Thomas R. Fleming, PhD
Acknowledgment: The author thanks Williamson Bradford and Steven Porter for their supportive role in dissemination of scientifically reliable insights about clinical trials evaluating Actimmune in IPF.
Grant Support: By the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R37 AI 29168).
Potential Conflicts of Interest: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M10-1264.
Requests for Single Reprints: Thomas R. Fleming, PhD, Department of Biostatistics, Box 357232, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-7232; e-mail, email@example.com.
Fleming T.; Clinical Trials: Discerning Hype From Substance. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:400-406. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-6-201009210-00008
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(6):400-406.
This article has been corrected. For original version, click â€œOriginal Version (PDF)â€ in column 2.
The interest in being able to interpret and report results in clinical trials as being favorable is pervasive throughout health care research. This important source of bias needs to be recognized, and approaches need to be implemented to effectively address it. The prespecified primary analyses of the primary and secondary end points of a clinical trial should be clearly specified when disseminating results in press releases and journal publications. There should be a focus on these analyses when interpreting the results. A substantial risk for biased conclusions is produced by conducting exploratory analyses with an intention to establish that the benefit-to-risk profile of the experimental intervention is favorable, rather than to determine whether it is. In exploratory analyses, P values will be misleading when the actual sampling context is not presented to allow for proper interpretation, and the effect sizes of outcomes having particularly favorable estimates are probably overestimated because of â€œrandom highâ€ bias. Performing exploratory analyses should be viewed as generating hypotheses that usually require reassessment in prospectively conducted confirmatory trials. Awareness of these issues will meaningfully improve our ability to be guided by substance, not hype, in making evidence-based decisions about medical care.
Chakrapani Prakash, MD FACP
Community Medical Center, Toms River, NJ
September 22, 2010
Is it time to say goodbye to ' Intent to Treat' analysis?
Controlled double blind trials involving two or three different arms in chronic conditions like inflammatory bowel disease or hepatitis C, are notoriously prolonged, sometimes lasting close to 96 weeks, with end points being clinical improvement or viral suppression with no absolute cure.
Drop out rates are high and fewer than 60% complete the trial as designed. For example in the SONIC trial comparing Infliximab, Infliximab with Azathioprine and Azathioprine with placebo, had a high rate of drop out in the Azathioprine arm [ 84 out of 170 dropped out]. Since the study was designed to include 'intent to treat patients', the denominator 'N' remained the same in all three arms, but patients who completed the trial were disproportionally high in the other two arms (1).
Similarly, in the IDEAL study using PEG Interferon Alfa-2b or 2a with Ribavarin for the treatment of Hepatitis C infection, the dropout rate was even higher, 1416 out of 3070 did not complete the protocol for various reasons (2).
As a clinician, I am more interested in patients who complete the study to compare the responses to treatment. I would also like to know the reasons why patients dropped out, not necessarily include them in the final analysis except for mortality rate and medication side-effects. When everyone is looking for a p values of < 0.05, the clinician is anxious to know whether the results were drawn from patients who completed the trial.
Statistically, it may make sense to include all the dropouts, but doesn't make a whole lot of sense to the clinician.
Time to dump 'intent to treat' analysis and come up with an alternative [ statiticians can be of help here], which will make sense to the practicing doctor.
Chakrapani Prakash, MD, FACP
1. SONIC study group: Infliximab, Azathioprine or combination therapy for Crohn's disease NEJM 2010; 362:1383-1395, April 15, 2010
2. IDEAL Study group: PEG Interferon Alfa-2a or Alfa 2a with Ribavarin for treatment of Hepatitis C NEJM 2009; 361:580-593, August 6, 2010
to gain full access to the content and tools.
Learn more about subscription options.
Register Now for a free account.
Hematology/Oncology, Pulmonary/Critical Care, Healthcare Delivery and Policy, Interstitial Lung Disease, Prevention/Screening.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2016 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only