Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial Comparing Anticoagulation With Rivaroxaban to Standard-of-Care in Symptomatic Cerebral Venous Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data suggest that direct oral anticoagulants may be a suitable choice for anticoagulation for cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). However, conducting high-quality trials in CVT is challenging as it is a rare disease with low rates of adverse outcomes such as major bleeding and functional dependence. To facilitate the design of future CVT trials, SECRET (Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis) assessed (1) the feasibility of recruitment, (2) the safety of rivaroxaban compared with standard-of-care anticoagulation, and (3) patient-centered functional outcomes. METHODS: This was a phase II, prospective, open-label blinded-end point 1:1 randomized trial conducted at 12 Canadian centers. Participants were aged ≥18 years, within 14 days of a new diagnosis of symptomatic CVT, and suitable for oral anticoagulation; they were randomized to receive rivaroxaban 20 mg daily, or standard-of-care anticoagulation (warfarin, target international normalized ratio, 2.0-3.0, or low-molecular-weight heparin) for 180 days, with optional extension up to 365 days. Primary outcomes were annual rate of recruitment (feasibility); and a composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, major extracranial hemorrhage, or mortality at 180 days (safety). Secondary outcomes included recurrent venous thromboembolism, recanalization, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and functional and patient-reported outcomes (modified Rankin Scale, quality of life, headache, mood, fatigue, and cognition) at days 180 and 365. RESULTS: Fifty-five participants were randomized. The rate of recruitment was 21.3 participants/year; 57% of eligible candidates consented. Median age was 48.0 years (interquartile range, 38.5-73.2); 66% were female. There was 1 primary event (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage), 2 clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events, and 1 recurrent CVT by day 180, all in the rivaroxaban group. All participants in both arms had at least partial recanalization by day 180. At enrollment, both groups on average reported reduced quality of life, low mood, fatigue, and headache with impaired cognitive performance. All metrics improved markedly by day 180. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment targets were reached, but many eligible participants declined randomization. There were numerically more bleeding events in patients taking rivaroxaban compared with control, but rates of bleeding and recurrent venous thromboembolism were low overall and in keeping with previous studies. Participants had symptoms affecting their well-being at enrollment but improved over time. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03178864.

Who says "no" to participating in stroke clinical trials and why: an observational study from the Vancouver Stroke Program.

BACKGROUND: Successful stroke trials require adequate recruitment. In this observational study, we assessed reasons for refusal to provide informed consent in eligible patients approached for clinical trial participation at the Vancouver Stroke Program. METHODS: We assessed screening logs from four trials that were actively recruiting at our center: three randomized trials, two of which investigated different antithrombotic strategies for secondary prevention (NAVIGATE-ESUS, NCT02313909 12/2014; DATAS-II, NCT02295826 11/2014) and one that investigated surgery plus medical management versus medical management alone for primary prevention (CREST-2, NCT02089217 03/2014). The fourth study was observational and non-randomized; all participants received an external monitoring device (PROPHECY, NCT03712865 10/2018). Screening logs from June 2015 to April 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Subsequently, we used a prospective structured case report form for screening (May 2017-March 2018). We assessed and compared refusal rates between trials, demographics of those refusing consent, and their reasons for doing so. We used descriptive statistics, chi-square and Fisher's exact tests as appropriate for non-parametric data, and t-tests for parametric data. We examined likelihood of refusal by sex using multivariable logistic regression models including age and trial intervention as co-variables. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients (43% women) were approached for consent. More patients refused the surgical (59%) and antithrombotic trials (53%) compared with the non-randomized external monitoring device study (13%) (p < 0.001). Surgical trial refusals were primarily due to a desire for certainty in receiving a particular intervention (39%), with the majority of those patients wanting surgery. Refusals for the antithrombotic trials were mainly due to concerns with the potential side effects of the study drug (41%); refusals in the device trial were mainly due to disinterest (46%). Women refused participation more often than men (48% vs 33%). Women remained less likely to consent than men, even after adjustment for age and trial intervention (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26-0.82, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Concern surrounding drug safety, randomization, and disinterest were the chief deterrents to enrolment; there were also differences in rates of consent by gender. A better understanding of why patients refuse participation in stroke trials may help to develop future patient-directed communication strategies to improve enrolment. Further research is required to better understand the reasons underlying gender disparities in consent rates.