Artesunate + amodiaquine versus artemether-lumefantrine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in the Colombian Pacific region: a noninferiority trial

INTRODUCTION: In Colombia, there are no published studies for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria comparing artemisinin combination therapies. Hence, it is intended to demonstrate the non-inferior efficacy/safety profiles of artesunate + amodiaquine versus artemether-lumefantrine treatments. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority (Δ≤5%) clinical trial was performed in adults with uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria using the 28‑day World Health Organization validated design/definitions. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either oral artesunate + amodiaquine or artemether-lumefantrine. The primary efficacy endpoint: adequate clinical and parasitological response; secondary endpoints: - treatment failures defined per the World Health Organization. Safety: assessed through adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients was included in each group: zero censored observations. Mean (95%CI - Confidence interval) adequate clinical and parasitological response rates: 100% for artesunate + amodiaquine and 99% for artemether-lumefantrine; the noninferiority criteria was met (Δ=1.7%). There was one late parasitological therapeutic failure (1%; artemether-lumefantrine group), typified by polymerase chain reaction as the MAD20 MSP1 allele. The fever clearance time (artesunate + amodiaquine group) was significantly shorter (p=0.002). Respectively, abdominal pain for artesunate + amodiaquine and artemether-lumefantrine was 1.9% and 3.8% at baseline (p=0.68) and 1% and 13.3% after treatment (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria treatment with artesunate + amodiaquine is noninferior to the artemether-lumefantrine standard treatment. The efficacy/safety profiles grant further studies in this and similar populations.

β-Lactam Monotherapy vs β-Lactam-Macrolide Combination Treatment in Moderately Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The clinical benefit of adding a macrolide to a β-lactam for empirical treatment of moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test noninferiority of a β-lactam alone compared with a β-lactam and macrolide combination in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted from January 13, 2009, through January 31, 2013, in 580 immunocompetent adult patients hospitalized in 6 acute care hospitals in Switzerland for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Follow-up extended to 90 days. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a β-lactam and a macrolide (combination arm) or with a β-lactam alone (monotherapy arm). Legionella pneumophila infection was systematically searched and treated by addition of a macrolide to the monotherapy arm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients not reaching clinical stability (heart rate <100/min, systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg, temperature <38.0°C, respiratory rate <24/min, and oxygen saturation >90% on room air) at day 7. RESULTS: After 7 days of treatment, 120 of 291 patients (41.2%) in the monotherapy arm vs 97 of 289 (33.6%) in the combination arm had not reached clinical stability (7.6% difference, P = .07). The upper limit of the 1-sided 90% CI was 13.0%, exceeding the predefined noninferiority boundary of 8%. Patients infected with atypical pathogens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) or with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) category IV pneumonia (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.10) were less likely to reach clinical stability with monotherapy, whereas patients not infected with atypical pathogens (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22) or with PSI category I to III pneumonia (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.36) had equivalent outcomes in the 2 arms. There were more 30-day readmissions in the monotherapy arm (7.9% vs 3.1%, P = .01). Mortality, intensive care unit admission, complications, length of stay, and recurrence of pneumonia within 90 days did not differ between the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We did not find noninferiority of β-lactam monotherapy in patients hospitalized for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Patients infected with atypical pathogens or with PSI category IV pneumonia had delayed clinical stability with monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00818610.

β-Lactam Monotherapy vs β-Lactam-Macrolide Combination Treatment in Moderately Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The clinical benefit of adding a macrolide to a β-lactam for empirical treatment of moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test noninferiority of a β-lactam alone compared with a β-lactam and macrolide combination in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted from January 13, 2009, through January 31, 2013, in 580 immunocompetent adult patients hospitalized in 6 acute care hospitals in Switzerland for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Follow-up extended to 90 days. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a β-lactam and a macrolide (combination arm) or with a β-lactam alone (monotherapy arm). Legionella pneumophila infection was systematically searched and treated by addition of a macrolide to the monotherapy arm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients not reaching clinical stability (heart rate <100/min, systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg, temperature <38.0°C, respiratory rate <24/min, and oxygen saturation >90% on room air) at day 7. RESULTS: After 7 days of treatment, 120 of 291 patients (41.2%) in the monotherapy arm vs 97 of 289 (33.6%) in the combination arm had not reached clinical stability (7.6% difference, P = .07). The upper limit of the 1-sided 90% CI was 13.0%, exceeding the predefined noninferiority boundary of 8%. Patients infected with atypical pathogens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) or with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) category IV pneumonia (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.10) were less likely to reach clinical stability with monotherapy, whereas patients not infected with atypical pathogens (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22) or with PSI category I to III pneumonia (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.36) had equivalent outcomes in the 2 arms. There were more 30-day readmissions in the monotherapy arm (7.9% vs 3.1%, P = .01). Mortality, intensive care unit admission, complications, length of stay, and recurrence of pneumonia within 90 days did not differ between the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We did not find noninferiority of β-lactam monotherapy in patients hospitalized for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Patients infected with atypical pathogens or with PSI category IV pneumonia had delayed clinical stability with monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00818610.

