Abstract:Clinical Trials, Ahead of Print. Background:A common intercurrent event affecting many trials is when some participants do not begin their assigned treatment. For example, in a double-blind drug trial, some participants may not receive any dose of study medication. Many trials use a 'modified intention-to-treat' approach, whereby participants who do not initiate treatment are excluded from the analysis. However, it is not clear (a) the estimand being targeted by such an approach and (b) the assumptions necessary for such an approach to be unbiased.Methods:Using potential outcome notation, we demonstrate that a modified intention-to-treat analysis which excludes participants who do not begin treatment is estimating a principal stratum estimand (i.e. the treatment effect in the subpopulation of participants who would begin treatment, regardless of which arm they were assigned to). The modified intention-to-treat estimator is unbiased for the principal stratum estimand under the assumption that the intercurrent event is not affected by the assigned treatment arm, that is, participants who initiate treatment in one arm would also do so in the other arm (i.e. if someone began the intervention, they would also have begun the control, and vice versa).Results:We identify two key criteria in determining whether the modified intention-to-treat estimator is likely to be unbiased: first, we must be able to measure the participants in each treatment arm who experience the intercurrent event, and second, the assumption that treatment allocation will not affect whether the participant begins treatment must be reasonable. Most double-blind trials will satisfy these criteria, as the decision to start treatment cannot be influenced by the allocation, and we provide an example of an open-label trial where these criteria are likely to be satisfied as well, implying that a modified intention-to-treat analysis which excludes participants who do not begin treatment is an unbiased estimator for the principal stratum effect in these settings. We also give two examples where these criteria will not be satisfied (one comparing an active intervention vs usual care, where we cannot identify which usual care participants would have initiated the active intervention, and another comparing two active interventions in an unblinded manner, where knowledge of the assigned treatment arm may affect the participant's choice to begin or not), implying that a modified intention-to-treat estimator will be biased in these settings.Conclusion:A modified intention-to-treat analysis which excludes participants who do not begin treatment can be an unbiased estimator for the principal stratum estimand. Our framework can help identify when the assumptions for unbiasedness are likely to hold, and thus whether modified intention-to-treat is appropriate or not.

Evaluation of Treatment Effect Modification by Biomarkers Measured Pre- and Post-randomization in the Presence of Non-monotone Missingness

Post-randomization Biomarker Effect Modification in an HIV Vaccine Clinical Trial

Estimating the treatment effect in a subgroup defined by an early post-baseline biomarker measurement in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event endpoint

Weighted Approach for Estimating Effects in Principal Strata with Missing Data for a Categorical Post-Baseline Variable in Randomized Controlled Trials

Vaccine efficacy for binary post-infection outcomes under misclassification without monotonicity

Two-Stage Marker-Stratified Clinical Trial Design in the Presence of Biomarker Misclassification

Hybrid Design Evaluating New Biomarkers when There is an Existing Screening Test

A novel approach for biomarker selection and the integration of repeated measures experiments from two assays

Bayesian Solutions for Assessing Differential Effects in Biomarker Positive and Negative Subgroups

Power/sample size calculations for assessing correlates of risk in clinical efficacy trials

Methods for the estimation of direct and indirect vaccination effects by combining data from individual‐ and cluster‐randomized trials

Improving precision of vaccine efficacy evaluation using immune correlate data in time-to-event models

Incorporating Auxiliary Variables to Improve the Efficiency of Time-Varying Treatment Effect Estimation

Efficient nonparametric inference on the effects of stochastic interventions under two-phase sampling, with applications to vaccine efficacy trials

Bayesian inference for a principal stratum estimand to assess the treatment effect in a subgroup characterized by post-randomization events

Bayesian meta-analysis for evaluating treatment effectiveness in biomarker subgroups using trials of mixed patient populations

Testing for a treatment effect in a selected subgroup

Two-Stage Adaptive Enrichment Designs with Survival Outcomes and Adjustment for Misclassification in Predictive Biomarkers

Using modified intention-to-treat as a principal stratum estimator for failure to initiate treatment

Statistical Methods for Selective Biomarker Testing

A Discriminant Function Approach to Adjust for Processing and Measurement Error When a Biomarker is Assayed in Pooled Samples