Why ITT analysis is not always the answer for estimating treatment effects in clinical trials

Abstract

For many years there has been a consensus among the Clinical Research community that ITT analysis represents the correct approach for the vast majority of trials. Recent worldwide regulatory guidance for pharmaceutical industry trials has allowed discussion of alternatives to the ITT approach to analysis; different treatment effects can be considered which may be more clinically meaningful and more relevant to patients and prescribers. The key concept is of a trial “estimand”, a precise description of the estimated treatment effect. The strategy chosen to account for patients who discontinue treatment or take alternative medications which are not part of the randomised treatment regimen are important determinants of this treatment effect. One strategy to account for these events is treatment policy, which corresponds to an ITT approach. Alternative equally valid strategies address what the treatment effect is if the patient actually takes the treatment or does not use specific alternative medication. There is no single right answer to which strategy is most appropriate, the solution depends on the key clinical question of interest. The estimands framework discussed in the new guidance has been particularly useful in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic and has clarified what choices are available to account for the impact of COVID-19 on clinical trials. Specifically, an ITT approach addresses a treatment effect that may not be generalisable beyond the current pandemic.

The therapeutic effect of Taijiquan combined with acupoint pressing on the treatment of anxiety insomnia in college students: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

“…Studies have shown that practicing Taijiquan and acupoint pressing can reduce the symptoms of anxiety insomnia to some extent, but the effectiveness of the combination of Taijiquan and acupoint pressing in the treatment of anxiety insomnia is not clear ( 27 , 28 ). This experiment will be conducted in multiple centers, using a randomized controlled trial to blind the trial evaluators and data statistical analysts to evaluate the effectiveness of Taijiquan combined with acupoint pressing in the treatment of anxiety insomnia in college students.…”

Marking 2-Years of New Thinking in Clinical Trials: The Estimand Journey

“…The addendum provided the framework and gave the freedom to choose different estimands for a clinical trial, provided that the rationale for the choice was appropriate. Taking this to its logical conclusion, Keene et al [ 4 ] subsequently argued that intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses would not always be the answer for estimating treatment effects in clinical trials. The estimand framework provided an excellent basis for comparison of the objectives, estimands and analyses used in different clinical studies.…”

“…ICH E9 (R1) introduces the ‘estimand framework’ for clinical trials, which aims to ensure clarity in the description of treatment effects. Many authors have since described the concepts, such as Ratitch et al [ 2 , 3 ],Keene et al [ 4 ] and Clark et al [ 5 ], who provide tutorial-like descriptions of the new framework together with case study examples.…”

Evaluating how clear the questions being investigated in randomised trials are: systematic review of estimands

“…However, informed decision making requires an understanding of the precise question being investigated in a trial, because different questions can lead to different conclusions about the usefulness of an intervention. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 For example, a trial in type 2 diabetes 10 compared a once weekly insulin regimen with a once daily regimen on the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin, and asked two different questions. Firstly, what was the treatment effect if all participants had hypothetically adhered to the treatment regimens and not received ancillary treatment (hypothetical effect); and secondly, what was the treatment effect regardless of the amount of randomised treatment or ancillary treatment received (treatment policy effect).…”

“…The results of randomised controlled trials are used in policy making and clinical practise to make decisions about which medical interventions to use. However, informed decision making requires an understanding of the precise question being investigated in a trial, because different questions can lead to different conclusions about the usefulness of an intervention 123456789. For example, a trial in type 2 diabetes10 compared a once weekly insulin regimen with a once daily regimen on the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin, and asked two different questions.…”