Literature DB >> 10930687

Intent-to-treat analysis and preventive vaccine efficacy.

A D Horne1, P A Lachenbruch, K L Goldenthal.   

Abstract

While the intent-to-treat (ITT) concept has often been discussed and debated in the literature with respect to randomized, placebo-controlled therapeutic trials, there has been little discussion of this issue in the context of preventive vaccine efficacy trials. ITT analysis has traditionally played a minor role (if any) in the latter trials. This paper discusses the ITT approach to analysis in randomized superiority trials of preventive vaccine efficacy, using clinical endpoints. Data are presented from published literature as well as from a simple mathematical model. The data suggest that when compliance and efficacy are high, both ITT and "per-protocol" approaches generally lead to similar conclusions regarding the acceptability of a vaccine for use in a population. However, when compliance is low, the ITT and per-protocol estimates of vaccine efficacy can be widely disparate. ITT and per-protocol analyses address unique and relevant scientific questions, and often both will be informative in evaluating preventive vaccines.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10930687     DOI: 10.1016/s0264-410x(00)00152-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vaccine        ISSN: 0264-410X            Impact factor:   3.641


  9 in total

1.  Sensitivity Analysis of Per-Protocol Time-to-Event Treatment Efficacy in Randomized Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Peter B Gilbert; Bryan E Shepherd; Michael G Hudgens
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 5.033

2.  Rigorous Clinical Trial Design in Public Health Emergencies Is Essential.

Authors:  Susan S Ellenberg; Gerald T Keusch; Abdel G Babiker; Kathryn M Edwards; Roger J Lewis; Jens D Lundgren; Charles D Wells; Fred Wabwire-Mangen; Keith P W J McAdam
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 9.079

Review 3.  Taking stock of the present and looking ahead: envisioning challenges in the design of future HIV prevention efficacy trials.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Deborah Donnell; Peter B Gilbert; Elizabeth R Brown; Martha Nason
Journal:  Lancet HIV       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 12.767

4.  Sensitivity analyses comparing time-to-event outcomes only existing in a subset selected postrandomization and relaxing monotonicity.

Authors:  Bryan E Shepherd; Peter B Gilbert; Charles T Dupont
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2010-11-29       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Design of vaccine efficacy trials during public health emergencies.

Authors:  Natalie E Dean; Pierre-Stéphane Gsell; Ron Brookmeyer; Victor De Gruttola; Christl A Donnelly; M Elizabeth Halloran; Momodou Jasseh; Martha Nason; Ximena Riveros; Conall H Watson; Ana Maria Henao-Restrepo; Ira M Longini
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 17.956

6.  DESIGN OF VACCINE TRIALS DURING OUTBREAKS WITH AND WITHOUT A DELAYED VACCINATION COMPARATOR.

Authors:  Natalie E Dean; M Elizabeth Halloran; Ira M Longini
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 2.083

7.  A Sequential Phase 2b Trial Design for Evaluating Vaccine Efficacy and Immune Correlates for Multiple HIV Vaccine Regimens.

Authors:  Peter B Gilbert; Douglas Grove; Erin Gabriel; Ying Huang; Glenda Gray; Scott M Hammer; Susan P Buchbinder; James Kublin; Lawrence Corey; Steven G Self
Journal:  Stat Commun Infect Dis       Date:  2011-10

Review 8.  Apples and oranges? Interpreting success in HIV prevention trials.

Authors:  Lori L Heise; Charlotte Watts; Anna Foss; James Trussell; Peter Vickerman; Richard Hayes; Sheena McCormack
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2010-08-07       Impact factor: 3.375

9.  The ring vaccination trial design for the estimation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness during infectious disease outbreaks.

Authors:  Natalie E Dean; Ira M Longini
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 2.599

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.