Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Tenecteplase and Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Pairwise and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
preprint
OA: closed
CC-BY-ND-4.0
Abstract
Background Studies on tenecteplase have been yielding mixed results on several important variables at different doses, thus hampering objective guideline recommendations in acute ischemic stroke management. This meta-analysis stratifies doses in order to refine our interpretation of outcomes and quantify the benefits and harms of tenecteplase at different doses. Methods PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and reference lists of the included articles were systematically searched. Several efficacy and safety outcomes were pooled and reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Network meta-analysis was used to find the optimal dose of tenecteplase. Meta-regression was run to investigate the impact of baseline NIHSS scores on functional outcomes and mortality. Results Ten randomized controlled trials with a total of 4140 patients were included. 2166 (52.32%) patients were enrolled in the tenecteplase group and 1974 (47.68%) in the alteplase group. Tenecteplase at 0.25 mg/kg dose demonstrated significant improvement in excellent functional outcome at 3 months (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.26), and early neurological improvement (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.03-2.26). There was no statistically significant difference between tenecteplase and alteplase in terms of good functional outcome, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and 90-day mortality at any dose. Meta-regression demonstrated superior tenecteplase efficacy with increasing stroke severity, however, the results were statistically nonsignificant. Conclusions Tenecteplase at 0.25 mg/kg dose is more efficacious and at least as safe as alteplase for stroke thrombolysis. Newer analyses need to focus on direct comparison of tenecteplase doses and whether tenecteplase is efficacious at longer needle times.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.
References (25)
- doi:10.2165/11209940-000000000-00000 via crossref
- doi:10.2165/00003088-200241150-00001 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)07403-6 via crossref
- doi:10.1186/s12245-021-00399-w via crossref
- doi:10.1007/s00415-022-11242-4 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01054-6 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00049-8 via crossref
- doi:10.3310/hta9260 via crossref
- doi:10.1161/strokeaha.109.572040 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(17)30253-3 via crossref
- doi:10.1056/nejmoa1716405 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(22)00171-5 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(22)00124-7 via crossref
- doi:10.1136/svn-2021-000978 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2020.12.026 via crossref
- doi:10.1212/wnl.57.3.474 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60584-5 via crossref
- doi:10.1007/s11239-018-1721-3 via crossref
- doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000074 via crossref
- doi:10.1161/strokeaha.117.017320 via crossref
- doi:10.1007/s00415-021-10798-x via crossref
- doi:10.1161/strokeaha.122.036929 via crossref
- doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1511 via crossref
- doi:10.1161/strokeaha.120.029666 via crossref
- doi:10.1177/1747493020984073 via crossref
Source provenance
- crossref
- last seen: 2026-05-28T01:00:30.537262+00:00
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-05-21T05:10:58.409756+00:00
License: CC-BY-ND-4.0