Miguel A Hernán1, Sonia Hernández-Díaz. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA. miguel_hernan@post.harvard.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The intention-to-treat comparison is the primary, if not the only, analytic approach of many randomized clinical trials. PURPOSE: To review the shortcomings of intention-to-treat analyses, and of 'as treated' and 'per protocol' analyses as commonly implemented, with an emphasis on problems that are especially relevant for comparative effectiveness research. METHODS AND RESULTS: In placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, intention-to-treat analyses underestimate the treatment effect and are therefore nonconservative for both safety trials and noninferiority trials. In randomized clinical trials with an active comparator, intention-to-treat estimates can overestimate a treatment's effect in the presence of differential adherence. In either case, there is no guarantee that an intention-to-treat analysis estimates the clinical effectiveness of treatment. Inverse probability weighting, g-estimation, and instrumental variable estimation can reduce the bias introduced by nonadherence and loss to follow-up in 'as treated' and 'per protocol' analyses. LIMITATIONS: These analyse require untestable assumptions, a dose-response model, and time-varying data on confounders and adherence. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that all randomized clinical trials with substantial lack of adherence or loss to follow-up are analyzed using different methods. These include an intention-to-treat analysis to estimate the effect of assigned treatment and 'as treated' and 'per protocol' analyses to estimate the effect of treatment after appropriate adjustment via inverse probability weighting or g-estimation.
BACKGROUND: The intention-to-treat comparison is the primary, if not the only, analytic approach of many randomized clinical trials. PURPOSE: To review the shortcomings of intention-to-treat analyses, and of 'as treated' and 'per protocol' analyses as commonly implemented, with an emphasis on problems that are especially relevant for comparative effectiveness research. METHODS AND RESULTS: In placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, intention-to-treat analyses underestimate the treatment effect and are therefore nonconservative for both safety trials and noninferiority trials. In randomized clinical trials with an active comparator, intention-to-treat estimates can overestimate a treatment's effect in the presence of differential adherence. In either case, there is no guarantee that an intention-to-treat analysis estimates the clinical effectiveness of treatment. Inverse probability weighting, g-estimation, and instrumental variable estimation can reduce the bias introduced by nonadherence and loss to follow-up in 'as treated' and 'per protocol' analyses. LIMITATIONS: These analyse require untestable assumptions, a dose-response model, and time-varying data on confounders and adherence. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that all randomized clinical trials with substantial lack of adherence or loss to follow-up are analyzed using different methods. These include an intention-to-treat analysis to estimate the effect of assigned treatment and 'as treated' and 'per protocol' analyses to estimate the effect of treatment after appropriate adjustment via inverse probability weighting or g-estimation.
Authors: Lauren E Cain; James M Robins; Emilie Lanoy; Roger Logan; Dominique Costagliola; Miguel A Hernán Journal: Int J Biostat Date: 2010 Impact factor: 0.968
Authors: Kevin E Thorpe; Merrick Zwarenstein; Andrew D Oxman; Shaun Treweek; Curt D Furberg; Douglas G Altman; Sean Tunis; Eduardo Bergel; Ian Harvey; David J Magid; Kalipso Chalkidou Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Bryan R Luce; Judith M Kramer; Steven N Goodman; Jason T Connor; Sean Tunis; Danielle Whicher; J Sanford Schwartz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jacques E Rossouw; Garnet L Anderson; Ross L Prentice; Andrea Z LaCroix; Charles Kooperberg; Marcia L Stefanick; Rebecca D Jackson; Shirley A A Beresford; Barbara V Howard; Karen C Johnson; Jane Morley Kotchen; Judith Ockene Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-07-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Elizabeth M Garry; Amanda R Patrick; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Victoria G Gillet; Olesya Zorina; Dorothee B Bartels; John D Seeger Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Jacqueline E Rudolph; Stephen R Cole; Joseph J Eron; Angela D Kashuba; Adaora A Adimora Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.822