Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review compares thrombolytic drugs' efficacy and safety in acute ischemic stroke, suggesting optimal therapies.
Background Although several newer thrombolytic agents for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) within 4.5 h of onset have been developed, their relative efficacy, safety, and optimal dosing remain unclear. A comprehensive comparison across all available agents is therefore needed. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for English-language reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to December 12, 2025. Eligible trials enrolled adult AIS patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Primary outcomes were 90-day excellent (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0–1) and good (mRS 0–2) functional outcomes. Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and all-cause mortality. A frequentist network meta-analysis using a fixed-effect consistency model was conducted to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 21 RCTs involving 16,837 patients were included. For achieving mRS 0–1, reteplase (18 + 18 mg) showed a statistically significant advantage over alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) (OR 1.60; 95% CI, 1.27–2.02), and non-immunogenic recombinant staphylokinase (10 mg) demonstrated a statistically significant benefit (OR 2.23; 95% CI, 1.43–3.48). Reteplase (18 + 18 mg) also improved the likelihood of mRS 0–2 compared with alteplase (OR 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08–1.84). For safety, non-immunogenic recombinant staphylokinase significantly reduced sICH risk compared with tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg (OR 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11–0.94). No significant differences in 90-day mortality were observed among treatments. Conclusion Within the 4.5-h treatment window, reteplase (18 + 18 mg) and non-immunogenic recombinant staphylokinase (10 mg) were associated with the highest probabilities of improved functional outcomes. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251152754 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: