Apixaban to Prevent Recurrence After Cryptogenic Stroke in Patients With Atrial Cardiopathy: The ARCADIA Randomized Clinical Trial

Key Points

Question  Is anticoagulation superior to antiplatelet therapy for prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke and evidence of atrial cardiopathy?

Findings  In this randomized clinical trial that included 1015 patients, the rate of recurrent stroke did not significantly differ between the apixaban group (annualized rate, 4.4%) and the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.4%).

Meaning  In patients with cryptogenic stroke and evidence of atrial cardiopathy without atrial fibrillation, apixaban did not significantly reduce recurrent stroke risk compared with aspirin.

Importance  Atrial cardiopathy is associated with stroke in the absence of clinically apparent atrial fibrillation. It is unknown whether anticoagulation, which has proven benefit in atrial fibrillation, prevents stroke in patients with atrial cardiopathy and no atrial fibrillation.

Objective  To compare anticoagulation vs antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention in patients with cryptogenic stroke and evidence of atrial cardiopathy.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 randomized clinical trial of 1015 participants with cryptogenic stroke and evidence of atrial cardiopathy, defined as P-wave terminal force greater than 5000 μV × ms in electrocardiogram lead V₁, serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level greater than 250 pg/mL, or left atrial diameter index of 3 cm/m² or greater on echocardiogram. Participants had no evidence of atrial fibrillation at the time of randomization. Enrollment and follow-up occurred from February 1, 2018, through February 28, 2023, at 185 sites in the National Institutes of Health StrokeNet and the Canadian Stroke Consortium.

Interventions  Apixaban, 5 mg or 2.5 mg, twice daily (n = 507) vs aspirin, 81 mg, once daily (n = 508).

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary efficacy outcome in a time-to-event analysis was recurrent stroke. All participants, including those diagnosed with atrial fibrillation after randomization, were analyzed according to the groups to which they were randomized. The primary safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and other major hemorrhage.

Results  With 1015 of the target 1100 participants enrolled and mean follow-up of 1.8 years, the trial was stopped for futility after a planned interim analysis. The mean (SD) age of participants was 68.0 (11.0) years, 54.3% were female, and 87.5% completed the full duration of follow-up. Recurrent stroke occurred in 40 patients in the apixaban group (annualized rate, 4.4%) and 40 patients in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.4%) (hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.64-1.55]). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0 patients taking apixaban and 7 patients taking aspirin (annualized rate, 1.1%). Other major hemorrhages occurred in 5 patients taking apixaban (annualized rate, 0.7%) and 5 patients taking aspirin (annualized rate, 0.8%) (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.29-3.52]).

Conclusions and Relevance  In patients with cryptogenic stroke and evidence of atrial cardiopathy without atrial fibrillation, apixaban did not significantly reduce recurrent stroke risk compared with aspirin.

Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192215

Atrial cardiopathy is defined as any complex of structural, architectural, contractile, or electrophysiologic changes affecting the atria with the potential to produce clinically relevant manifestations.¹ Atrial cardiopathy is strongly associated with incident atrial fibrillation and plays a role in thromboembolism related to atrial fibrillation.² Various markers of atrial cardiopathy are associated with the risk of ischemic stroke even in the absence of clinically apparent atrial fibrillation.³ Unrecognized atrial cardiopathy may explain some of the many ischemic strokes that are classified as cryptogenic (ie, strokes that lack an identifiable etiology after standard diagnostic evaluation).⁴ Given the proven role of anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation and the interrelationship between atrial fibrillation and atrial cardiopathy, anticoagulation may also reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial cardiopathy and no clinically apparent atrial fibrillation. Quiz Ref IDThe Atrial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs in Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke (ARCADIA) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that anticoagulation is superior to antiplatelet therapy for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with a recent cryptogenic stroke and evidence of atrial cardiopathy.

ARCADIA was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of apixaban vs aspirin in patients with a recent cryptogenic stroke and evidence of atrial cardiopathy. The rationale and methods of the trial have been previously published (the trial protocol and statistical analysis plan are in Supplement 1).⁵ The trial was initiated by the investigators and conducted jointly with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) StrokeNet National Coordinating Center at the University of Cincinnati, the StrokeNet National Data Management Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, and a Canadian coordinating center at the Population Health Research Institute. Patients were recruited at 185 sites in StrokeNet and the Canadian Stroke Consortium. The US Food and Drug Administration granted the trial an Investigational New Drug application exemption. Health Canada, the StrokeNet Central Institutional Review Board, and institutional review boards or research ethics boards at participating sites approved the study protocol. All participants provided written, informed consent for trial participation. An NIH-appointed data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) monitored the conduct of the trial.

Major inclusion criteria were age 45 years or older, a clinical diagnosis of cryptogenic ischemic stroke, brain imaging to rule out hemorrhagic stroke, a modified Rankin Scale score of 4 or less, and the ability to be randomized no later than 180 days after stroke onset (Table 1). Because the term cryptogenic stroke can also be applied to cases with multiple potential etiologies and cases with an incomplete diagnostic evaluation, we used consensus criteria for an embolic stroke of undetermined source⁶ to establish a rigorous diagnosis of cryptogenic stroke that included only cases without any apparent etiology after standard investigation. Thus, our criteria for cryptogenic stroke required computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the brain to exclude lacunar infarcts, vascular imaging of the cervical and intracranial arteries to exclude large-artery atherosclerosis causing 50% or more stenosis of a relevant arterial lumen, and transthoracic or transesophageal echocardiography, a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), and 24 hours or more of continuous heart rhythm monitoring to exclude major-risk cardioembolic sources. Additional heart rhythm monitoring to detect atrial fibrillation was allowed at the discretion of treating physicians and local investigators, both before and after randomization. Key exclusion criteria were a major-risk cardioembolic source including any history of atrial fibrillation or a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30%, a definite indication or contraindication to antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, a history of spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage, chronic kidney disease with serum creatinine level of 2.5 mg/dL or greater, or a clinically significant bleeding diathesis. The complete list of inclusion and exclusion criteria are provided in the trial protocol (Supplement 1). To ensure the representativeness of the trial population, site investigators and coordinators were instructed to directly ask participants to report their self-identified race and ethnicity, which were then categorized per NIH guidelines. The Other race category was defined as American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or more than 1 race.

Quiz Ref IDPatients who met the eligibility criteria and provided consent underwent screening for atrial cardiopathy (Figure 1), defined as at least 1 of the following biomarkers: P-wave terminal force in ECG lead V₁ greater than 5000 μV × ms, serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level greater than 250 pg/mL, or left atrial diameter index of 3 cm/m² or greater on echocardiogram. These biomarkers and thresholds were chosen based on their associations with a 2-fold higher risk of stroke in observational studies.³ The left atrial diameter index was determined by the local echocardiography laboratory at each site. P-wave terminal force was centrally determined at the study ECG core using previously validated methods.⁷ Serum NT-proBNP was centrally measured in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified core laboratory using the Elecsys assay (Roche Diagnostics).

Patients who fulfilled any of the atrial cardiopathy criteria and continued to meet the other eligibility criteria were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to apixaban or aspirin using a central randomization system and a method that controlled the treatment imbalance within each StrokeNet Regional Coordinating Center. The big stick design⁸ was applied to control the treatment imbalance within each regional coordinating center first. If the imbalance within a regional coordinating center did not reach the maximum tolerated imbalance, a block urn design⁹ was applied to control the overall imbalance. The maximum tolerated imbalances within each regional coordinating center and overall were set to 3. Randomization was generally allowed as early as poststroke day 3 but delayed until at least poststroke day 14 for patients with an initial NIH Stroke Scale score of 11 or greater, hemorrhagic transformation of the index stroke, or uncontrolled hypertension.

