The role of intention to treat in analysis of noninferiority studies
- 30 June 2007
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Clinical Trials
- Vol. 4 (3), 286-291
- https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774507079443
Abstract
In analysing clinical trials designed to show superiority of one treatment compared to another, it is standard to use an intention to treat analytic approach. In active-controlled noninferiority studies, this is not standard, due to concerns that such an analysis will inflate the chance of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis, accepting therapeutic noninferiority when it is not justified. The reasons for using intention to treat (ITT) approaches in superiority studies include a desire to capture all information on study subjects, a need to prevent bias, and assurance that comparative groups are, on average, equivalent in prognostic factors. In this commentary, we argue that these same justifications carry over to noninferiority studies, and that for those and other reasons it should be the preferred analytic approach. We review regulatory guidelines, and propose a number of approaches to minimizing the potential disadvantages of the ITT approach in the noninferiority setting. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 286—291; http://ctj.sagepub.comThis publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Utility and pitfalls of some statistical methods in active controlled clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 2002
- Choosing an equivalence limit for noninferiority or equivalence studiesControlled Clinical Trials, 2002
- The Impact of Sloppy Study Conduct on Noninferiority StudiesDrug Information Journal, 2002
- Something for Nothing in Noninferiority/Superiority Testing: A CautionDrug Information Journal, 2001
- Clinical Equivalence—A ClarificationDrug Information Journal, 1999
- Some Issues in the Design and Analysis of Equivalence TrialsDrug Information Journal, 1999
- Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methodsBMJ, 1996
- The Application of the Principle of Intention–to–Treat to the Analysis of Clinical TrialsDrug Information Journal, 1991
- “Proving the null hypothesis” in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1982
- Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and designBritish Journal of Cancer, 1976