Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Intention-to-treat and transparency of related practices in randomized, controlled trials of anti-infectives

Authors: Robert D. Beckett, Kathryn C. Loeser, Kathryn R. Bowman, Trent G. Towne

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis is commonly recommended for use, due to its benefits on external validity, in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). No published reports describe how ITT analysis, as well as alternative approaches, are used in anti-infective RCTs. The purpose of this study is to describe the extent to which ITT analysis and alternative data approaches are used, the practices used to handle missing subject data, and whether non-inferiority trials present both ITT and per protocol (PP) analyses. Results of this analysis will help guide end users of infectious diseases primary drug literature.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of RCTs of anti-infectives published from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014 was conducted. A PubMed search identified relevant articles published in five specialty infectious diseases journals and four general medical journals. Each article was reviewed by two independent investigators with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify results.

Results

One hundred four articles met study criteria. The most common medication classes represented in the RCTs were hepatitis C antivirals (26 %), antibacterials (25 %), and antiretrovirals (21 %). Thirty studies (29 %) were non-inferiority trials. Most studies (77 %) described use of ITT or modified ITT (mITT) in their methods. Of the ITT and mITT studies, most (73 %) did not describe practices used to handle missing data. Most (97 %) non-inferiority trials described use of ITT, mITT, or both; however, only 15 (50 %) also described use of PP.

Conclusions

RCTs of anti-infectives commonly employ ITT and mITT. Most do not describe how missing data were addressed. Non-inferiority trials of anti-infectives do not consistently employ both ITT and PP populations.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epi. 2010;63:e1–37.CrossRef Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epi. 2010;63:e1–37.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Walters RW. The Application of Statistical Analysis in the Biomedical Sciences. In: Malone PM, Kier KL, Stanovich JE, Malone MJ, editors. Drug Information: A Guide for Pharmacists. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2013. p. 351–458. Walters RW. The Application of Statistical Analysis in the Biomedical Sciences. In: Malone PM, Kier KL, Stanovich JE, Malone MJ, editors. Drug Information: A Guide for Pharmacists. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2013. p. 351–458.
4.
5.
go back to reference Kruse RL, Alper BS, Reust C, Stevermer JJ, Shannon S, Williams RH. Intention-to-treat analysis: who is in? who is out? J Fam Pract. 2002;51:969–71.PubMed Kruse RL, Alper BS, Reust C, Stevermer JJ, Shannon S, Williams RH. Intention-to-treat analysis: who is in? who is out? J Fam Pract. 2002;51:969–71.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Joseph R, Sim J, Ogollah R, Lewis M. A systematic review finds variable use of the intention-to-treat principle in musculoskeletal randomized controlled trials with missing data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:15–24.CrossRefPubMed Joseph R, Sim J, Ogollah R, Lewis M. A systematic review finds variable use of the intention-to-treat principle in musculoskeletal randomized controlled trials with missing data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:15–24.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SW, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement. JAMA. 2012;308:2594–604.CrossRefPubMed Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SW, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement. JAMA. 2012;308:2594–604.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Achar P, Mitra I, Duvvi S, Kumar BN. Intention to treat analysis: how frequently is it used in ENT randomised controlled trials? Clin Otolaryngol. 2010;35:61–7.CrossRef Achar P, Mitra I, Duvvi S, Kumar BN. Intention to treat analysis: how frequently is it used in ENT randomised controlled trials? Clin Otolaryngol. 2010;35:61–7.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22:276–82.CrossRef McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22:276–82.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Abraha I, Montedori A. Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. Br Med J. 2010;340:c2697–704.CrossRef Abraha I, Montedori A. Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. Br Med J. 2010;340:c2697–704.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Alshuraha M, Briel M, Akl EA, et al. Inconsistent definitions for intention-to-treat in relation to missing outcome data: systematic review of the methods literature. Plos One. 2012;7:e49163.CrossRef Alshuraha M, Briel M, Akl EA, et al. Inconsistent definitions for intention-to-treat in relation to missing outcome data: systematic review of the methods literature. Plos One. 2012;7:e49163.CrossRef
18.
19.
go back to reference Dasgupta A, Lawson KA, Wilson JP. Evaluating equivalence and noninferiority trials. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2010;67:1337–43.CrossRefPubMed Dasgupta A, Lawson KA, Wilson JP. Evaluating equivalence and noninferiority trials. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2010;67:1337–43.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Kaul S, Diamond GA. Good enough: a primer on the analysis and interpretation of noninferiority trials. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:62–9.CrossRefPubMed Kaul S, Diamond GA. Good enough: a primer on the analysis and interpretation of noninferiority trials. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:62–9.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Porta N, Bonet C, Cobo E. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:663–9.CrossRefPubMed Porta N, Bonet C, Cobo E. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:663–9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Gopal AD, Desai NR, Tse T, Ross JS. Reporting of noninferiority trials in clinicaltrials.gov and corresponding publications. JAMA. 2015;313:1163–5. Letter.CrossRefPubMed Gopal AD, Desai NR, Tse T, Ross JS. Reporting of noninferiority trials in clinicaltrials.gov and corresponding publications. JAMA. 2015;313:1163–5. Letter.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Intention-to-treat and transparency of related practices in randomized, controlled trials of anti-infectives
Authors
Robert D. Beckett
Kathryn C. Loeser
Kathryn R. Bowman
Trent G. Towne
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0215-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2016 Go to the issue