Suppr超能文献

应对转变:比较替奈普酶与阿替普酶在急性缺血性卒中治疗中的安全性和成本

Navigating the Shift: Comparing Safety and Cost of Tenecteplase versus Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke.

作者信息

Cassano Carina, Schiller Daryl, Fulman Magda

机构信息

Transitional Care Excellence, Montefiore Medical Center - Jack D. Weiler Hospital, Bronx, NY, USA.

Department of Pharmacy, Montefiore Nyack Hospital, Nyack, NY, USA.

出版信息

Neurohospitalist. 2025 Feb 15:19418744251321530. doi: 10.1177/19418744251321530.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Recently, institutions have been transitioning to tenecteplase (TNK) as the primary agent for stroke management instead of alteplase (tPA) due to its comparable safety and cost-effectiveness. Despite TNK's potential cost benefits, there's limited literature on how wasted doses impact the overall cost. This study aimed to compare the safety and cost of TNK to tPA following the transition to TNK as the primary agent for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) management at a community hospital.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared patients treated with tPA or TNK for AIS. The primary outcome was a composite of intracranial hemorrhage, any other bleed, and death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome, length of hospitalization, time from administration decision to medication administration, readmission rate, medication costs, and wasted doses.

RESULTS

48 AIS patients who received either tPA or TNK between November 2021 and February 2024 were included. TNK didn't result in more occurrences of the primary outcome compared to tPA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.03). The TNK group had a shorter median length of hospitalization and decreased elapsed time from administration decision to administration. The cost difference between a 50 mg kit of TNK and a 100 mg vial of tPA is about $1100. The total number of wasted doses was 10 for tPA and 12 for TNK.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in safety between TNK and tPA. While TNK offers cost savings, poor waste management could undermine its overall cost-effectiveness.

摘要

背景与目的

最近,由于替奈普酶(TNK)具有相当的安全性和成本效益,各机构已开始转而将其作为中风治疗的主要药物,而非阿替普酶(tPA)。尽管TNK具有潜在的成本效益,但关于浪费剂量如何影响总体成本的文献却很有限。本研究旨在比较在一家社区医院将TNK作为急性缺血性中风(AIS)治疗的主要药物后,TNK与tPA的安全性和成本。

方法

这项回顾性研究比较了接受tPA或TNK治疗AIS的患者。主要结局是颅内出血、任何其他出血以及任何原因导致的死亡的综合结果。次要结局包括主要结局的各个组成部分、住院时间、从给药决定到用药的时间、再入院率、药物成本以及浪费剂量。

结果

纳入了2021年11月至2024年2月期间接受tPA或TNK治疗的48例AIS患者。与tPA相比,TNK并未导致更多的主要结局发生(比值比1.00,95%置信区间0.25至4.03)。TNK组的住院中位时间较短,从给药决定到给药的时间间隔缩短。50mg TNK试剂盒与100mg tPA小瓶之间的成本差异约为1100美元。tPA的浪费剂量总数为10剂,TNK为12剂。

结论

TNK和tPA在安全性上没有差异。虽然TNK可节省成本,但不良的浪费管理可能会损害其总体成本效益。

相似文献

2
Comparing Tenecteplase and Alteplase for Acute Ischemic Stroke.比较替奈普酶和阿替普酶治疗急性缺血性卒中的疗效
J Neurosci Nurs. 2025 Jun 1;57(3):127-131. doi: 10.1097/JNN.0000000000000821. Epub 2025 Feb 12.

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验