Participants assigned to apixaban received a standard oral dose of apixaban, 5 mg, twice daily, unless standard criteria were met for dose reduction to 2.5 mg twice daily, and an aspirin placebo once daily. Those assigned to aspirin received an oral dose of 81 mg once daily and an apixaban placebo twice daily. Placebos were identical in appearance to the active drug. Participants diagnosed with atrial fibrillation after randomization crossed over to open-label anticoagulant therapy at the discretion of their treating physicians but were followed up until the end of the trial and were analyzed according to the groups to which they were randomized.

The primary efficacy end point was recurrent stroke of any type (ischemic, hemorrhagic, or undetermined type). The 2 secondary efficacy end points were the composite of recurrent ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and the composite of recurrent stroke of any type or death from any cause.

The 2 primary safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which included symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation of an ischemic stroke, and major hemorrhage other than intracranial hemorrhage. The secondary safety outcome was all-cause mortality.

All primary and secondary end points, except for major hemorrhage, were adjudicated by 2 neurologists blinded to treatment assignment. Major hemorrhage was determined by sites using a standard definition of clinically overt bleeding accompanied by a 2-g/dL or greater decrease in the hemoglobin level during a 24-hour period, transfusion of 2 units or more of whole blood or red blood cells, involvement of a critical nonintracranial site (intraspinal, intraocular, pericardial, intra-articular, intramuscular with compartment syndrome, or retroperitoneal), or death.¹⁰

Key assumptions for sample size estimation included a 3.5% annual risk of recurrent stroke after a cryptogenic stroke, a doubling of that risk to 7% in patients with atrial cardiopathy treated with aspirin, a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.6 for recurrent stroke in patients with atrial cardiopathy treated with apixaban compared with aspirin, a 3% annual rate of crossover to open-label anticoagulation because of detection of atrial fibrillation, and a 3% annual rate of crossover to open-label antiplatelet therapy because of bleeding or other adverse events. The assumed HR of 0.6 was chosen as the minimal clinically important difference given the perceived and real risks of bleeding with anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy. This HR was also supported by the effect of apixaban over aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation¹¹ and pilot data on the potential benefit of anticoagulation in patients with noncardioembolic stroke and evidence of atrial cardiopathy.¹² Given these parameters, the trial was estimated to require 1100 participants with 150 primary outcome events to have 80% power at a 2-sided α level of .05. This sample size also incorporated a plan for 1 interim analysis for efficacy and futility after 75 primary outcome events using an O’Brien-Fleming–type Lan-DeMets error spending function with nonbinding futility boundaries of an HR greater than 0.914 and less than 1.095.

Efficacy outcomes among all randomized participants, including those who terminated trial participation early or who crossed over to open-label anticoagulant therapy because of detection of atrial fibrillation after randomization, were analyzed according to the groups to which they were randomized. Safety analyses included only participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and included only trial outcomes within 30 days after permanent discontinuation of study drug. The log-rank statistic was used for efficacy and safety analyses, with results also presented as unadjusted HRs and their 95% CIs. In a prespecified secondary analysis, we included the regional coordinating center as a random effect. Tests of interaction with Bonferroni-corrected significance thresholds were used to examine the consistency of treatment effect on the primary efficacy outcome across 7 prespecified subgroup categories: age younger than 75 years vs 75 years or older; female vs male; Asian, Black, or other race or Hispanic ethnicity vs non-Hispanic White race; weight less than 70 kg vs 70 kg or greater; NT-proBNP level above vs below the median; P-wave terminal force in lead V₁ above vs below the median; and left atrial diameter index above vs below the median. We also examined interactions between treatment and each atrial cardiopathy biomarker modeled as a continuous variable. Missing data were not imputed. The threshold of statistical significance was set at 2-sided α = .05. Secondary analyses should be interpreted as exploratory or hypothesis-generating. All analyses were performed with Stata/MP version 18 (StataCorp).

