Tenecteplase Before Thrombectomy Boosts LVO Stroke Outcomes
Results from the BRIDGE-TNK trial showed that patients who received tenecteplase had a significantly higher likelihood of achieving functional independence at day 90.
Several earlier trials of thrombolysis before endovascular therapy — most using alteplase as the thrombolytic — failed to show significant benefit. Commentators now suggest that the latest findings from the BRIDGE-TNK trial suggested tenecteplase may potentially be a more suitable agent in this clinical scenario.
'Essentially, what our trial showed was that patients who received tenecteplase before endovascular therapy did better than those who did not receive tenecteplase. And it was a highly significant result, supporting the idea that we should give tenecteplase to these patients who are presenting directly to endovascular centers. All patients in this trial were directly presenting to the endovascular center,' said study investigator Thanh Nguyen, MD, director of Interventional Neurology/Neuroradiology at Boston Medical Center, Boston.
The BRIDGE-TNK trial results were presented on May 21 at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2025 and simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Better Functional Independence
The open-label BRIDGE-TNK trial included 550 patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were eligible for thrombolysis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous tenecteplase followed by endovascular thrombectomy or endovascular thrombectomy alone.
The primary outcome was functional independence at 90 days, measured on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability. Secondary outcomes included successful reperfusion before and after thrombectomy. Safety outcomes assessed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours and death within 90 days.
At 90 days, functional independence — defined as a score of 0-2 on the modified Rankin Scale — was achieved in 52.9% of patients in the tenecteplase-thrombectomy group compared with 44.1% in the thrombectomy-alone group (unadjusted risk ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.43; P = .04).
The time between tenecteplase administration and the start of endovascular therapy was very short — a median of 16 minutes — yet there was still a significant increase in successful reperfusion before thrombectomy in the tenecteplase group (6.1%) vs thrombectomy-alone group (1.1%). Successful reperfusion after thrombectomy occurred in 91.4% of patients in the tenecteplase group and 94.1% in the thrombectomy-alone group.
Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours occurred in 8.5% of patients in the tenecteplase-thrombectomy group and 6.7% in the thrombectomy-alone group — a nonsignificant difference. Ninety-day mortality was 22.3% in the tenecteplase group vs 19.9% in the thrombectomy-alone group.
Peter Kelly, MD, professor of neurology at University College Dublin in Dublin, Ireland, who was not involved in the trial, asked Nguyen how the BRIDGE-TNK results should be interpreted in light of previous, 'perhaps inconclusive,' alteplase trials — and why the signals appear to differ between the two agents.
Nguyen said that an individual patient meta-analysis of the alteplase trials suggested a potential benefit of administering the drug before thrombectomy in patients treated very early — within 2.5 hours of symptom onset. However, beyond that time window, the benefit appeared to plateau, with no clear advantage observed.
'I think it depends on what you have available at your hospital. So, if you have alteplase, then you use alteplase. If you have tenecteplase, you use tenecteplase. But if you have the choice between the two, then it would seem reasonable to go with tenecteplase because it's showing superiority over the whole 4.5-hour time window,' Nguyen added.
Discussing why tenecteplase may be more effective than alteplase in this setting, Nguyen explained that tenecteplase is more fibrin-specific and has been associated with better recanalization outcomes.
She added that its bolus administration makes it faster and more convenient than alteplase, which requires an infusion — an important advantage when time is critical for getting patients to the cath lab.
Kelly responded: 'So it might be as simple as that; perhaps it's all down to speed again.' He concluded: 'I think the main take home message is not to withhold thrombolytics in patients with large vessel occlusion stroke on the way to endovascular therapy.'
In response, Kelly suggested the difference in outcomes might simply come down to timing. 'I think the main take-home message is not to withhold thrombolytics in patients with large vessel occlusion stroke on the way to endovascular therapy. So, it might be as simple as that; perhaps it's all down to speed again,' he said.
A Convincing, Positive Result
Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News , Michael Hill, MD, director of the Stroke Unit for the Calgary Stroke Program, Alberta, Canada, said the results supported the use of thrombolysis before endovascular therapy.
'A meta-analysis of alteplase trials in this situation has suggested a benefit, but this trial with tenecteplase shows a more convincing positive result. This is consistent with previous literature suggesting that tenecteplase may be a more effective thrombolytic agent than alteplase and associated with earlier recanalization.'
He suggested that the benefit of thrombolysis before thrombectomy may not just be due to the earlier opening of the vessel.
'The endovascular procedure can cause some distal embolization into the far parts of the circulation, so having a drug on board, which is going to help manage those microcirculatory occlusions should be beneficial. But that's still theoretical at present,' Hill said.
'I think the totality of the alteplase data also suggest that it is beneficial, but tenecteplase could be better, so we should be giving tenecteplase to these patients heading for endovascular therapy,' he added.
Hill noted that many regions around the world have already adopted tenecteplase as the thrombolytic of choice for stroke treatment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jellyfish force French nuclear plant shutdown
A nuclear plant in northern France was temporarily shut down on Monday after a swarm of jellyfish clogged pumps used to cool the reactors, energy group EDF said. The automatic shutdowns of four units "had no impact on the safety of the facilities, the safety of personnel, or the environment", EDF said on its website. "These shutdowns are the result of the massive and unpredictable presence of jellyfish in the filter drums of the pumping stations," the Gravelines plant operator said. The site was fully shut after the incident, with its two other units already offline for maintenance. Teams were carrying out inspections to restart the production units "in complete safety", EDF said, adding the units were expected to restart on Thursday. "There is no risk of a power shortage," the company added, saying other energy sources, including solar power, were operational. Gravelines is Western Europe's largest nuclear power plant with six reactors, each with the capacity to produce 900 megawatts. The site is due to open two next-generation reactors, each with a capacity of 1,600 megawatts, by 2040. This is not the first time jellyfish have shut down a nuclear facility, though EDF said such incidents were "quite rare", adding the last impact on its operations was in the 1990s. There have been cases of plants in other countries shutting down due to jellyfish invasions, notably a three-day closure in Sweden in 2013 and a 1999 incident in Japan that caused a major drop in output. Experts say overfishing, plastic pollution and climate change have created conditions allowing jellyfish to thrive and reproduce. lg-ekf/jh/phz
Medscape
10 hours ago
- Medscape
Coronary Sinus Reducer Shows Promise, With Caveats
The coronary sinus reducer, an hourglass-shaped stent that narrows the coronary sinus to increase coronary sinus pressure, has shown some promise in treating patients with refractory angina. But a meta-analysis published today in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions found the benefits of the intervention are likely smaller than those early studies predicted. 'There have been lots of unblinded single-arm studies [of the procedure] but only three randomized controlled trials, so we wanted to look at the different effect sizes to better understand the overall potential efficacy,' said Rasha Al-Lamee, MD, a cardiologist at the National Heart and Lung Institute, part of Imperial College London, London, England, who led the meta-analysis. Al-Lamee and her colleagues looked at data from a combined total of 180 patients in the three trials, as well as 13 single-arm studies with 668 total patients. They found the coronary sinus procedure to be safe, with a success rate of 98.3%. But while both the single-arm and the controlled trials demonstrated improvements in symptoms of angina, the effect size was much smaller in the controlled trials. In the more rigorous trials, 26% of patients experienced at least a one-class improvement and 17% had at least a two-class improvement on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification of angina. Those figures were about one third of the gains reported in the single-arm trials. What's more, the randomized controlled trials found no evidence of benefit based on continuous measurements such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire. Nor did they find improvements in objective measures such as myocardial perfusion associated with the intervention. Deepak Bhatt, MD, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who co-wrote an editorial accompanying the journal article, said more treatment options are needed for patients with refractory angina, who have often exhausted all other medical therapies and surgical procedures. But while coronary sinus reduction shows promise, the meta-analysis demonstrates why more, and larger, trials will be needed before clinicians can use it more broadly. 'It's not an inexpensive procedure, so we want substantial, objectively quantified evidence that it helps patients,' he told Medscape Medical News . 'History is littered with examples of things we were convinced worked but really didn't.' Percutaneous laser therapy, for example, seemed to show benefits for refractory angina at first, but more rigorous randomized trials found no benefit from the procedure, he said. The coronary sinus reducer device is already approved in the UK and Europe and its use is on the rise there, said Al-Lamee, but it has not yet been approved in the US. The ongoing COSIRA-II trial, with an estimated enrollment of 380 patients, should be well-powered enough to provide definitive results and support US approval, she said. Should COSIRA-II show definite benefit, she added, the device may become more of a frontline treatment, used before riskier revascularization options. 'Why have a redo of coronary artery bypass surgery if you have a device that is safe and effective?' she said. Al-Lamee had received consulting and speaker fees from Shockwave Medical, which makes the CSR device. Bhatt reported no relevant financial conflicts.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Booking Health Unveils New Study: Role of Immunotherapy in Extending Life Expectancy for Stage4 Cervical Cancer Patients
