Abstract
“Intention to treat” or “intent to treat” (ITT) is the principal approach for the evaluation of the treatment or intervention effect in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). In an RCT, patients or subjects are randomized to one or more study interventions according to a formal protocol that describes the entry criteria, study treatments, follow-up plans, and statistical analysis approaches. In an ideal trial, all randomized patients or subjects have the correct diagnosis, are randomized correctly, comply with the treatment, and are evaluated according to the study plan. These patients would have complete data and follow-up. In this case, the ITT analysis that respects the randomization principle provides unbiased tests of the null hypothesis that there is no treatment or intervention effect. The goal in many cases is to establish the efficacy of a treatment or intervention: does the planned treatment work? In practice, however, because of the many ways in which the ideal is not the reality, an ITT analysis provides a comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of the randomized intervention strategy (does the strategy work), rather than of the efficacy of the planned intervention itself. Examples of blinded, unblinded, screening, and drug clinical trials are provided. Approaches to handling deviations from ideal are described.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Almirall D, Nahum-Shani I, Sherwood NE, Murphy SA (2014) Introduction to SMART designs for the development of adaptive interventions: with application to weight loss research. Transl Behav Med 4:26–274. PMCID: PMC4167891
Begg CB (2000) Commentary: ruminations on the intent-to-treat principle. Control Clin Trials 21:241–243
Belitskaya-Levy I, Shao Y, Goldberg JD (2008) Systematic missing-at-random (SMAR) design and analysis for translational research studies. Int J Biostat 4(1):Article 15. https://doi.org/10.2202/1557-4679.1046. PubMed PMID: 20231908; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2835456
Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, Hsu C-H (2014) Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:118
Berk PD, Goldberg JD, Silverstein MN et al (1981) Increased incidence of acute leukemia in polycythemia vera associated with chlorambucil therapy. NEJM 304:441–447
Berk PD, Wasserman LR, Fruchtman SM, Goldberg JD (1995) Treatment of polycythemia vera; a summary of clinical trials conducted by the polycythemia vera study group. In: Wasserman LR, Berk PD (eds) Polycythemia vera and the myeloproliferative disorders. Chapter 15. N. Saunders, Berlin, pp 166–194
Brownlee KA (1955) Statistics of the 1954 polio vaccine trials. J Am Stat Assoc 50(272):1005–1013
DeMets DL (2004) Statistical issues in interpreting clinical trials. J Intern Med 255:529–537
Ellenberg J (1996) Intent-to-treat analysis vs as-treated analysis. Drug Inf J 30:535–544
Ellenberg J (2005) Intention to treat analysis: basic. Encyclopedia of biostatistics. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd
Fink R, Shapiro S, Lewison J (1968) The reluctant participant in a breast cancer screening program. Public Health Rep 83(6):479–490
Fragakis CE, Rubin DB (2002) Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 58:21–29
Francis T Jr et al (1955) An evaluation of the 1954 poliomyelitis vaccine trials – summary report. Am J Public Health 45(5):1–63
Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL (1998) Fundamentals of clinical trials, 3rd edn. Springer, New Year
Goetghebuer E, Loeys T (2002) Beyond intention to treat. Epidemiol Rev 24:85–90
Goldberg JD (1975) The effects of misclassification on the bias in the difference between two proportions and the relative odds in the fourfold table. J Am Stat Assoc 70:561–567
Goldberg JD (2006) The changing role of statistics in medical research: experiences from the past and directions for the future. Invited paper, Proc Amer Stat Assoc. 1963–1969
Goldberg JD, Belitskaya-Levy I (2008a) In: Melnick E, Everitt BS (eds) Intent-to-treat principle. Encyclopedia of quantitative risk assessment. Wiley, Chichester
Goldberg JD, Belitskaya-Levy I (2008b) In: Melnick E, Everitt BS (eds) Randomized controlled trials. Encyclopedia of quantitative risk assessment. Wiley, Chichester
Goldberg JD, Belitskaya-Levy I (2008c) In: Melnick E, Everitt BS (eds) Efficacy. Encyclopedia of quantitative risk assessment. Wiley, Chichester
Goldberg JD, Koury KJ (1989) In: Berry DA (ed) Design and analysis of multicenter trials. Chapter 7 in statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 201–237
