Randomized trials can take more explanatory or more pragmatic approaches. Pragmatic studies, conducted closer to real-world conditions, assess treatment effectiveness while considering factors like protocol adherence. In these studies, intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis is fundamental, comparing outcomes regardless of the actual treatment received. Explanatory trials, conducted closer to optimal conditions, evaluate treatment efficacy, commonly with a per protocol (PP) analysis, which includes only outcomes from adherent participants. ITT and PP are strategies used in the conception, design, conduct (protocol execution), analysis, and interpretation of trials. Each serves distinct objectives. While both can be valid, when bias is controlled, and complementary, each has its own limitations. By excluding nonadherent participants, PP analyses can lose the benefits of randomization, resulting in group differences in factors (influencing adherence and outcomes) that were present at baseline. Additionally, clinical and social factors affecting adherence can also operate during follow-up, that is, after randomization. Therefore, incomplete adherence may introduce postrandomization confounding. Conversely, ITT analysis, including all participants regardless of adherence, may dilute treatment effects. Moreover, varying adherence levels could limit the applicability of ITT findings in settings with diverse adherence patterns. Both ITT and PP analyses can be affected by selection bias due to differential losses and nonresponse (ie, missing data) during follow-up. Combining high-quality and comprehensive data with advanced statistical methods, known as g-methods, like inverse probability weighting, may help address postrandomization confounding in PP analysis as well as selection bias in both ITT and PP analyses.
Keywords: Bias; Confounding; Explanatory, pragmatic; Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; Methodology, Clinical research; Modern epidemiology; Observational studies; Per protocol (PP) analysis; Randomized trials.
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Dodd M, Carpenter J, Thompson JA, Williamson E, Fielding K, Elbourne D. Dodd M, et al. Stat Med. 2024 May 30;43(12):2314-2331. doi: 10.1002/sim.10067. Epub 2024 Apr 1. Stat Med. 2024. PMID: 38561927
Crider K, Williams J, Qi YP, Gutman J, Yeung L, Mai C, Finkelstain J, Mehta S, Pons-Duran C, Menéndez C, Moraleda C, Rogers L, Daniels K, Green P. Crider K, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
Bai AD, Komorowski AS, Lo CKL, Tandon P, Li XX, Mokashi V, Cvetkovic A, Findlater A, Liang L, Tomlinson G, Loeb M, Mertz D; McMaster Infectious Diseases Fellow Research Group. Bai AD, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Apr 19;21(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01260-7. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021. PMID: 33874894 Free PMC article.
Tripepi G, Chesnaye NC, Dekker FW, Zoccali C, Jager KJ. Tripepi G, et al. Nephrology (Carlton). 2020 Jul;25(7):513-517. doi: 10.1111/nep.13709. Epub 2020 Mar 15. Nephrology (Carlton). 2020. PMID: 32147926 Review.
Komorowski AS, Bai AD, Cvetkovic A, Mourad O, Lo CKL, Li XX, Mokashi V, Findlater A, Duncan DB, Fuller C, Yamamura D, Mertz D; McMaster Infectious Diseases Fellow Research Group. Komorowski AS, et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022 May;28(5):640-648. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.11.003. Epub 2021 Nov 8. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022. PMID: 34763055 Review.