ACT-GLOBAL THROMBOLYSIS (ACT-WHEN-001) Domain Within the ACT-GLOBAL Adaptive Platform Trial-NCT06352632
NCT ID: NCT06320431
Last Updated: 2025-09-17
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
RECRUITING
Clinical Phase
PHASE3
Total Enrollment
4000 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2024-09-26
Study Completion Date
2030-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
This domain has a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel group with blinded endpoint assessment (PROBE) design. Up to 4,000 patients with presumed acute ischemic stroke (AIS) will be followed for 90 days (or until death, if prior to 90 days). The end of the trial is defined as the date that all participants have completed their Day 90 assessment.
This domain aim is to efficiently, reliably, and simultaneously, determine the comparative effectiveness of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) using standard-dose intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight), vs. low-dose intravenous tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg body weight) in all patients who present to hospital with acute ischemic stroke and are considered for intravenous thrombolysis. In addition, this domain also seeks to study standard-dose intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight), vs. low-dose intravenous tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg body weight) vs. no TNK upfront with rescue IA TNK if necessary (in those eligible for emergency EVT) and no TNK upfront in those who have taken DOACs during the preceding 48 hours. This domain therefore seeks to generate more robust randomized evidence to guide clinicians in their decisions over the balance of risks and treatment with intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase wherever such evidence is currently insufficient.
This domain will currently evaluate four research questions in relation to the use of IVT with tenecteplase:
1. In patients with recent (48 hours) intake of a standard-dose direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), how should IVT be used? - Use standard-dose (0.25 mg/kg body weight) or low-dose tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg) or not at all.
2. In patients planned to be treated with endovascular thrombectomy, how should tenecteplase be used? -Treat with IV tenecteplase (standard- or low-dose) or not at all.
3. In any patient receiving IVT, what is the optimal dose of tenecteplase? - use standard-dose (0.25 mg/kg body weight) or low-dose tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg).
4. To what extent is the treatment effect of standard- vs. low-dose tenecteplase modified by key patient characteristics, such as diabetes, prior antiplatelet therapy, renal failure, or frailty, old age or having a heavy burden of cerebral small vessel disease on brain imaging.
This domain aim is to efficiently, reliably, and simultaneously, determine the comparative effectiveness of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) using standard-dose intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight), vs. low-dose intravenous tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg body weight) in all patients who present to hospital with acute ischemic stroke and are considered for intravenous thrombolysis. In addition, this domain also seeks to study standard-dose intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight), vs. low-dose intravenous tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg body weight) vs. no TNK upfront with rescue IA TNK if necessary (in those eligible for emergency EVT) and no TNK upfront in those who have taken DOACs during the preceding 48 hours. This domain therefore seeks to generate more robust randomized evidence to guide clinicians in their decisions over the balance of risks and treatment with intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase wherever such evidence is currently insufficient.
This domain will currently evaluate four research questions in relation to the use of IVT with tenecteplase:
1. In patients with recent (48 hours) intake of a standard-dose direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), how should IVT be used? - Use standard-dose (0.25 mg/kg body weight) or low-dose tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg) or not at all.
2. In patients planned to be treated with endovascular thrombectomy, how should tenecteplase be used? -Treat with IV tenecteplase (standard- or low-dose) or not at all.
3. In any patient receiving IVT, what is the optimal dose of tenecteplase? - use standard-dose (0.25 mg/kg body weight) or low-dose tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg).
4. To what extent is the treatment effect of standard- vs. low-dose tenecteplase modified by key patient characteristics, such as diabetes, prior antiplatelet therapy, renal failure, or frailty, old age or having a heavy burden of cerebral small vessel disease on brain imaging.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
ACT-GLOBAL Adaptive Platform Trial for Stroke
NCT06352632
Stroke
RECRUITING
PHASE3
Third Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombectomy Stroke Domain Within ACT-GLOBAL Adaptive Platform Trial
NCT06352619
Ischemic Stroke, Acute
RECRUITING
NA
Tenecteplase in Stroke Patients Between 4.5 and 24 Hours
NCT03785678
THROMBOLYSIS
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke Trial
NCT02350283
Ischemic Stroke
COMPLETED
PHASE3
NoNO-42 Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Selected for Thrombolysis With or Without Endovascular Thrombectomy
NCT06403267
Acute Ischemic Stroke
RECRUITING
PHASE2
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Background and Rationale:
Tenecteplase has become the first choice of IVT for patients with AIS in hospitals around the world: its mechanisms of action are well characterized; the single bolus administration has important practical advantages over alteplase (0.9 mg/kg, max. 90 mg; with 10% of the dose given as a bolus followed by an infusion over 60 mins); trials indicate it has non-inferior efficacy as compared to alteplase, potential superiority among patients with large-vessel occlusion; and it is endorsed by national and international guidelines. While alteplase remains the only regulatory-approved IVT for the treatment of AIS in some countries with tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight) recently approved by the European Medical Agency, it is anticipated that this will continue to change over the next year. Current evidence indicates tenecteplase is as safe, and potentially more efficacious than alteplase in AIS.
Optimal tenecteplase dosing:
Doses of tenecteplase ranging from 0.1 to 0.4mg/kg were tested in clinical trials of acute stroke with a dose of tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight showing comparable efficacy to standard dose alteplase (0.9 mg/kg body weight). When compared to standard dose alteplase, the large ENCHANTED trial that enrolled 3000 patients suggested that 2/3rd standard dose alteplase has better safety, with similar efficacy rates but failed to show statistical non-inferiority. This lower dose of alteplase is used as standard care in many Asian countries. With results from the recently completed AcT trial showing similar efficacy and safety of tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight) vs. standard dose alteplase (0.9 mg/kg body weight), tenecteplase at 0.25 mg/kg body weight is becoming the new global standard for intravenous thrombolysis. Dosing studies with intravenous tenecteplase have however not tested efficacy and safety of low dose (2/3rd standard dose) tenecteplase, like in the ENCHANTED trial, in a broad population of acute stroke patients. A network meta-analysis of five clinical trials suggested better efficacy with intravenous tenecteplase at 0.25mg/kg with better safety at 0.1mg/kg, as compared to 0.4mg/kg, the only three doses on which such data is available. While the Canadian Stroke Best Practices, European Stroke Organization Guidelines and multiple national guidelines recommend an intravenous tenecteplase dose of 0.25mg/kg to a maximum of 25mg for acute stroke under 4.5 hours, there are certain scenarios where thrombolysis may carry a higher theoretical risk of hemorrhagic complications, warranting a more cautious approach with a lower dose tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg). This lower dose of tenecteplase (midway between 0.25 mg/kg and 0.1 mg/kg and approximately 2/3rd standard dose tenecteplase) may potentially offer an optimal balance of efficacy and safety in many patient risk groups.
Recent ingestion of DOACs:
This is now one of the most frequent reasons why IVT is not administered, being present in \~6% of all patients presenting with AIS. The large prospective multi-site national Swiss Stroke Registry conducted in 2014-2019 indicates that of all patients with AIS and known atrial fibrillation (AF) who were potentially eligible for IVT, 466 (18%) were on a DOAC and 247 (9.5%) were on prior warfarin anticoagulation, and the number and age of patients, and indications for DOAC use, has rapidly increased over time. Separately, a recently published large international registry and a meta-analysis of other observational studies show that prior intake of DOACs within 48 hours of alteplase is not associated with an increased risk of ICH. No study until now, has compared IVT with tenecteplase standard-dose vs. low-dose tenecteplase vs. no tenecteplase in a randomized manner in these patients.
EVT eligibility:
EVT is the biggest advance in AIS treatment in the last decade, used in patients with target intracranial occlusions typically in proximal large-vessels of the cerebral circulation. Reperfusion rates as high as 90% are achieved in such patients, with the number-needed-to-treat to achieve improved outcomes being as low as 2.6. Reperfusion rates continue to improve with better technology, techniques, and operator experience. Conversely, data indicate lower rates of recanalization with IVT where there are large-vessel occlusions (a third of the EVT rates and at a later time), raising concerns over the utility of IVT in these patients. A meta-analysis of recent data concluded EVT alone is non-inferior to IVT with standard-dose alteplase followed by EVT; with the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) being -2%;34 and rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were 1% higher in patients offered IVT+EVT vs. EVT alone. The recent IRIS collaboration patient level meta-analysis did not however establish the non-inferiority of EVT alone compared with IVT (with alteplase) plus EVT in patients presenting directly at EVT centers. No study has compared IVT with tenecteplase before EVT vs. EVT alone (with rescue IA tenecteplase if EVT fails), nor of standard-dose vs. low-dose tenecteplase, in these patients. Our survey shows physicians persist in their uncertainty over how and when to use thrombolysis with tenecteplase in EVT-eligible patients.
The elderly, frail and those with comorbidities:
Age is one of the most important prognostic factors for outcomes in AIS. Multiple studies have shown that older age is associated with poor outcome and an increased risk of ICH with IVT. Underlying conditions such as renal failure, diabetes, cerebral small vessel disease, and remote cerebral infarcts, which increase the risks of ICH, are more frequently detected with modern brain imaging and are more common in the elderly. However, the elderly have often been excluded from acute stroke trials, such as in the original NINDS trial of alteplase where only 69 subjects over the age of 80 years were included, and similar figures in the subsequent ECASS III trial that sought to establish the efficacy of IVT in the 3-4.5-hour time window. Most of the randomized data for IVT in this age group have come from the IST-3 trial, which included 1,711 elderly patients; the rest of the data on the effectiveness of IVT in the elderly comes from registry studies (e.g. SITS, VISTA and SPOTRIAS), all on alteplase. In the ENCHANTED and AcT trials, there was no significant heterogeneity in the treatment effect by age. Although guidelines recommend the use of IVT in the elderly, they qualify this with caution over the risks of ICH and assign lower grades of evidence on efficacy in patients presenting late from symptom onset. A lower dose of tenecteplase could offer a safer and potentially more effective strategy in the elderly with AIS.
Patients with sub-acute looking infarcts, small intraarterial thrombi or no visible occlusions on baseline imaging:
Modern stroke imaging techniques are better able to characterize risk of ICH with IVT as compared to clinical judgement alone. Sub-acute looking infarcts (regions of the brain with moderate to severe hypoattenuation on non-contrast CT) can be seen early after stroke onset and signify severe ischemia. They are associated with higher risk of ICH; other studies show that benefit of IVT remains even with this higher ICH risk. Patients with small intra-arterial thrombi recanalize better with IVT than those with larger thrombi. In the ENCHANTED trial, patients with small or no visible occlusions on CT Angiography did better with low-dose vs. standard-dose alteplase. In subgroup analyses of the IST-3 trial, patients with no visible occlusions on baseline CT or MR angiography fared worst with standard-dose alteplase than when treated conservatively. There are no studies that assess risks and benefits of thrombolysis with tenecteplase (standard vs. low dose tenecteplase) when imaging assessed risks are potentially high or when thrombus burden itself is low.
Patients with dementia:
Although dementia itself is not a contraindication for IVT in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke, these patients have not been included in most clinical trials on thrombolysis because dementia may confound neurological assessments, or their prognosis is so poor that discriminating a treatment effect would not be possible. Moreover, common conditions causally related to dementia include previous strokes and microbleeds associated with amyloid angiopathy, thus raising concerns about risk of ICH with thrombolysis. A propensity score matched analysis of data from the registry of the Canadian Stroke Network showed no differences between those with and without dementia in the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage, in mortality or in disability at discharge when administered IVT. In the Nationwide Inpatient Sample study however, dementia was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH in patients administered IVT. Randomized data on optimal dose of IVT with tenecteplase, especially in the context of pre-existing dementia/cognitive impairment is lacking.
Other patient groups:
There are many other patient groups where evidence gaps exist, guidelines offer some recommendations regarding IVT, but physicians continue to have uncertainties. These include those with high blood sugar or blood pressure at presentation, those with pre-existing severe renal dysfunction or those with functional disabilities. Some of these conditions are more prevalent than others; some patients have more than one of these conditions. With many of these patients, physician uncertainties vary around the degree/extent of these conditions and not just their presence or absence. Race and ethnic differences have also been noted with risk of ICH post IVT. Blacks and Asians likely have higher risk of ICH than Hispanics and Whites. Sex differences exist with women being offered less IVT (10% less than men in some studies) even after adjusting for all other variables.
Data from a large adaptive randomized clinical trial on thrombolysis dose and safety with tenecteplase, in the various patient conditions described above, will increase physician confidence and potentially result in better and faster utilization of intravenous thrombolysis, thus helping improve patient outcomes overall.
Tenecteplase has become the first choice of IVT for patients with AIS in hospitals around the world: its mechanisms of action are well characterized; the single bolus administration has important practical advantages over alteplase (0.9 mg/kg, max. 90 mg; with 10% of the dose given as a bolus followed by an infusion over 60 mins); trials indicate it has non-inferior efficacy as compared to alteplase, potential superiority among patients with large-vessel occlusion; and it is endorsed by national and international guidelines. While alteplase remains the only regulatory-approved IVT for the treatment of AIS in some countries with tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight) recently approved by the European Medical Agency, it is anticipated that this will continue to change over the next year. Current evidence indicates tenecteplase is as safe, and potentially more efficacious than alteplase in AIS.
Optimal tenecteplase dosing:
Doses of tenecteplase ranging from 0.1 to 0.4mg/kg were tested in clinical trials of acute stroke with a dose of tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight showing comparable efficacy to standard dose alteplase (0.9 mg/kg body weight). When compared to standard dose alteplase, the large ENCHANTED trial that enrolled 3000 patients suggested that 2/3rd standard dose alteplase has better safety, with similar efficacy rates but failed to show statistical non-inferiority. This lower dose of alteplase is used as standard care in many Asian countries. With results from the recently completed AcT trial showing similar efficacy and safety of tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight) vs. standard dose alteplase (0.9 mg/kg body weight), tenecteplase at 0.25 mg/kg body weight is becoming the new global standard for intravenous thrombolysis. Dosing studies with intravenous tenecteplase have however not tested efficacy and safety of low dose (2/3rd standard dose) tenecteplase, like in the ENCHANTED trial, in a broad population of acute stroke patients. A network meta-analysis of five clinical trials suggested better efficacy with intravenous tenecteplase at 0.25mg/kg with better safety at 0.1mg/kg, as compared to 0.4mg/kg, the only three doses on which such data is available. While the Canadian Stroke Best Practices, European Stroke Organization Guidelines and multiple national guidelines recommend an intravenous tenecteplase dose of 0.25mg/kg to a maximum of 25mg for acute stroke under 4.5 hours, there are certain scenarios where thrombolysis may carry a higher theoretical risk of hemorrhagic complications, warranting a more cautious approach with a lower dose tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg). This lower dose of tenecteplase (midway between 0.25 mg/kg and 0.1 mg/kg and approximately 2/3rd standard dose tenecteplase) may potentially offer an optimal balance of efficacy and safety in many patient risk groups.
Recent ingestion of DOACs:
This is now one of the most frequent reasons why IVT is not administered, being present in \~6% of all patients presenting with AIS. The large prospective multi-site national Swiss Stroke Registry conducted in 2014-2019 indicates that of all patients with AIS and known atrial fibrillation (AF) who were potentially eligible for IVT, 466 (18%) were on a DOAC and 247 (9.5%) were on prior warfarin anticoagulation, and the number and age of patients, and indications for DOAC use, has rapidly increased over time. Separately, a recently published large international registry and a meta-analysis of other observational studies show that prior intake of DOACs within 48 hours of alteplase is not associated with an increased risk of ICH. No study until now, has compared IVT with tenecteplase standard-dose vs. low-dose tenecteplase vs. no tenecteplase in a randomized manner in these patients.
EVT eligibility:
EVT is the biggest advance in AIS treatment in the last decade, used in patients with target intracranial occlusions typically in proximal large-vessels of the cerebral circulation. Reperfusion rates as high as 90% are achieved in such patients, with the number-needed-to-treat to achieve improved outcomes being as low as 2.6. Reperfusion rates continue to improve with better technology, techniques, and operator experience. Conversely, data indicate lower rates of recanalization with IVT where there are large-vessel occlusions (a third of the EVT rates and at a later time), raising concerns over the utility of IVT in these patients. A meta-analysis of recent data concluded EVT alone is non-inferior to IVT with standard-dose alteplase followed by EVT; with the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) being -2%;34 and rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were 1% higher in patients offered IVT+EVT vs. EVT alone. The recent IRIS collaboration patient level meta-analysis did not however establish the non-inferiority of EVT alone compared with IVT (with alteplase) plus EVT in patients presenting directly at EVT centers. No study has compared IVT with tenecteplase before EVT vs. EVT alone (with rescue IA tenecteplase if EVT fails), nor of standard-dose vs. low-dose tenecteplase, in these patients. Our survey shows physicians persist in their uncertainty over how and when to use thrombolysis with tenecteplase in EVT-eligible patients.
The elderly, frail and those with comorbidities:
Age is one of the most important prognostic factors for outcomes in AIS. Multiple studies have shown that older age is associated with poor outcome and an increased risk of ICH with IVT. Underlying conditions such as renal failure, diabetes, cerebral small vessel disease, and remote cerebral infarcts, which increase the risks of ICH, are more frequently detected with modern brain imaging and are more common in the elderly. However, the elderly have often been excluded from acute stroke trials, such as in the original NINDS trial of alteplase where only 69 subjects over the age of 80 years were included, and similar figures in the subsequent ECASS III trial that sought to establish the efficacy of IVT in the 3-4.5-hour time window. Most of the randomized data for IVT in this age group have come from the IST-3 trial, which included 1,711 elderly patients; the rest of the data on the effectiveness of IVT in the elderly comes from registry studies (e.g. SITS, VISTA and SPOTRIAS), all on alteplase. In the ENCHANTED and AcT trials, there was no significant heterogeneity in the treatment effect by age. Although guidelines recommend the use of IVT in the elderly, they qualify this with caution over the risks of ICH and assign lower grades of evidence on efficacy in patients presenting late from symptom onset. A lower dose of tenecteplase could offer a safer and potentially more effective strategy in the elderly with AIS.
Patients with sub-acute looking infarcts, small intraarterial thrombi or no visible occlusions on baseline imaging:
Modern stroke imaging techniques are better able to characterize risk of ICH with IVT as compared to clinical judgement alone. Sub-acute looking infarcts (regions of the brain with moderate to severe hypoattenuation on non-contrast CT) can be seen early after stroke onset and signify severe ischemia. They are associated with higher risk of ICH; other studies show that benefit of IVT remains even with this higher ICH risk. Patients with small intra-arterial thrombi recanalize better with IVT than those with larger thrombi. In the ENCHANTED trial, patients with small or no visible occlusions on CT Angiography did better with low-dose vs. standard-dose alteplase. In subgroup analyses of the IST-3 trial, patients with no visible occlusions on baseline CT or MR angiography fared worst with standard-dose alteplase than when treated conservatively. There are no studies that assess risks and benefits of thrombolysis with tenecteplase (standard vs. low dose tenecteplase) when imaging assessed risks are potentially high or when thrombus burden itself is low.
Patients with dementia:
Although dementia itself is not a contraindication for IVT in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke, these patients have not been included in most clinical trials on thrombolysis because dementia may confound neurological assessments, or their prognosis is so poor that discriminating a treatment effect would not be possible. Moreover, common conditions causally related to dementia include previous strokes and microbleeds associated with amyloid angiopathy, thus raising concerns about risk of ICH with thrombolysis. A propensity score matched analysis of data from the registry of the Canadian Stroke Network showed no differences between those with and without dementia in the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage, in mortality or in disability at discharge when administered IVT. In the Nationwide Inpatient Sample study however, dementia was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH in patients administered IVT. Randomized data on optimal dose of IVT with tenecteplase, especially in the context of pre-existing dementia/cognitive impairment is lacking.
Other patient groups:
There are many other patient groups where evidence gaps exist, guidelines offer some recommendations regarding IVT, but physicians continue to have uncertainties. These include those with high blood sugar or blood pressure at presentation, those with pre-existing severe renal dysfunction or those with functional disabilities. Some of these conditions are more prevalent than others; some patients have more than one of these conditions. With many of these patients, physician uncertainties vary around the degree/extent of these conditions and not just their presence or absence. Race and ethnic differences have also been noted with risk of ICH post IVT. Blacks and Asians likely have higher risk of ICH than Hispanics and Whites. Sex differences exist with women being offered less IVT (10% less than men in some studies) even after adjusting for all other variables.
Data from a large adaptive randomized clinical trial on thrombolysis dose and safety with tenecteplase, in the various patient conditions described above, will increase physician confidence and potentially result in better and faster utilization of intravenous thrombolysis, thus helping improve patient outcomes overall.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Acute Ischemic Stroke AIS
Stroke Acute
Stroke, Acute, Stroke Ischemic
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Randomization will be stratified by: (1) planned emergency endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) and (2) known use or history to suggest use of a standard-dose direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) within the last 48 hours. Randomization will be centralized, secure and concealed, using a web-based server and permuted blocks of varying sizes will be used.
