Abstract

While the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis is widely accepted for superiority trials, there remains debate about its role in non-inferiority trials. It is often said that the ITT tends to be anti-conservative in the demonstration of non-inferiority. This concern has led to some reliance on per-protocol (PP) analyses that exclude patients on the basis of post-baseline events, despite the inherent bias of such analyses. We compare ITT and PP results from antibiotic trials presented to the public at the FDA's Anti-infective Drug Advisory Committee from 1999 to 2003. While the number of available trials is too small to produce clear conclusions, these data did not support the assumption that the ITT would lead to smaller treatment difference than the PP, in the setting of antibiotic trials. Possible explanations are discussed.

Keywords

Protocol (science)AntibioticsMedicineStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsAlternative medicineBiologyPathology

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Publication Info

Year
2004
Type
article
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
1-10
Citations
86
Access
Closed

External Links

View on DOI.org

Social Impact

Altmetric
PlumX Metrics

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

86
OpenAlex

Cite This

Erica Brittain, Daphne Lin (2004). A comparison of intent-to-treat and per-protocol results in antibiotic non-inferiority trials. Statistics in Medicine , 24 (1) , 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1934

Identifiers

DOI
10.1002/sim.1934