it is administered as a single bolus and might have superior efficacy. The ATTEST-2 trial investigated whether tenecteplase was non-inferior or superior to alteplase within 4·5 h of onset.

Methods

We undertook a prospective, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial with masked endpoint evaluation in 39 UK stroke centres. Previously independent adults with acute ischaemic stroke, eligible for intravenous thrombolysis less than 4·5 h from last known well, were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous alteplase 0·9 mg/kg or tenecteplase 0·25 mg/kg, by use of a telephone-based interactive voice response system. The primary endpoint was the distribution of the day 90 modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score and was analysed using ordinal logistic regression in the modified intention-to-treat population. We tested the primary outcome for non-inferiority (odds ratio for tenecteplase vs alteplase non-inferiority limit of 0·75), and for superiority if non-inferiority was confirmed. Safety outcomes were mortality, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, radiological intracranial haemorrhage, and major extracranial bleeding. The trial was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02814409).

Findings

Between Jan 25, 2017, and May 30, 2023, 1858 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group, of whom 1777 received thrombolytic treatment and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (n=885 allocated tenecteplase and n=892 allocated alteplase). The mean age of participants was 70·4 (SD 12·9) years and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 7 (IQR 5–13) at baseline. Tenecteplase was non-inferior to alteplase for mRS score distribution at 90 days, but was not superior (odds ratio 1·07; 95% CI 0·90–1·27; p value for non-inferiority<0·0001; p=0·43 for superiority). 68 (8%) patients in the tenecteplase group compared with 75 (8%) patients in the alteplase group died, symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (defined by SITS-MOST criteria) occurred in 20 (2%) versus 15 (2%) patients, parenchymal haematoma type 2 occurred in 37 (4%) versus 26 (3%) patients, post-treatment intracranial bleed occurred in 94 (11%) versus 78 (9%) patients, significant extracranial haemorrhage occurred in 13 (1%) versus six (1%) patients, respectively, and angioedema occurred in six (1%) participants in both groups.

Interpretation

Tenecteplase 0·25 mg/kg was non-inferior to 0·9 mg/kg alteplase within 4·5 h of symptom onset in acute ischaemic stroke. Easier administration of tenecteplase, especially in the context of interhospital transfers, indicates that tenecteplase should be preferred to alteplase for thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke. The ATTEST-2 population was large and representative of thrombolysis-eligible patients in the UK and, together with findings from other trials, provides robust evidence supporting the introduction of tenecteplase in preference to alteplase.

Funding

The Stroke Association and British Heart Foundation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
特奈普酶与阿替普酶治疗发病 4-5 小时内的急性中风(ATTEST-2):随机、平行分组、开放标签试验
背景与阿替普酶(急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓的标准药物)相比,替奈普酶具有潜在的优势,因为它是单次给药,疗效可能更好。ATTEST-2试验调查了在发病后4-5小时内替尼采普酶的疗效是否优于阿替普酶。方法我们在英国39个卒中中心进行了一项前瞻性、随机、平行组、开放标签试验,并对终点进行了掩蔽评估。通过电话交互式语音应答系统,将符合静脉溶栓条件的急性缺血性脑卒中患者按 1:1 随机分配到阿替普酶 0-9 mg/kg 或替奈替普酶 0-25 mg/kg。主要终点是第90天改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分的分布情况,在改良意向治疗人群中使用序数逻辑回归进行分析。我们对主要结果进行了非劣效性测试(替奈替普酶与阿替普酶的几率比为0-75),如果非劣效性得到证实,则进行了优效性测试。安全性结果包括死亡率、症状性颅内出血、放射性颅内出血和颅外大出血。该试验在ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT02814409)上进行了前瞻性注册。研究结果2017年1月25日至2023年5月30日期间,1858名患者被随机分配到治疗组,其中1777人接受了溶栓治疗,并被纳入修改后的意向治疗人群(分配到替奈替普酶的人数为885人,分配到阿替普酶的人数为892人)。参与者的平均年龄为70-4(SD 12-9)岁,基线时美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表中位数为7(IQR 5-13)。就90天时的mRS评分分布而言,替奈普酶不劣于阿替普酶,但也不占优势(几率比1-07;95% CI 0-90-1-27;不占优势的P值<0-0001;占优势的P=0-43)。替奈普酶组有68例(8%)患者死亡,阿替普酶组有75例(8%)患者死亡;有20例(2%)患者出现症状性脑出血(根据SITS-MOST标准定义),阿替普酶组有15例(2%)患者出现症状性脑出血;有37例(4%)患者出现实质血肿2型,阿替普酶组有26例(3%)患者出现实质血肿2型、治疗后颅内出血的患者分别有 94 人(11%)和 78 人(9%),颅外大出血的患者分别有 13 人(1%)和 6 人(1%),血管性水肿的患者在两组中均有 6 人(1%)。在急性缺血性中风患者症状出现后4-5小时内,0-25毫克/千克替奈普酶的疗效不劣于0-9毫克/千克阿替普酶。在急性缺血性脑卒中溶栓治疗中,替奈普酶更容易给药,尤其是在医院间转运的情况下,这表明替奈普酶应优于阿替普酶。ATTEST-2研究对象人数众多,代表了英国符合溶栓条件的患者,加上其他试验的结果,为采用替奈普酶优于阿替普酶提供了有力证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Infectious diseases research in 2024: insights into dementia Neuroscience research in 2024: advances in blood biomarkers and brain omics Correction to Lancet Neurol 2024; 23: 1183–84 Correction to Lancet Neurol 2024; 23: 1205–13 Cristina Sampaio: bringing rigour to research in movement disorders
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1