The role of intention to treat in analysis of noninferiority studies

Clinical Trials

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 286-291

  Wiens, Brian L ^a,c   Zhao, William ^b  

^a GILEAD SCIENCES   (United States)

^b ASTELLAS PHARMA INC   (Japan)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; PATIENT DROPOUTS; PATIENT SELECTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 34548626276     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774507079443     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Blackwelder WC. Proving the null hypothesis' in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1982; 3: 345-353.
2. Wang SJ, Hung HMJ, Tsong Y. Utility and pitfalls of some statistical methods in active control clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 2002; 23: 15-28.
3. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials E-10. 5 July 2000.
4. Wiens BL. Choosing an equivalence limit for noninferiority or equivalence trials. Control Clin Trials 2002; 23: 1-14.
5. Hill AB. Principles of medical statistics. eighth edition. London: The Lancet Limited, 1966.
6. Gillings D, Koch G. The application of the principle of intention-to-treat to the analysis of clinical trials. Drug Inf J 1991; 25: 411-424.
7. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials E-9. 5 February 1998.
8. Fisher LD, Hearron MS. Draft position on intent to treat/who to include in analyses: part I. ASA Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section, 1985; 89-90.
9. Fisher L, Dixon DO, Herson J, Frankowski RK, Hearron MS, Peace KE. Intention to treat in clinical trials, in KE Peace, ed. Statistical issues in drug research and development. New York, Marcel-Dekker, 1990.
10. Wiens B. Something for nothing in noninferiority/superiority testing: a caution. Drug Inf J 2001; 35: 241-245.
11. Hauck WW, Anderson S. Some issues in the design and analysis of equivalence trials. Drug Inf J 1999; 33: 109-118.
12. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. Br Med J 1996; 313: 36-39.
13. Chuang-Stein C. Clinical equivalence-a clarification. Drug Inf J 1999; 33: 1189-1194.
14. Koch A, Röhmel J. The impact of sloppy study conduct on noninferiority studies. Drug Inf J 2002; 36: 3-6.
15. Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. Br J Cancer 1976; 34: 585-612.
16. Snapinn SM. Alternatives for discounting in the analysis of noninferiority trials. J Biopharm Stat 2004; 14: 263-273.
17. Garbe E, Röhmel J, Gundert-Remy U. Clinical and statistical issues in therapeutic equivalence trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 45: 1-7.
18. Sanchez MM, Chen X. Choosing the analysis population in non-inferiority studies: per protocol or intent-to-treat. Stat Med 2006; 25: 1169-1181.
19. Lewis JA, Machin D. Intention to treat: who should use ITT? Br J Cancer 1993; 68: 647-650.
20. Stewart WH. Basing intention-to-treat on cause and effect criteria. Drug Inf J 2004; 38: 361-369.
21. Quan H, Shih WJ. Treatment by stratum interaction test for equivalence trials. Merck Research Laboratories Technical Report #84, 2002.
22. Wiens BL, Heyse JF. Testing for interaction in studies of noninferiority. J Biopharm Stat 2003; 13: 103-115.
23. Robins JM. Correction for non-compliance in equivalence trials. Stat Med 1998; 17: 269-302.
24. Branson M, Whitehead J. Estimating a treatment effect in survival studies in which patients switch treatment. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2449-2463.
25. Lee YJ, Ellenberg JH, Hirtz DG, Nelson KB. Analysis of clinical trial data by treatment actually received: is it really an option? Stat Med 1991; 10: 1595-1605.
26. Ebbutt AF, Frith L. Practical issues in equivalence trials. Stat Med 1998; 17: 1691-1701.
27. 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.