We performed several sensitivity analyses. First, in a prespecified analysis, we repeated our primary analysis using competing risk regression accounting for the competing risk of death. Second, in a prespecified analysis, we compared the risk of recurrent stroke between treatment groups with censoring of follow-up at the time of atrial fibrillation diagnosis. Third, in a post hoc analysis, we performed our primary analysis in only the 149 patients documented to have atrial fibrillation after randomization. Fourth, in a post hoc analysis, we performed our primary analysis within subgroups defined by each of the 3 atrial cardiopathy biomarker criteria.

Quiz Ref IDOn December 14, 2022, the DSMB met to review the findings of the prespecified interim analysis performed after 75 primary outcome events. There were no indications of safety concerns. The HR for apixaban vs aspirin (1.03 [95% CI, 0.65-1.61]) lay within the prespecified interim boundaries for futility (HR >0.914 and <1.095), indicating that the nonbinding stopping rule for futility had been met. Conditional power under the original design assumptions was 19%. The DSMB recommended stopping further recruitment, transitioning participants to open-label antithrombotic therapy, closing out trial participation, and collecting final outcome data. After completion of these steps, the DSMB met again on April 24, 2023, to review all available data, which now included 80 primary outcome events. The HR for apixaban vs aspirin (1.00 [95% CI, 0.64-1.55]) again lay within futility boundaries (HR >0.923 and <1.084), which had been updated to account for 80 rather than 75 events. It was estimated that conditional power under the original design assumptions would be 17% once 150 primary outcome events occurred. The DSMB confirmed the recommendation to terminate the trial and the NIH accepted the recommendation.

From February 1, 2018, through December 14, 2022, 3745 patients with a qualifying cryptogenic stroke consented to screening for atrial cardiopathy, of whom 1548 (41.3%) met at least 1 of the atrial cardiopathy biomarker criteria. Compared with patients without evidence of atrial cardiopathy, those who met criteria for atrial cardiopathy were older; were more often female; were more often Black or African American and less often Hispanic; and more often had ischemic heart disease, heart failure, hypertension, and left atrial enlargement (eTable 1 in Supplement 2). Ultimately, 1015 patients with evidence of atrial cardiopathy were randomly assigned to apixaban or aspirin, with the remaining excluded mostly because of the interim development of exclusion criteria such as detection of atrial fibrillation prior to randomization (Figure 1; eTable 2 in Supplement 2). After randomization, 97 patients (9.6%) withdrew consent for participation, 5 (0.5%) had participation terminated for other reasons, and 25 (2.5%) were lost to follow-up (Figure 1; eTable 3 in Supplement 2). Permanent study drug discontinuation for nonprotocol reasons occurred in 24.5% of patients per year in the apixaban group and 25.1% of patients per year in the aspirin group.

The final analysis included data through February 28, 2023, from the 1015 randomized trial participants, with a mean (SD) follow-up period of 1.8 (1.3) years. The mean age of trial participants was 68 years, 54.3% were female, 21.1% were Black or African American, and 8.1% were Hispanic or Latino (Table 1). The median time of randomization was 50 days after stroke onset and the median NIH Stroke Scale score at the time of enrollment was 1, indicating mild stroke or significant recovery. Most patients qualified for randomization by the serum NT-proBNP level (61.1%) or ECG criteria (53.4%) for atrial cardiopathy (eFigure in Supplement 2).

The primary efficacy outcome of recurrent stroke occurred in 40 patients in the apixaban group (annualized rate, 4.4%) and 40 patients in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.4%) (HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.64-1.55]; P value for log-rank test = .99) (Table 2 and Figure 2). This finding was unchanged in a secondary analysis adjusting for the regional coordinating center as a random effect (HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.64-1.55]) and in a prespecified sensitivity analysis accounting for the competing risk of death (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.64-1.54]). The secondary efficacy outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 37 patients in the apixaban group (annualized rate, 4.1%) and 40 patients in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.4%) (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.59-1.44]). The secondary efficacy outcome of recurrent stroke or death occurred in 67 patients in the apixaban group (annualized rate, 7.3%) and 62 patients in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 6.8%) (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.76-1.52]) (Table 2).

Atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 149 patients (14.7%) at a median 30 weeks (IQR, 8-59) after randomization. In a prespecified sensitivity analysis, apixaban did not significantly reduce the rate of recurrent stroke when censoring follow-up at the time of atrial fibrillation diagnosis (HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.66-1.65]). A post hoc analysis was performed to assess whether any benefit of apixaban over aspirin may have been limited to patients with atrial cardiopathy that ultimately manifested in atrial fibrillation. When the primary analysis was repeated in only the 149 patients documented to have atrial fibrillation after randomization, no significant difference was found in the rate of recurrent stroke between the apixaban group (annualized rate, 1.8%) and the aspirin group (annualized rate, 2.2%) (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.19-3.74]).

No significant evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect on the primary efficacy outcome was found across prespecified subgroups; apixaban did not appear to be of greater benefit than aspirin at higher levels of atrial cardiopathy biomarkers (Figure 3). In a post hoc analysis of patients who met criteria for atrial cardiopathy by having P-wave terminal force in ECG lead V₁ greater than 5000 μV × ms, no significant difference was found in the rate of recurrent stroke between the apixaban group (annualized rate, 2.6%) and the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.2%) (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.30-1.22]). Similarly, among those with serum NT-proBNP level greater than 250 pg/mL, no significant difference was found in the rate of recurrent stroke between the apixaban group (annualized rate, 5.9%) and the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.6%) (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.77-2.18]). Too few patients met the criterion of left atrial diameter index of 3 cm/m² or greater on echocardiogram to allow a comparison of treatments in this subgroup.

In the safety sample, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in no patients receiving apixaban (annualized rate, 0%) and 7 patients receiving aspirin (annualized rate, 1.1%) (Table 2). Major hemorrhage other than intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 5 patients receiving apixaban (annualized rate, 0.7%) and 5 patients receiving aspirin (annualized rate, 0.8%) (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.29-3.52]). The secondary safety outcome of all-cause mortality occurred in 12 patients receiving apixaban (annualized rate, 1.8%) and 8 patients receiving aspirin (annualized rate, 1.2%) (HR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.63-3.75]).

In patients with a recent cryptogenic stroke and evidence of atrial cardiopathy based on 3 readily available biomarkers, oral anticoagulant therapy with apixaban did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke compared with aspirin. Apixaban did not appear to significantly increase the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeding, or death compared with aspirin.

Prospective observational studies found that several markers of atrial cardiopathy, including P-wave terminal force in ECG lead V₁,¹³ serum NT-proBNP,¹⁴ and left atrial diameter,¹⁵ were associated with the risk of ischemic stroke. These markers were also associated with atrial fibrillation, but their associations with ischemic stroke were unchanged after adjustment for atrial fibrillation and were found in patients without clinically apparent atrial fibrillation. Given the results of the current trial, these previously demonstrated links between atrial cardiopathy and stroke may have reflected unmeasured confounding by subclinical atrial fibrillation, which was probably more thoroughly ruled out by continuous heart rhythm monitoring in potential trial participants than in earlier cohort studies. Other biomarkers of atrial cardiopathy, such as midregional proatrial natriuretic peptide, premature atrial contractions, left atrial fibrosis, left atrial volume, or functional measures including left atrial strain, were not used for patient selection in this trial.^16,17 Nevertheless, nearly one-sixth of patients in the current trial were ultimately documented to have atrial fibrillation, the most widely accepted hallmark of atrial cardiopathy, and although this analysis was limited by a small sample size, the absolute risk of recurrent stroke in these patients was low and initiation of apixaban before atrial fibrillation diagnosis did not appear to be of benefit compared with aspirin.