Langenfeld, Germany, Aug. 11, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Booking Health, a global leader in medical treatment coordination, today unveiled a new study titled Role of Immunotherapy in Extending Life Expectancy for Stage 4 Cervical Cancer Patients. The report outlines how cutting-edge immunotherapy is reshaping care for women with advanced cervical cancer, offering new pathways to longer survival and improved quality of life, particularly in cases resistant to standard Cancer Immunotherapy is redefining how doctors treat women diagnosed with stage 4 cervical cancer – offering hope where traditional treatments often fall short. According to global cancer statistics provided by the World Health Organization, cervical cancer is still ranking as the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer among women worldwide, with over 350,000 deaths reported in 2022 alone. Therefore, the need for more effective therapies is urgent. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy remain standard for locally advanced and metastatic cervical cancer. However, they often come with harsh side effects and limited long-term benefit – especially in recurrent or PD-L1-positive cases. This is where immunotherapy is beginning to transform the way we treat cervical cancer. By training the immune system to recognize and destroy cancer cells, this innovative approach is extending survival, improving quality of life, and reshaping the future of gynecologic oncology, according to the American Cancer Society. Leading the way in connecting patients with advanced treatment abroad is Booking Health, a global medical coordination platform that offers access to advanced cervical cancer treatment in the best European clinics. Why Is Stage 4 Cervical Cancer So Hard to Treat? Stage 4 cervical cancer is difficult to treat because it involves metastatic disease, where cancer has spread beyond the pelvis to distant organs, making it less responsive to traditional therapies such as chemotherapy and radiation. In many cases, the disease becomes persistent or recurrent, with fewer effective treatment options available, as reported by the National Cancer Institute. Types of Advanced Cervical Cancer Understanding the different stages helps clarify why some cases are more complex than others: Term Definition Treatment Challenge Locally advanced cervical cancer Cancer has spread beyond the cervix to nearby tissues (e.g., vagina, parametria) but not to distant organs Often treated with chemoradiation, but recurrence risk remains Recurrent cervical cancer Cancer returns after a period of remission May resist previously used therapies and require new approaches Metastatic cervical cancer Cancer spreads to distant organs like lungs, liver, or bones Hard to target; systemic therapies often have limited success Most Common Cervical Cancer Types Squamous cell carcinoma – accounts for 80-90% of cases; originates in the ectocervix Adenocarcinoma – about 10-20% of cases; arises from glandular cells in the endocervix Adenosquamous carcinoma – a rarer subtype with mixed features As reported by Cancer Research UK, each type may behave differently in terms of spread, immune response, and treatment sensitivity. Limitations of Traditional Treatments Standard treatments for advanced cervical cancer include: Chemotherapy: Often platinum-based; effectiveness diminishes over time; Radiation therapy: Can control local disease but may not impact distant metastases; Systemic therapies: Cause significant side effects, with limited survival benefit in persistent cervical cancer. Moreover, the American Cancer Society reports that patients with persistent or metastatic disease often experience poor outcomes, with 5-year survival rates below 20% in stage 4 cases. As such, gynecologic oncology experts have increasingly turned to immunotherapy to improve response rates and extend survival. What Is Immunotherapy and How Does It Work for Cervical Cancer? Immunotherapy for cervical cancer stimulates the body's own immune system to recognize and destroy cancer cells by targeting specific immune pathways. This approach is especially useful for patients with PD-L1–positive, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer who may not respond well to conventional treatments. Approach Description Relevance to Cervical Cancer Immune checkpoint inhibitors Block proteins (PD-1, PD-L1) that prevent immune cells from attacking cancer Reactivates exhausted T cells to fight cervical cancer cells Monoclonal antibodies Lab-made antibodies designed to target specific tumor markers Some bind PD-L1 or deliver cytotoxic agents directly to tumor cells Cancer vaccines Stimulate immune response to HPV or tumor-associated antigens Promote lasting T cell activation and memory Adoptive T cell therapy Infuse engineered T cells that can attack tumor cells Under investigation for recurrent cervical cancer The PD-1/PD-L1 Pathway PD-1 is a receptor on T cells that regulates immune response PD-L1 is often overexpressed on cervical cancer cells When PD-L1 binds to PD-1, it "switches off" the immune attack Checkpoint inhibitors block this interaction – reactivating T cells to destroy cancer cells Why It Matters Many cervical tumors exhibit high PD-L1 expression, making them ideal candidates for immunotherapy. Successful treatment leads to greater T cell