Advertisement

Designing for Intent-to-Treat

  • Philip William LavoriEmail author
  • Ree Dawson
Article

Abstract

The principle of analysis by intent-to- treat (ITT) serves as the standard basis for design decisions as well as choice of analysis in clinical trials. ITT correctly contrasts the pragmatic consequences of the treatments offered in a study, as long as the study protocol accurately reflects the realities of clinical practice. We identify the study of ongoing treatment for chronic disease as the clinical context that most strains the ITT principle. In a placebo-controlled trial of a new drug in patients with a condition for which there are standard treatments, the ethical requirement to “rescue” patients who do poorly, and who might be taking placebo, causes “drop-in” from placebo to a standard treatment. We propose that this problem reflects a lack of fit between the standard fixed design and clinical reality, rather than a weakness of ITT. We propose that the adaptive nature of clinical decision making should be captured in the design of trials, and we show how the ITT principle can be used in such designs.

Key Words

Intent-to-treat Design Adaptive treatments 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Efron B. Foreword: Limburg Compliance Symposium. Stat Med. 1998;17:249–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tsiatis A. Methodological issues in AIDS clinical trials. Intent-to-treat analysis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1990;3 Suppl 2:S120–S123.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rubin DB. More powerful randomization-based P-values in double-blind trials with noncompliance. Stat Med. 1998;17:371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robins JM, Tsiatis AA. Correcting for noncompliance in randomized trials using rank-preserving structural failure time models. Comm in Stat A. 1991; 20:2609–2631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robins JM. Correction for noncompliance in equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goetghebeur E, Molenberghs G. Causal inference in a placebo-controlled clinical trial with binary outcome and ordered compliance. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91:444–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miller FG. Placebo-controlled trials in psychiatric research: An ethical perspective. Biological Psychiatry. 2000;47:707–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lavori PW. Placebo controls in randomized treatment trials: A statistician’s perspective. Biological Psychiatry. 2000;47:717–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lavori PW. Clinical trials in psychiatry: should protocol deviation censor patient data? Neuropsycho-pharmacol. 1992;6(1):39–47.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Little R, Rubin D. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York, NY: Wiley; 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lavori PW, Dawson R, Shera D. A multiple imputation strategy for clinical trials with truncation of patient data. Stat Med. 1995;14:1913–1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lavori PW, Wagner TH, Feussner JR. Ethics and economics in placebo-controlled trials of new drugs for mood disorders. Economics Neuroscience. 2000; 2(9):44–48.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lavori PW, Dawson R. A design for testing clinical strategies: Biased-coin adaptive within-subject randomization. J Roy Stat Society Series A. 2000; 163(1):29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lavori PW, Dawson R, Rush AJ. Flexible treatment strategies in chronic disease: clinical and research implications. Biological Psychiatry. 2000;48:604–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rothman KJ, Michels KB. The continued unethical use of placebo controls. New Eng J Med. 1994;31(6): 394–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leber PD. Hazards of inference: The active control investigation. Epilepsia. 1989;30(Suppl 1):S57–S63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Drug Information Association, Inc 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating CenterPalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Research and PolicyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Frontier Science Research FoundationChestnut HillUSA

Personalised recommendations