Previously demonstrated associations between atrial cardiopathy and stroke may also have been confounded by atherosclerosis, which is more common in patients with atrial fibrillation than in the general population.¹⁸ Detailed data on the burden of atherosclerosis in trial participants were lacking, but recent observational studies have found that atherosclerotic plaques, in the absence of significant stenosis of the arterial lumen, are associated with ipsilateral stroke.¹⁹ Among patients with cryptogenic stroke, most recurrent strokes occur in the same cerebral arterial territory as the index stroke,²⁰ a finding that appears more consistent with an upstream atherosclerotic source than a central cardioembolic source. The lack of benefit of anticoagulation over aspirin in trial participants despite selection for underlying cardiac abnormalities suggests that a substantial proportion of cryptogenic strokes may arise from nonstenosing atherosclerosis.

A significantly lower risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was found in trial participants taking apixaban compared with those taking aspirin. Previous randomized trials found that aspirin significantly increased the risk of intracranial hemorrhage compared with no aspirin therapy²¹ and apixaban did not increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage compared with aspirin.^22,23 In this context, the current findings further support the relative safety of apixaban compared with aspirin in regard to intracranial hemorrhage. Given the small overall number of such events in this trial, the reduction in intracranial hemorrhage with apixaban vs aspirin may reflect a chance finding.

This study has several limitations. First, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, participants withdrew from the trial at a higher-than-expected rate. Withdrawal may have been nonrandomly different between treatment groups, but such a phenomenon typically favors the treatment with more adverse effects,²⁴ which generally would be anticoagulation rather than antiplatelet therapy. In this trial, the dosing regimens and rates of adverse events were comparable between treatment groups. Thus, nonrandom withdrawal seems unlikely to explain the lack of benefit with apixaban vs aspirin. Random withdrawal from both treatment groups would have reduced the statistical power but is unlikely to explain the completely null results and low event rate in the aspirin group despite enrichment for atrial cardiopathy. Rates of atrial fibrillation diagnosis after randomization were also higher than projected, perhaps because of increasingly widespread use of continuous heart rhythm monitoring. However, the mean follow-up period was also longer than projected because of slower recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic and, in a blinded analysis presented to the DSMB prior to the interim analysis, the pooled event rate was found to be in line with the original assumption, alleviating any concerns that the study may have been underpowered based on incorrect assumptions about the event rate.

Second, few patients met the atrial cardiopathy criterion of severe left atrial enlargement, but the other criteria led to the inclusion of most patients with mild or moderate left atrial enlargement, so a lower left atrial size threshold would not have substantially affected the profile of randomized participants. Overall, few patients with cryptogenic stroke had any degree of left atrial enlargement, so the exclusive use of left atrial size as the criterion for atrial cardiopathy would have rendered such a trial infeasible. Given the small number of patients with severe left atrial enlargement in this trial, the benefit of anticoagulation in such patients remains unknown. However, no interactions were found between the severity of atrial cardiopathy biomarkers and the effect of apixaban over aspirin, suggesting that different choices of biomarker thresholds would not have changed the current findings.

In patients with cryptogenic stroke and evidence of atrial cardiopathy without atrial fibrillation, apixaban did not significantly reduce recurrent stroke risk compared with aspirin.

Accepted for Publication: December 13, 2023.

Published Online: February 7, 2024. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.27188

Corresponding Author: Hooman Kamel, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, 420 E 70th St, New York, NY 10021 (hok9010@med.cornell.edu).

Author Contributions: Ms Pauls and Dr Kronmal had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Kamel, Longstreth, Tirschwell, Kronmal, Marshall, Broderick, Sabagha, Dillon, Healey, Janis, Kleindorfer, Elkind.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Kamel, Longstreth, Tirschwell, Kronmal, Aragón García, Plummer, Pauls, Cassarly, Dillon, Di Tullio, Hod, Soliman, Gladstone, Healey, Sharma, Chaturvedi, Janis, Krishnaiah, Nahab, Kasner, Stanton, Kleindorfer, Starr, Winder, Clark, Miller, Elkind.