infiltration into tumors, enhancing immune surveillance. Patients often experience improved immune response and more durable control of the disease than with chemotherapy alone. This therapeutic shift reflects a broader move toward personalized medicine in gynecologic oncology, targeting tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and immune checkpoints rather than relying solely on cytotoxic drugs. Findings from the Latest Clinical Trials Recent phase III clinical trials have shown that combining immunotherapy with standard chemotherapy – or using it as a second-line option – can significantly extend survival and delay disease progression in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. These studies demonstrate that there has occurred a major shift in how advanced cervical cancer is treated, providing hope to patients who previously had limited options after conventional therapies failed. Highlights from the Trials Patients receiving immunotherapy lived significantly longer than those on chemotherapy alone. Survival benefit was observed regardless of PD-L1 status, especially in recurrent cases after platinum-based treatment. Delays in disease progression gave patients more time with better quality of life. Immune checkpoint inhibitors helped reactivate the immune system's ability to target and destroy cervical cancer cells. Clinical Trial Treatment Type Median Overall Survival (OS) Disease Control Outcome Notes Phase III Study Immunotherapy + Chemo Up to 28.6 months vs 16.5 months Longer survival in all groups Strongest benefit in PD-L1+ patients Randomized Phase III Trial Immunotherapy (2nd-line) 11.7 months vs 8.5 months Benefit seen in all PD-L1 levels Works even after chemo failure * Both studies confirmed survival advantages without significantly higher severe side effects compared to chemotherapy alone. What This Means for Patients For women with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer, these results signal a new standard of care. Immunotherapy is not only more targeted than traditional therapies but also better tolerated, offering: A longer window of disease control (median progression-free survival extended); Improved quality of life with fewer systemic side effects; Hope for those who did not respond to chemotherapy or radiation. This also opens the door for future therapies involving antibody drug conjugates, personalized immune profiling, and combination treatments that utilize both the immune system and conventional medicine. Today, cervical cancer cohorts worldwide are benefiting from a more individualized, immune-driven approach that redefines what is possible after recurrence or metastasis. Who Benefits Most from Immunotherapy in Cervical Cancer? Immunotherapy is most effective for patients with PD-L1-positive, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer, particularly when standard treatments like chemotherapy or radiation therapy have failed, as previously mentioned. These patients often have limited options, and immunotherapy provides a targeted approach that can activate the immune system to attack tumor cells more effectively. Common Eligibility Criteria for Immunotherapy Patients who may benefit from immunotherapy typically meet one or more of the following criteria: PD-L1 expression ≥1% (as determined by tumor biopsy); Recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer following standard treatment; Persistent squamous cell carcinoma that does not respond to initial therapies; Evidence of T cell infiltration or active immune cell presence within the tumor; No contraindications for immune checkpoint blockade (e.g., autoimmune diseases). Histology Type Prevalence Response to Immunotherapy Squamous Cell Carcinoma ~80-90% Better overall immune response; more PD-L1 expression; strong T cell infiltration Adenocarcinoma ~10-20% Slightly lower PD-L1 expression; emerging data still promising Adenosquamous/Mixed <5% Limited clinical data; under investigation While both subtypes may benefit, squamous cell carcinoma tends to respond more favorably due to its immunogenicity and higher prevalence of immune markers like PD-L1. Why This Is Important Understanding which patients are most likely to respond helps oncologists personalize therapy, avoid unnecessary toxicity, and improve overall outcomes in metastatic cervical cancer patients. As clinical trials continue to evolve, biomarkers like PD-L1, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and even genomic profiling are playing a larger role in guiding treatment selection. What Are the Current Limitations and Side Effects of Immunotherapy? While immunotherapy is an innovative option in cervical cancer treatment, it is not without limitations. Not all patients experience a positive immune response, and treatment can lead to side effects caused by overstimulation of the immune system. Main Limitations of Immunotherapy for Cervical Cancer Variable response rates: Only patients with specific tumor profiles (e.g., PD-L1-positive tumors or high T cell infiltration) tend to respond. Delayed response: Unlike chemotherapy, benefits may take weeks or months to appear. Immune hyperactivation: Some patients may develop autoimmune-like reactions when the immune system attacks healthy tissue. High costs: Immunotherapy is expensive, and coverage varies widely by country and provider. Limited access: Not all regions offer advanced immune-based therapies or diagnostic testing. Side Effect Type Description Frequency Colitis Inflammation of the colon causing diarrhea Moderate Thyroiditis/Hypothyroidism Immune attack on the thyroid Common Dermatitis or skin rash Immune-related