Skip to main content

Tenecteplase in acute ischemic stroke: an updated meta-analysis

Journal
Frontiers in neurology (Q2)
Published
15 September 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Hussain Almohammed, Ahmed Salah Morad, Bushra Wadi Bin Saddiq, Fatimah Ibrahim Almuhaysin, Bayan Mohammed Khair Al Zoabi, Wejdan Ahmed Aldawsari, et al.
PMID
42812199
DOI
10.3389/fneur.2026.1921538

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Tenecteplase (TNK) has emerged as a promising alternative to alteplase (tPA) for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TNK compared with tPA. METHODS: Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, EBSCO, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception through January 2026 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing TNK with tPA in adults with AIS. Effect estimates were pooled using fixed- or random-effects models according to the degree of heterogeneity and were reported as risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Twenty-four studies (6 RCTs and 18 observational studies; total n = 20,592) involving patients with AIS were included. Compared with tPA, TNK was associated with a greater likelihood of excellent functional recovery (mRS 0-1) at 90 days (RR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.01-1.15; p = 0.02) and a shorter door-to-needle time by an average of 4 min (MD = -4.20; 95% CI: -7.77 to -0.64; p = 0.02). Mortality was lower among patients treated with TNK (OR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.73-0.94; p = 0.004). However, subgroup analyses restricted to RCTs showed no significant difference in mortality between the TNK and tPA groups (OR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.82-1.21; p = 0.95). CONCLUSION: TNK provides efficacy and safety profiles comparable to those of tPA while offering a greater likelihood of excellent functional recovery, faster treatment initiation, and lower mortality in observational studies. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD420251030320.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.