Drafting of the manuscript: Kamel, Pauls.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Longstreth, Tirschwell, Kronmal, Marshall, Broderick, Aragón García, Plummer, Sabagha, Pauls, Cassarly, Dillon, Di Tullio, Hod, Soliman, Gladstone, Healey, Sharma, Chaturvedi, Janis, Krishnaiah, Nahab, Kasner, Stanton, Kleindorfer, Starr, Winder, Clark, Miller, Elkind.

Statistical analysis: Kronmal, Pauls, Cassarly.

Obtained funding: Kamel, Tirschwell, Marshall, Broderick, Elkind.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Kamel, Longstreth, Tirschwell, Marshall, Broderick, Aragón García, Plummer, Sabagha, Dillon, Hod, Soliman, Gladstone, Healey, Chaturvedi, Nahab, Stanton, Kleindorfer, Miller, Elkind.

Supervision: Kamel, Tirschwell, Broderick, Aragón García, Sabagha, Dillon, Gladstone, Sharma, Chaturvedi, Janis, Elkind.

Other–interpretation of echocardiographic studies: Di Tullio.

Other–patient recruitment: Krishnaiah.

Other–lead Pharmacist for the trial: Sabagha.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Kamel reported serving as Deputy Editor for JAMA Neurology, on clinical trial steering or executive committees for Medtronic and Janssen, and on clinical trial end point adjudication committees for AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim and having personal or household ownership interests in TETMedical, Spectrum Plastics Group, and Burke Porter Group. Dr Longstreth reported receiving grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH)–National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) during the conduct of the study. Dr Tirschwell reported receiving grants from NIH/NINDS during the conduct of the study. Dr Kronmal reported receiving grants from the University of Washington during the conduct of the study. Dr Broderick reported receiving grants from NINDS during the conduct of the study; study medication and associated financial support for NINDS-funded FASTEST from Novo Nordisk, monies to department of neurology for work on executive committee of the TIMELESS Trial and consulting work from Roche-Genentech, monies to department of neurology for consulting work from Basking Biosciences, monies to department of neurology for consulting work from Brainsgate, and personal fees from Kroger Prescription Plans Inc’s Pharmacy &Therapeutics Committee outside the submitted work. Dr Plummer reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Pauls reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Cassarly reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study and honoraria for NIH data and safety monitoring board and NIH study section participation. Dr Healey reported receiving grants from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS)/Pfizer, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic and personal fees from Servier, and Bayer outside the submitted work. Dr Sharma reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study and grants from BMS, Janssen, and Bayer outside the submitted work. Dr Krishnaiah reported receiving funds from NIH StrokeNet for patient randomization during the conduct of the study. Dr Kasner reported receiving grants from Bayer, Daichi Sankyo, Medtronic, BMS, and Genentech outside the submitted work. Dr Elkind reported receiving nonfinancial support from BMS-Pfizer Alliance for Eliquis (study drug in kind for the ARCADIA trial) and grants from Roche (ancillary support for the ARCADIA trial) during the conduct of the study and honoraria from Atria Academy for Science and Medicine and royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work; Dr Elkind is employed by the American Heart Association. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: The NIH funded the trial, the BMS-Pfizer Alliance provided in-kind study drug to the StrokeNet Central Pharmacy for distribution, and Roche Diagnostics provided ancillary funding for laboratory supplies for N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide assays.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study or the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data. An NIH representative (Dr Janis) reviewed and approved the manuscript; the BMS-Pfizer and Roche representatives were sent the manuscript to review before submission for publication but their approval was not required. None of the funders had the right to veto publication or to control the decision regarding to which journal the paper was submitted.

Group Information: The ARCADIA Investigators are listed in Supplement 3.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 4.