skin inflammation Common Fatigue and joint pain General inflammatory response Mild to moderate Pneumonitis Lung inflammation (rare but serious) Rare Cleveland Clinic highlights that these side effects are often immune-related and differ from those of chemotherapy, which typically causes nausea, hair loss, and bone marrow suppression. Most immune-related reactions are manageable with corticosteroids or immunosuppressive agents when diagnosed early. Importance of Tumor Profiling and Biomarker Testing Before initiating immunotherapy, tumor profiling is crucial. Tests that assess PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden, and immune cell markers help determine whether a patient is a good candidate. This ensures that patients treated are those most likely to benefit from therapy while minimizing unnecessary risks. Why Are More Patients Going Abroad for Cervical Cancer Immunotherapy? Many cervical cancer patients choose to go abroad for immunotherapy because of faster access, broader treatment options, and advanced clinical expertise – especially in countries known for innovation in gynecologic oncology. In many parts of the world, patients face long wait times, outdated systemic therapies, or limited access to next-generation immune system-based treatments. This is especially critical for women with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer, where timely intervention can directly affect survival and quality of life. In contrast, specialized cancer centers in countries like Germany offer accelerated treatment pathways, advanced diagnostics, and access to experimental options not yet widely available elsewhere. Primary Reasons Patients Travel Abroad for Treatment Limited access at home: In some countries, immune checkpoint inhibitors and personalized immunotherapy are not yet standard care – or are cost-prohibitive without insurance support. Delays in diagnosis or therapy: Long waitlists for oncology consultations or biopsy testing can result in treatment delays that worsen outcomes. Patients who choose to treat cervical cancer abroad often report improved outcomes, better coordination, and more comprehensive care – especially when guided by experienced facilitators like Booking Health. From Research to Results: How Immunotherapy Extends Life Expectancy Recent clinical advances highlight the growing role of immunotherapy in improving life expectancy for patients with stage 4 cervical cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and other immune-based treatments are showing encouraging results, particularly for recurrent, metastatic, and PD‑L1‑positive cervical cancers, where traditional chemotherapy offers limited benefit. By stimulating the body's own immune system to recognize and attack tumor cells, these therapies have been linked to longer survival and improved progression-free outcomes in international studies. Access to such innovative care remains uneven, prompting patients to seek specialized oncology centers abroad. Through coordination platforms such as Booking Health, individuals are able to connect with leading hospitals in Germany and other countries that offer advanced cervical cancer immunotherapy programs. These multidisciplinary approaches combine personalized treatment planning, modern diagnostics, and targeted immune modulation to address late‑stage disease. As immunotherapy research continues to expand, it represents a significant shift in the management of advanced cervical cancer, giving more women a realistic chance at extended survival and an improved quality of life. Key Takeaways: Immunotherapy's Impact on Advanced Cervical Cancer Immunotherapy offers hope for women with stage 4 cervical cancer, especially when other treatments have failed. It works by strengthening the immune system to recognize and eliminate cancer cells more effectively. Most effective in patients with PD-L1-positive, recurrent, metastatic, or invasive cervical cancer. Recent phase III clinical trials show longer survival and improved median progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone. Booking Health connects international patients with leading European hospitals that specialize in cervical cancer immunotherapy and personalized care. These breakthroughs represent a major advancement in the treatment of metastatic cervical cancer – delivering not only longer survival, but also a significantly improved quality of life. To explore your personalized treatment options, contact Booking Health today and take the next step toward advanced cervical cancer care. Side_Effects About Booking Health Booking Health™ is the international platform for rapid access to innovative treatments in the world's leading certified clinics. Our network features over 250 top-tier hospitals across the globe, all distinguished by the exceptional levels of medical accreditation and expertise. By arranging care with the help of Booking Health company, you benefit from comprehensive medical support based on the latest innovations and personalized coordination. We offer cost saving up to 70% compared to direct booking via clinics — all without compromising on quality. Choosing Booking Health means more than just acquiring access to innovative world-class therapy - it means saving valuable time knowing that every detail is handled by professionals. Headquartered in Bad Hönningen, Germany and officially registered in Düsseldorf under HRB 106466, Booking Health proudly consults patients from over 75 countries for over a decade, offering services in 11 languages. Press inquiries Booking Health Lena Hanten marketing@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