This will result in four pre-defined strata: (i) EVT+ / DOAC+ (ii) EVT+ / DOAC- (iii) EVT- / DOAC+ and (iv) EVT- / DOAC-.
Patients in strata 1, 2 and 3 will be randomized to standard-dose IV tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight) vs. Low-dose tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg body weight) or no IV thrombolysis (1:1:1 randomization). Patients in strata 4 will be randomized to standard-dose intravenous (IV) tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight) vs. Low-dose IV tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg body weight) only (1:1 randomization).
Emergency EVT is defined as anticipated arterial puncture time in the enrolling hospital ≤ 60 minutes from randomization.
This will result in four pre-defined strata: (i) EVT+ / DOAC+ (ii) EVT+ / DOAC- (iii) EVT- / DOAC+ and (iv) EVT- / DOAC-.
Patients in strata 1, 2 and 3 will be randomized to standard-dose IV tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight) vs. Low-dose tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg body weight) or no IV thrombolysis (1:1:1 randomization). Patients in strata 4 will be randomized to standard-dose intravenous (IV) tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight) vs. Low-dose IV tenecteplase (0.18 mg/kg body weight) only (1:1 randomization).
Emergency EVT is defined as anticipated arterial puncture time in the enrolling hospital ≤ 60 minutes from randomization.
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
SINGLE
Outcome Assessors
The trial will have allocation concealment and blinded endpoint assessment, but open-label treatment. Given the time sensitive nature of acute stroke treatment, blinding the enrolling personnel to treatment assignment is not practical. Clinical site staff, including the Principal Investigator (PI), sub-investigators, clinic site staff, and the Sponsor will not be blinded to treatment allocated or received. In the event of an emergency the PI will be already unblinded.
The trial will have blinded endpoint assessment on Day 90, with central blinded assessors contacting the participants.
The trial will have blinded endpoint assessment on Day 90, with central blinded assessors contacting the participants.
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Standard-dose intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg body weight)
The intervention group will receive intravenous tenecteplase as a single bolus as per the standard manufacturers' instructions for use. The dose administered will be 0.25 mg/kg body weight (maximum dose 25 mg) over 10-20 seconds as soon as possible after randomization.
Group Type
NO_INTERVENTION
No interventions assigned to this group
2) IVT with tenecteplase at low-dose: 0.18 mg/kg
The intervention group will receive intravenous tenecteplase as a single bolus as per the standard manufacturers' instructions for use. The dose administered will be 0.18 mg/kg body weight (maximum dose 18 mg) over 10-20 seconds as soon as possible after randomization.
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Tenecteplase
Intervention Type
DRUG
Thrombolytic
3) No IV thrombolysis [(only in those undergoing EVT or those on DOACs)
No intravenous tenecteplase only applied to subjects on DOACs over the last 24 hours or those planned for emergency EVT
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Tenecteplase
Intervention Type
DRUG
Thrombolytic
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Tenecteplase
Thrombolytic
Intervention Type
DRUG
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
TNKase
Metalyse
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
1. All patients with disabling AIS presenting within 4.5 hours of symptom onset or last known well who may benefit from intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with tenecteplase. Patients potentially eligible for IVT with conditions described as relative contraindications in national guidelines where physician discretion is recommended are eligible. Patients who received a DOAC, and those planned for emergency EVT are eligible.
2. Consent process completed as per national laws and regulation and the applicable ethics committee requirements.
2. Consent process completed as per national laws and regulation and the applicable ethics committee requirements.
Exclusion Criteria
1. Any absolute contraindication for IV thrombolysis per current national guidelines. Examples include those who are actively bleeding, had recent intracranial surgery, head trauma, intracranial or subarachnoid hemorrhage, or a bleeding diathesis.