Goldberg JD, Shao YS (2008) In: Melnick E, Everitt BS (eds) Comparative efficacy trials (phase III studies). Encyclopedia of quantitative risk assessment. Wiley, Chichester
Harrington DB (2000) The randomized clinical trial. J Am Stat Assoc 95:312–315
Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C (2004) Tutorial in biostatistics: handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23:1455–1497
ICH (1998) E9: guideline on statistical principles for clinical trials. www.ich.org
ICH (2017) E9 R1: Addendum on estimands and sensitivity analyses in clinical trials. Step 2. www.ich.org
Kim MY, Goldberg JD (2001) The effects of outcome misclassification and measurement error on the design and analysis of therapeutic equivalence trials. Stat Med 20(14):2065–2078. PubMed PMID: 1143942
Lachin JM (2000) Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Control Clin Trials 21:167–189
Little R, Kang S (2015) Intention-to-treat analysis with treatment discontinuation and missing data in clinical trials. Stat Med 34:2381–2390
Little RJA, Rubin DB (2000) Casual effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: concepts and analytical approaches. Annu Rev Public Health 21:121–145
Little RJA, Long Q, Lin X (2009) A comparison of methods for estimating the causal effects of a treatment in randomized clinical trials subject to noncompliance. Biometrics 65:640–649
Mascarenhas J et al (2018) Results of the myeloproliferative neoplasms – research consortium (MPN-RC) 112 randomized trial of pegylated interferon alfa-2a (PEG) versus hydroxyurea (HU) therapy for the treatment of high risk polycythemia vera (PV) and high risk essential thrombocythemia (ET). Blood 132:577. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2018-99-111946
Meier P (1957) Safety testing of poliomyelitis vaccine. Science 125:1067–1071. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.125.3257
Meier P (1989) The biggest public health experiment ever: the 1954 field trial of the Salk poliomyelitis vaccine. In: Tanur JM, Mosteller F, Kruskal WH, Lehmann EL, Link RF, Pieters RS, Rising GR (eds) Statistics: a guide to the unknown, 3rd edn. Duxbury
National Research Council (2010) The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Piantadosi S (1997) Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective. Wiley-Interscience, New York
Royes J, Sims J, Ogollah R, Lewis M (2015) A systematic review finds variable use of the intention-to-treat principle in musculoskeletal randomized controlled trials with missing data. J Clin Epidemiol 68:15–24
Sanchez MM, Chen X (2006) Choosing the analysis population in non-inferiority studies. Stat Med 25:1169–1181
Shaffer M, Chinchilli V (2004) Bayesian inferences for randomized clinical trials with treatment failures. Stat Med 23:1215–1228
Shapiro S, Goldberg JD, Hutchison GB (1974) Lead time in breast cancer detection and implications for periodicity of screening. Am J Epidemiol 100(5):357–366. PubMed PMID: 4417355
Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L (1988) Periodic screening for breast cancer: the health insurance plan project and its sequelae, 1963–1986. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore
Stuart EA, Perry DF, Le H-N, Ialongo NS (2008) Estimating intervention effects of prevention programs: accounting for noncompliance. Prev Sci 9:288–298
Thabane L, Mbuagbaw L, Zhang S, Samaan Z, Marcucci M, Ye C, Thabane M, Giangregorio L, Dennis B, Kosa D, Debana VB, Dillenburg R, Fruci V, Bawor M, Lee J, Wells G, Goldsmith CH (2013) A tutorial on sensitivity analyses in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how. BMC Med Res Methodol 13:92. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/13/92. Accessed 28 Apr 2018
US FDA (2016) Non-inferiority clinical trials to establish effectiveness: guidance for industry. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM202140
Van der Laan MJ, Petersen ML (2007) Causal effect models for realistic individualized treatment and intention to treat rules. Int J Biostat 3(1):Article 3. http://www.bepress.com/ijb/vol3/iss1/3
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Goldberg, J.D. (2022). Intention to Treat and Alternative Approaches. In: Piantadosi, S., Meinert, C.L. (eds) Principles and Practice of Clinical Trials. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52636-2_113
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52636-2_113
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52635-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52636-2
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsReference Module Computer Science and Engineering