Intention-to-treat concept: A review

Sandeep K Gupta, Sandeep K Gupta

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials often suffer from two major complications, i.e., noncompliance and missing outcomes. One potential solution to this problem is a statistical concept called intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. ITT analysis includes every subject who is randomized according to randomized treatment assignment. It ignores noncompliance, protocol deviations, withdrawal, and anything that happens after randomization. ITT analysis maintains prognostic balance generated from the original random treatment allocation. In ITT analysis, estimate of treatment effect is generally conservative. A better application of the ITT approach is possible if complete outcome data are available for all randomized subjects. Per-protocol population is defined as a subset of the ITT population who completed the study without any major protocol violations.

Keywords: Intention-to-treat analysis; per-protocol analysis; randomized controlled trials.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. Fisher LD, Dixon DO, Herson J, Frankowski RK, Hearron MS, Peace KE. Intention to treat in clinical trials. In: Peace KE, editor. Statistical issues in drug research and development. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1990. pp. 331–50.
    1. Newel DJ. Intention-to-treat analysis: Implications for quantitative and qualitative research. Int J Epidemiol. 1992;21:837–41.
    1. Wertz RT. Intention to treat: Once randomized, always analyzed. Clin Aphasiol. 1995;23:57–64.
    1. Heritier SR, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Inclusion of patients in clinical trial analysis: The intention-to-treat principle. Med J Aust. 2003;179:438–40.
    1. LaValley MP. Intent-to-treat analysis of randomized clinical trials. 2003. [Last accessed on 2011 Jan 12]. Available from: .
    1. Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Mayrent SL. Boston: Little, Brown; 1987. Epidemiology in Medicine; p. 207.
    1. Kruse RL, Alper BS, Reust C, Stevermer JJ, Shannon S, Williams RH. Intention-to-treat analysis: Who is in. Who is out? J Fam Pract. 2002;51:969–71.
    1. Bubbar VK, Kreder HJ. The intention-to-treat principle: A primer for the orthopaedic surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:2097–9.
    1. Lewis JA, Machin D. Intention to treat--who should use ITT? Br J Cancer. 1993;68:647–50.
    1. Feinman RD. Intention-to-treat. What is the question? Nutr Metab (Lond) 2009;6:1.
    1. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB. Addressing complications of intention-to-treat analysis in the combined presence of all-or-none treatment-noncompliance and subsequent missing outcomes. Biometrika. 1999;86:365–79.
    1. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis. Survey of published randomised controlled trials? BMJ. 1999;319:670–4.
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:657–62.
    1. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ. 2001;165:1339–41.
    1. Fergusson D, Aaron SD, Guyatt G, Hébert P. Post-randomisation exclusions: The intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis. BMJ. 2002;325:652–4.
    1. Moncur RA, Larmer JC. Clinical applicability of intention-to-treat analyses. MUMJ. 2009;6:39–41.
    1. Sheiner LB. Is intent-to-treat analysis always (ever) enough? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;54:203–11.
    1. Soares I, Carneiro AV. Intention-to-treat analysis in clinical trials: Principles and practical importance. Rev Port Cardiol. 2002;21:1191–8.
    1. Porta N, Bonet C, Cobo E. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:663–9.
    1. Sabin CA, Lepri AC, Phillips AN. A practical guide to applying the intention-to-treat principle to clinical trials in HIV infection. HIV Clin Trials. 2000;1:31–8.
    1. Streiner D, Geddes J. Intention to treat analysis in clinical trials when there are missing data. Evid Based Ment Health. 2001;4:70–1.
    1. Day S. Analysis Issues, ITT, Post-Hoc, and Subgroups. Johns Hopkins University. 2008. [last accessed on 2010 Jan 17]. Available from: .
    1. Guideline for the Format and Content of the Clinical and Statistical Sections of Applications, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, Maryland 20857 (301) 443-4330. 1988 Jul
    1. Biostatistical Methodology In Clinical Trials. London, UK: 1993. May, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products Note for Guidance.
    1. International Conference on Harmonisation. Guidance E9: Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials, recommended for adoption to the regulatory bodies of the European Union, Japan and USA. 1988 Feb
    1. Matilde Sanchez M, Chen X. Choosing the analysis population in non-inferiority studies: Per protocol or intent-to-treat. Stat Med. 2006;25:1169–81.
    1. Sainani KL. Making sense of intention-to-treat. PM R. 2010;2:209–13.
    1. D’Agostino RB, Sr, Massaro JM, Sullivan LM. Non-inferiority trials: Design concepts and issues - the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Stat Med. 2003;22:169–86.
    1. London, UK: 2000. Jul, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Points to Consider on Switching between Superiority and Non-Inferiority.
    1. Brittain E, Lin D. A comparison of intent-to-treat and per-protocol results in antibiotic non-inferiority trials. Stat Med. 2005;24:1–10.
    1. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006;295:1152–60.
    1. Le Henanff A, Giraudeau B, Baron G, Ravaud P. Quality of reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. JAMA. 2006;295:1147–51.
    1. Wiens BL, Zhao W. The role of intention to treat in analysis of noninferiority studies. Clin Trials. 2007;4:286–91.
    1. Dasgupta A, Lawson KA, Wilson JP. Evaluating equivalence and noninferiority trials. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2010;67:1337–43.
    1. Blackwelder WC. Current issues in clinical equivalence trials. J Dent Res. 2004;83:C113–5.
    1. Zee BC. Planned equivalence or noninferiority trials versus unplanned noninferiority claims: Are they equal? J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1026–8.
    1. Iosief A, Alessandro M, Carlo R. Modified intention to treat: Frequency, definition and implication for clinical trials. 15th Cochrane Colloquium, Sao Paulo. 2007. Oct 23-27, [Last accessed on 2011 Jan 17]. Available from: .
    1. Abraha I, Montedori A. Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: Systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c2697.
    1. Deng CQ. Intention-to-Treat and modified Intention-to-Treat Analyses in Clinical Trials. PPD Development Research Triangle Park, NC 27560. [Last accessed on 2011 Jan 17]. Available from: .
    1. Ten Have TR, Normand SL, Marcus SM, Brown CH, Lavori P, Duan N. Intent-to-Treat vs. Non-Intent-to-Treat Analyses under Treatment Non-Adherence in Mental Health Randomized Trials. Psychiatr Ann. 2008;38:772–83.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する