Intention-to-treat analysis may be more conservative than per protocol analysis in antibiotic non-inferiority trials: a systematic review

Abstract

Background In non-inferiority trials, there is a concern that intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, by including participants who did not receive the planned interventions, may bias towards making the treatment and control arms look similar and lead to mistaken claims of non-inferiority. In contrast, per protocol (PP) analysis is viewed as less likely to make this mistake and therefore preferable in non-inferiority trials. In a systematic review of antibiotic non-inferiority trials, we compared ITT and PP analyses to determine which analysis was more conservative. Methods In a secondary analysis of a systematic review, we included non-inferiority trials that compared different antibiotic regimens, used absolute risk reduction (ARR) as the main outcome and reported both ITT and PP analyses. All estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) were oriented so that a negative ARR favored the control arm, and a positive ARR favored the treatment arm. We compared ITT to PP analyses results. The more conservative analysis between ITT and PP analyses was defined as the one having a more negative lower CI limit. Results The analysis included 164 comparisons from 154 studies. In terms of the ARR, ITT analysis yielded the more conservative point estimate and lower CI limit in 83 (50.6%) and 92 (56.1%) comparisons respectively. The lower CI limits in ITT analysis favored the control arm more than in PP analysis (median of − 7.5% vs. -6.9%, p = 0.0402). CIs were slightly wider in ITT analyses than in PP analyses (median of 13.3% vs. 12.4%, p < 0.0001). The median success rate was 89% (interquartile range IQR 82 to 93%) in the PP population and 44% (IQR 23 to 60%) in the patients who were included in the ITT population but excluded from the PP population (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Contrary to common belief, ITT analysis was more conservative than PP analysis in the majority of antibiotic non-inferiority trials. The lower treatment success rate in the ITT analysis led to a larger variance and wider CI, resulting in a more conservative lower CI limit. ITT analysis should be mandatory and considered as either the primary or co-primary analysis for non-inferiority trials. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42020165040.

Effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma in China: A propensity score-matched analysis

“…Our study enrolled more histologic subtypes (including ALK+ALCL, Enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), and others); the differences between the study populations in the two studies may be one of the reasons for the contrary results. In addition, the performance of the intention-to-treat approach in this study may have led to more conservative estimates ( 32 ).…”

Telemonitoring for perioperative care of outpatient bariatric surgery: Preference-based randomized clinical trial

“…The calculated non-inferiority margin for the relative risk (RR) difference from the assumed number of events was 2.75 (4%+7%)/4% ([expected event rate control group + non-inferiority margin] / expected event rate) [ 24 ]. All endpoint analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle [ 25 ]. In addition, a per protocol (PP) analysis was performed for the primary outcome.…”

Current Technology Developments Can Improve the Quality of Research and Level of Evidence for Rehabilitation Interventions: A Narrative Review

“…It has, for example, been clearly shown that a lack of statistical power is one of the main limitations of current research in neuroscience [ 24 ], but the situation is exactly the same in the field of rehabilitation [ 25 ]. In addition to the small number of subjects included in the studies, intention to treat analysis is not always straightforward in rehabilitation (e.g., loss in follow-up, change of rehabilitation strategies according to the evolution of the patients through the rehabilitation process and its specific needs) [ 26 ]. This point may weaken the power of individual studies and RCTs.…”