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.

Methods matter: instrumental variable analysis may be a complementary approach to intention-to-treat analysis and as treated analysis when analysing data from sports injury trials

Understanding the Intention-to-treat Principle in Randomized Controlled Trials

INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS IN CLINICAL RESEARCH: BASIC CONCEPTS FOR CLINICIANS

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

A practical illustration of the importance of realistic individualized treatment rules in causal inference

The influence of methodological issues on the results and conclusions from epidemiological studies of sports injuries: illustrative examples

The importance of individual beliefs in assessing treatment efficacy

Effect of an Unsupervised Exercises-Based Athletics Injury Prevention Programme on Injury Complaints Leading to Participation Restriction in Athletics: A Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial

Applying the estimands framework to non-inferiority trials: guidance on choice of hypothetical estimands for non-adherence and comparison of estimation methods

Evaluating the impact of injury prevention interventions in child and adolescent sports using the RE-AIM framework and CERT: A systematic review

Instrumental variable analysis with categorical treatment

Instrumental variable approaches for estimating complier average causal effects on bivariate outcomes in randomised trials with non-compliance

Time-to-event analysis for sports injury research part 2: time-varying outcomes

Exploring Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials When Some of the Patients are Treated against the Randomization

Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study

Series 2-19-2009 Multiple Imputation Methods for Treatment Noncompliance and Nonresponse in Randomized Clinical Trials

Assessing efficacy in non‐inferiority trials with non‐adherence to interventions: Are intention‐to‐treat and per‐protocol analyses fit for purpose?

The Dose-Response Relationship of an Exercise-Based Injury Prevention Program: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial on Athletics (Track-and-Field) Athletes Over a 39-Week Follow-Up

Using randomized controlled trials in the sports medicine and performance environment: is it time to reconsider and think outside the methodological box?

Triangulating Instrumental Variable, confounder adjustment and Difference-in-Difference methods for comparative effectiveness research in observational data