The intention-to-treat (ITT) principle has become an important component for a fair comparison of two or more treatments. Deviations from the principle are frequently found, because in practice the ideal of perfect protocol adherence and complete follow-up is difficult to achieve. The question of whether an exclusion of patients from the statistical analysis compromises the ITT principle must be oriented at the preservation of (1) the comparability initially achieved by randomization, (2) the appropriateness of the answer to the underlying clinical question, and (3) the need for an unbiased estimate of the treatment effect. While some situations in which the exclusion of patients will usually not impair the comparability can be specified, there are only few exceptions in which the deviation from the principle does not lead to an inadequate answer to the clinical question. Equivalence and noninferiority studies, safety analyses, and special trial designs require specific considerations.
HillBradford A.Principles of Medical Statistics.7th edition.London: The Lancet; 1961:259.
2.
Anturane Preinfarction Trial Research Group.Sulfinpyrazone in the prevention of sudden death after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med.1980;302:884–893.
3.
TempleRPledgerGWThe FDA's critique of the Anturane Reinfarction trial. N Engl J Med.1980;303:1488–1492.
4.
GentMSackettDLThe qualification and disqualification of patients and events in long-term cardiovascular clinical trials. Thromb Haemost.1979;41:123–134.
5.
SackettDLGentM.Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med.1979;301:1410–1412.
6.
De MetsDFriedmanLFurbergCDCounting events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med.1980;302:924.
7.
GailMHEligibility exclusions, losses to follow up, removal of randomized patients, and uncounted events in cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep.1985;69:1107–1112.
8.
FisherLDDixonDOHersonJFrankowskiRKHearronMSPeaceKEIntention to treat in clinical practice. In: PeaceKE, ed. Statistical Issues in Drug Research and Development.New York: Marcel Dekker; 1990:331–350.
9.
GillingsDKochG.The application of the principle of intention-to-treat to the analysis of clinical trials. Drug Inf J.1991;25:411–424.
10.
NewellDJIntention-to-treat analysis: Implications for quantitative and qualitative research. Int J Epidemiol.1992;21:837–841.
11.
LewisJAMachinD.Intention to treat—who should use ITT?Br J Cancer.1993;68:647–650.
12.
EllenbergJHIntent-to-treat analysis versus as-treated analysis. Drug Inf J.1996;30:535–544.
13.
CPMP Working Party on Efficacy of Medicinal Products.Note for guidance III/3630/92-EN: Biostatistical Methodology in clinical trials in applications for marketing authorizations for medicinal products. Stat Med.1995;14:1659–1682.
14.
International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use.ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline E9. Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. http://www.ifpma.org/pdfifprna/e9.pdf (10/17/00).
15.
Armitage P.Exclusions, losses to follow-up, and withdrawals in clinical trials. In: ShapiroSHLouisTA, ed. Clinical Trials: Issues and Approaches.New York: Marcel Dekker; 1983:99–113.
16.
SchwartzDLellouchJ.Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chron Dis.1967;20:637–648.
17.
PetoRPikeMCArmitagePBreslowNECoxDRHowardSVMantelNMcPhersonKPetoJSmithPGDesign and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design. Br J Cancer.1976;34:585–612.
18.
SennS.Statistical Issues in Drug Development.1st edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1997:157.
19.
McCormackWMMartinDHHookEWJonesRBDaily oral grepafloxacin vs. twice daily oral doxycycline in the treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis endocervical infection. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol.1998;6:109–115.
20.
De AbateCAHenryDBenschGJubranAChodoshSHarperLTippingDTalbotGHSparfloxacin vs ofloxacin in the treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparative study. Sparfloxacin Multicenter ABECB Study Group. Chest.1998;114:120–130.
21.
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP).Note for guidance on evaluation of new anti-bacterial medicinal products (CPMP/EWP/558/95). http://www.eudra.org/humandocs/PDFs/EWP/055895en.pdf (10/17/00).
22.
SvenssonK.How many populations must be analyzed and how should they be defined (intention-to-treat, eligible, per protocol population, etc.)?Drug Inf J.1995;29:475–477.
23.
TreasureTMacRaeKDMinimisation: The platinum standard for trials? Randomisation doesn't guarantee similarity of groups; minimisation does. Br Med J.1998;317:362–363.
24.
SchnitzerTBoneHGCrepaldiGAdamiSMcClungMKielDFelsenbergDReckerRRToninoRPRouxCPincheraAFoldesAJGreenspanSLLevineMAEmkeyRSantoraACKaurAThompsonDEYatesJOrloffJJTherapeutic equivalence of alendronate 70 mg once-weekly and alendronate 10 mg daily in the treatment of osteoporosis. Alendronate Once-Weekly Study Group. Aging.2000;12:1–12.
25.
HerrmannGSteegerDKlasserMWirbitzkyJFurstMVenbrocksRRohdeHJungmichelDHildebrandtHDParnhamMJGimbelWDirschedlH.Oxaceprol is a well-tolerated therapy for osteoarthritis with efficacy equivalent to diclofenac. Clin Rheumatol.2000;19:99–104.
26.
BlackwelderWC‘Proving the Null Hypothesis’ in Clinical Trials. Control Clin Trials.1982;3:345–353.