2. Minor stroke patients with non-disabling symptoms.
2. Minor stroke patients with non-disabling symptoms.
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
The George Institute for Global Health, Australia
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
University of Calgary
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Dr. Bijoy Menon
MD
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Bijoy K Menon, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Calgary
Craig Anderson, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
The George Institute
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
The George Institute for Global Health
Sydney, Barangaroo, Australia
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Site Status
RECRUITING
Monash University (Box Hill)
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Site Status
RECRUITING
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
Medicine Hat Regional Hospital
Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Red Deer Regional Hospital
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
University of Alberta
Edmonton, A, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
Kelowna Regional Hospital
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Royal Columbian Hospital
New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
Brandon Regional Hospital
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg Health Science Centre
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
Queen Elizabeth II Health Science Center (Halifax)
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Health Sciences North Horizon Sante-Nord
Greater Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
McMaster University Hamilton Health Sciences Centre
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
Kingston General Hospital
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Lawson Health Research Institute- London
London, Ontario, Canada
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
University of Ottawa
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
St. Michael's Hospital
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
Queen Elizabeth Hospital (PEI)
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM)
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
CIUSSS de l'Estrie - CHUS Fleurimont Hôpital (Sherbrooke)
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Royal University Hospital
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Australia
Canada
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Vishaya Naidoo
Role: primary
Lindsay [email protected], RN
Role: backup
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
ACT-WHEN-001
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
A Randomized Controlled Trial of TNK-tPA Versus Standard of Care for Minor Ischemic Stroke With Proven Occlusion
NCT02398656
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Efficacy and Safety of Tenecteplase Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Posterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke Within 4.5-24 Hours After Onset
NCT07094763
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase Before Endovascular Therapy for Ischemic Stroke
NCT02388061
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Tenecteplase Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke in China
NCT06078995
UNKNOWN
Post-thrombectomy Intra-arterial Tenecteplase for Acute manaGement of Non-retrievable Thrombus and No-reflow in Emergent Stroke
NCT05892510
RECRUITING
PHASE2/PHASE3
Tenecteplase Reperfusion Therapy in Acute Ischaemic Cerebrovascular Events-5
NCT06196320
COMPLETED
PHASE3
A Real-world Study of Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase for Thrombolysis in Patients Within 4.5 H of Onset of Ischemic Stroke
NCT06621121
RECRUITING
Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase for Stroke Thrombolysis Evaluation Trial in the Ambulance
NCT04071613
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Intravenous Thrombolytic Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients on DOAC
NCT06241677
RECRUITING
NA
Extending the Time Window for Tenecteplase by Recanalization of Basilar Artery Occlusion in Posterior Circulation Stroke
NCT05105633
RECRUITING
PHASE2/PHASE3
Low-Dose Tenecteplase for Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment in Aging Patients
NCT07294209
RECRUITING
PHASE4
Intravenous TNK vs TPA for AIS Treatment on MSU,a Prospective Multicenter RCT
NCT06498323
RECRUITING
PHASE4
Determining the Optimal Dose of Tenecteplase Before Endovascular Therapy for Ischaemic Stroke (EXTEND-IA TNK Part 2)
NCT03340493
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Acute Ischemic Stroke Interventional Study
NCT03803007
COMPLETED
PHASE1/PHASE2
Argatroban Combined With Antiplatelet Versus Antiplatelet for Acute Ischemic Stroke
NCT03552354
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Direct Endovascular Treatment Versus Bridging Treatment In Basilar Artery Occlusive Stroke
NCT05631847
COMPLETED
NA
Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Intravenous rhTNK-tPA in Stroke
NCT04733742
COMPLETED
PHASE2/PHASE3
Endovascular Thrombectomy With and Without Intravenous Thrombolysis in Extended Time Window
NCT05634382
UNKNOWN
PHASE3
Tenecteplase for Acute Ischemic Stroke Within 4.5 to 6 Hours of Onset (EXIT-BT2)
NCT06010628
RECRUITING
PHASE4
Precision Antiplatelet Therapy Guided by Platelet Aggregation Function in Patients With Acute Ischemic STROKE
NCT06853535
RECRUITING
PHASE3
Tenecteplase Before Interhospital Transfer in Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion at 4.5 to 24 Hours
NCT07203625
RECRUITING
PHASE4
Thrombolysis With rhPro-UK in 4.5-6 Hours After Acute Ischemic Stroke in a Double-blinded,Controlled Trial
NCT03578822
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Intravenous Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients with Low NIHSS and Non-disabling Deficits
NCT06115070
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
PHASE4
Advancing Reperfusion Therapy for Ischemic Stroke (ARTS): Tenecteplase in Medium Vessel Occlusion (MeVO) for Acute Ischemic Stroke
NCT07047014
RECRUITING
PHASE3
Adjunctive Intra-arterial Tenecteplase Following Mechanical Thrombectomy Pilot Trial
NCT05172934
COMPLETED
PHASE2