ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
A Perspective on the Appropriate Implementation of ICH E9(R1) Addendum Strategies for Handling Intercurrent Events.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting the Treatment Regimen Estimand in Phase 3 Studies from the Estimated Efficacy Estimand Based on Phase 2 Data.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Article
- Therapeutics for Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease.Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology · 2026Review
- Rejoinder to Commentaries on "A Perspective on the Appropriate Implementation of ICH E9(R1) Addendum Strategies for Handling Intercurrent Events".Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In randomized clinical trials, stopping study medication, use of rescue treatment, and other intercurrent events can complicate interpretation of results. The ICH E9(R1) Addendum on estimands stimulated important cross-disciplinary discussions on trial objectives. Unfortunately, with influence of the Addendum, many trials have proposed analyzing primary endpoints using "while on treatment", "hypothetical", or "principal stratum" strategies that handle intercurrent events in ways that use post-randomization outcomes to exclude information from randomized participants and don't preserve integrity of randomization, or that don't reliably capture the intervention's meaningful net effects. These approaches have inherent limitations in ability to draw scientifically rigorous inference on clinically relevant causal effects important for decisions about adopting interventions. We describe advantages of trials with standard-of-care control arms targeting estimands using "treatment policy" approaches for intercurrent events, while potentially incorporating other meaningful intercurrent events, such as death, into the primary endpoint applying a composite strategy. Well-designed and -conducted trials targeting such estimands achieve scientifically rigorous causal inference through analyzes that protect the integrity of randomization. Such estimands also provide meaningful information relevant to real-world settings because they (1) are unconditional in nature i.e., they don't condition on post-treatment circumstances that might not be many participants' experiences; and (2) properly evaluate the experimental intervention within a regimen that includes possible ancillary care that would be clinically appropriate in real-world settings. We hope to add clarity about appropriate strategies for intercurrent events and how to improve design, conduct, and analysis of clinical trials to address questions of greatest clinical importance reliably.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.