From Department of Neurology, John Hunter Hospital, University of Newcastle, Australia (A.B., P.M., C.R.L., M.W.D.); Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Scotland, UK (X.H., B.K.C., D.K., F.C.M., I.F., K.W.M.); Department of Medicine and Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital (B.C.V.C., S.M.D.), and The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health (C.F.B., G.A.D.), University of Melbourne, Australia; and Department of Neurology, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (C.F.B.).
Circulation. 2017 Jan 31;135(5):440-448. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022582. Epub 2016 Dec 13.
We pooled 2 clinical trials of tenecteplase compared with alteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, 1 that demonstrated superiority of tenecteplase and the other that showed no difference between the treatments in patient clinical outcomes. We tested the hypotheses that reperfusion therapy with tenecteplase would be superior to alteplase in improving functional outcomes in the group of patients with target mismatch as identified with advanced imaging.
We investigated whether tenecteplase-treated patients had a different 24-hour reduction in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and a favorable odds ratio of a modified Rankin scale score of 0 to 1 versus 2 to 6 compared with alteplase-treated patients using linear regression to generate odds ratios. Imaging outcomes included rates of vessel recanalization and infarct growth at 24 hours and occurrence of large parenchymal hematoma. Baseline computed tomography perfusion was analyzed to assess whether patients met the target mismatch criteria (absolute mismatch volume >15 mL, mismatch ratio >1.8, baseline ischemic core <70 mL, and volume of severely hypoperfused tissue <100 mL). Patients meeting target mismatch criteria were analyzed as a subgroup to identify whether they had different treatment responses from the pooled group.
Of 146 pooled patients, 71 received alteplase and 75 received tenecteplase. Tenecteplase-treated patients had greater early clinical improvement (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score change: tenecteplase, 7; alteplase, 2; P=0.018) and less parenchymal hematoma (2 of 75 versus 10 of 71; P=0.02). The pooled group did not show improved patient outcomes when treated with tenecteplase (modified Rankin scale score 0-1: odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-3.51; P=0.102) compared with alteplase therapy. However, in patients with target mismatch (33 tenecteplase, 35 alteplase), treatment with tenecteplase was associated with greater early clinical improvement (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score change: tenecteplase, 6; alteplase, 1; P<0.001) and better late independent recovery (modified Rankin scale score 0-1: odds ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-5.94; P=0.032) than those treated with alteplase.
Tenecteplase may offer an improved efficacy and safety profile compared with alteplase, benefits possibly exaggerated in patients with baseline computed tomography perfusion-defined target mismatch.
URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01472926. URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifier: ACTRN12608000466347.
我们汇总了两项比较替奈普酶与阿替普酶治疗急性缺血性脑卒中的临床试验,其中一项显示替奈普酶具有优越性,另一项则显示治疗组患者的临床结局无差异。我们检验了以下假设,即对于通过高级影像学识别的存在靶血管不匹配的患者,采用替奈普酶再灌注治疗的功能结局改善程度优于阿替普酶。
我们通过线性回归生成比值比,调查替奈普酶治疗的患者与阿替普酶治疗的患者相比,24 小时内 NIHSS 评分降低的情况是否不同,以及改良 Rankin 量表评分 0-1 分与 2-6 分的优势比值比是否不同。影像学结局包括血管再通率和 24 小时内梗死面积的增长以及大的实质血肿的发生。对基线 CT 灌注进行分析,以评估患者是否符合靶血管不匹配标准(绝对不匹配体积>15ml、不匹配比>1.8、基线缺血核心<70ml 和严重低灌注组织体积<100ml)。对符合靶血管不匹配标准的患者进行亚组分析,以确定他们的治疗反应是否与汇总组不同。
在 146 例汇总患者中,71 例接受阿替普酶治疗,75 例接受替奈普酶治疗。替奈普酶治疗的患者早期临床改善更大(中位数 NIHSS 评分变化:替奈普酶,7;阿替普酶,2;P=0.018),实质血肿更少(替奈普酶 2 例,阿替普酶 10 例;P=0.02)。与阿替普酶治疗相比,替奈普酶治疗的汇总组并未显示出改善患者结局(改良 Rankin 量表评分 0-1 分:比值比,1.77;95%置信区间,0.89-3.51;P=0.102)。然而,在存在靶血管不匹配的患者(替奈普酶 33 例,阿替普酶 35 例)中,替奈普酶治疗与更大的早期临床改善(中位数 NIHSS 评分变化:替奈普酶,6;阿替普酶,1;P<0.001)和更好的晚期独立恢复(改良 Rankin 量表评分 0-1 分:比值比,2.33;95%置信区间,1.13-5.94;P=0.032)相关。
与阿替普酶相比,替奈普酶可能具有更好的疗效和安全性,在基线 CT 灌注定义的靶血管不匹配患者中,可能会产生更大的益处。