In: Nursing
Safety endpoint analyses: It is just as important to consider an intention-to-treat analysis for safety outcomes as it is for the primary and secondary efficacy outcomes of a trial. (See the CONSORT guidelines on this.) However, there can be more difficulties in implementing and interpreting such an analysis for an adverse event outcome.
Adverse events are often based on patient report (e.g., nausea). Participants who are off-treatment (taken off by trial staff, or just stopped taking treatment on their own) are in general less likely to report adverse events to trial staff. (You can interpret "treatment" as either active treatment or control treatment.)
(1) Give at least two
reasons why you think this may happen.
(2) Explain why this creates a problem for an intent-to-treat
analysis when the adverse event is the outcome.
1,--an adverse event can arise from any use of the drug and from
any route of administration,formulation or dose or overdose..
--Adverse events can beging with their prior
course..
2, Adverse events creates a problem the existence and nature of
adverse effects(even death)can have a major impact on whether a
particular intervention will be acceptable and useful..some
consequence of the condition being treated..Randamised trials
offers the best approach for providing safety data as well as
efficacy data although they can not detect rare harms..39% had
adequate reporting of clinical adverse events and 29% had adequate
reporting of laboratory defined toxicity..in six general medical
journals in 2006 to 2007 found that,although 89% 133 reports
mentioned adverse events,no information on severe adverse events
and withdrawel of patients due to an adverse event was given on 27%
and 98% of articles,respectively.