Please confirm topic selection

Are you sure you want to trigger topic in your Anconeus AI algorithm?

Please confirm action

You are done for today with this topic.

Would you like to start learning session with this topic items scheduled for future?

Review Question - QID 102597

In scope icon M 1 E
QID 102597 (Type "102597" in App Search)
A pharmaceutical company conducts a randomized clinical trial in an attempt to show that their new anticoagulant drug, Aclotsaban, prevents more thrombotic events following total knee arthroplasty than the current standard of care. However, a significant number of patients are lost to follow-up or fail to complete treatment according to the study arm to which they were assigned. Despite this, the results for the patients who completed the course of Aclotsaban are encouraging. Which of the following techniques is most appropriate to use in order to attempt to prove the superiority of Aclotsaban?

Per-protocol analysis

4%

3/82

Intention-to-treat analysis

18%

15/82

As-treated analysis

26%

21/82

Sub-group analysis

18%

15/82

Non-inferiority analysis

4%

3/82

Select Answer to see Preferred Response

bookmode logo Review TC In New Tab

Intention-to-treat analysis is used to help preserve the benefits of randomization in superiority trials.

In an ideal setting, all subjects enrolled in a research trial would complete the trial exactly as prescribed in the protocol. However, this ideal is rarely achieved, and thus trial design and data analysis must account for incomplete adherence and follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis, in which subject results are analyzed according to the group that they were initially assigned to (not according to adherence) is one technique used to analyze outcome data and preserve randomization. In contrast, per-protocol analysis analyzes data based on actual adherence to the protocol.

The American Academy of Family Physicians discussed the strength of recommendation taxonomy in the assessment of medical literature. For trials seeking to demonstrate the superiority of an intervention, results should be analyzed using an intention-to-treat analysis. Because participants may drop out because of adverse effects or may need to modify their treatment course for other unknown reasons, intention-to-treat analysis helps to maintain randomization and gives conservative results in superiority trials. Whenever possible, the highest standard for evidence of superiority should be a randomized controlled trial, with blinding and intention-to-treat analysis.

Lewis discusses the E9 statistical principles for research trials. Intention-to-treat analysis maintains that all randomized subjects should be analyzed at the end of the trial. Ideal intention-to-treat analysis requires complete follow-up, which is unrealistic in most clinical trials. In non-inferiority trials, as opposed to superiority trials, intention-to-treat analysis is generally not conservative, and may not be the best choice for analysis.

Incorrect Answers:
Answer 1: Per-protocol analysis may overestimate the benefits in superiority trials, as patients that complete the protocol may be more likely to adhere because they are getting good results.
Answer 3: As-treated analysis is similar to per-protocol analysis in that it may overestimate benefits in superiority trials.
Answer 4: Sub-group analysis does not help to preserve the benefits of randomization.
Answer 5: The trial in the stem was designed to show superiority, not to show non-inferiority.

REFERENCES (2)
Authors
Rating
Please Rate Question Quality

4.8

  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon

(5)

Attach Treatment Poll
Treatment poll is required to gain more useful feedback from members.
Please enter Question Text
Please enter at least 2 unique options
Please enter at least 2 unique options
Please enter at least 2 unique options