Ranibizumab versus Bevacizumab for Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration: Results from the GEFAL Noninferiority Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety profile of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab intravitreal injections for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, noninferiority, double-masked, randomized clinical trial performed in 38 French ophthalmology centers. The noninferiority limit was 5 letters. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥50 years were eligible if they presented with subfoveal neovascular AMD, with best-corrected visual acuity (BVCA) in the study eye of between 20/32 and 20/320 measured on the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart and a lesion area of less than 12 optic disc areas (DA). METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to intravitreal administration of bevacizumab (1.25 mg) or ranibizumab (0.50 mg). Hospital pharmacies were responsible for preparing, blinding, and dispensing treatments. Patients were followed for 1 year, with a loading dose of 3 monthly intravitreal injections, followed by an as-needed regimen (1 injection in case of active disease) for the remaining 9 months with monthly follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean change in visual acuity at 1 year. RESULTS: Between June 2009 and November 2011, 501 patients were randomized. In the per protocol analysis, bevacizumab was noninferior to ranibizumab (bevacizumab minus ranibizumab +1.89 letters; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.16 to +4.93, P < 0.0001). The intention-to-treat analysis was concordant. The mean number of injections was 6.8 in the bevacizumab group and 6.5 in the ranibizumab group (P = 0.39). Both drugs reduced the central subfield macular thickness, with a mean decrease of 95 μm for bevacizumab and 107 μm for ranibizumab (P = 0.27). There were no significant differences in the presence of subretinal or intraretinal fluid at final evaluation, dye leakage on angiogram, or change in choroidal neovascular area. The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was 12.6% in the bevacizumab group and 12.1% in the ranibizumab group (P = 0.88). The proportion of patients with serious systemic or ocular adverse events was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab was noninferior to ranibizumab for visual acuity at 1 year with similar safety profiles. Ranibizumab tended to have a better anatomic outcome. The results are similar to those of previous head-to-head studies. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Methods for Equivalence and Noninferiority Testing

Classical hypothesis testing focuses on testing whether treatments have differential effects on outcome. However, sometimes clinicians may be more interested in determining whether treatments are equivalent or whether one has noninferior outcomes. We review the hypotheses for these noninferiority and equivalence research questions, consider power and sample size issues, and discuss how to perform such a test for both binary and survival outcomes. The methods are illustrated on 2 recent studies in hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Breast Milk and Glucose for Pain Relief in Preterm Infants: A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: The study goal was to compare the efficacy of expressed breast milk (EBM) versus 25% glucose on pain responses of late preterm infants during heel lancing. METHODS: In a noninferiority randomized controlled trial, a total of 113 newborns were randomized to receive EBM (experimental group [EG]) or 25% glucose (control group [CG]) before undergoing heel lancing. The primary outcome was pain intensity (Premature Infant Pain Profile [PIPP]) and a 10% noninferiority margin was established. Secondary outcomes were incidence of cry and percentage of time spent crying and adverse events. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used. RESULTS: Groups were similar regarding demographics and clinical characteristics, except for birth weight and weight at data collection day. There were lower pain scores in the CG over 3 minutes after lancing (P<.001). A higher number of infants in the CG had PIPP scores indicative of minimal pain or absence of pain (P = .002 and P = .003 on ITT analysis) at 30 seconds after lancing, and the mean difference in PIPP scores was 3 (95% confidence interval: 1.507-4.483). Lower incidence of cry (P = .001) and shorter duration of crying (P = .014) were observed for CG. Adverse events were benign and self-limited, and there was no significant difference between groups (P = .736 and P = .637 on ITT analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Results based on PIPP scores and crying time indicate poorer effects of EBM compared with 25% glucose during heel lancing. Additional studies exploring the vol and administration of EBM and its combination with other strategies such as skin-to-skin contact and sucking are necessary. Pediatrics 2012;129:664-670

Reporting of noninferiority trials was incomplete in trial registries

Objective To examine the registration of noninferiority trials, with a focus on the reporting of study design and noninferiority margins. Study Design and Setting Cross-sectional study of registry records of noninferiority trials published from 2005 to 2009 and records of noninferiority trials in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) or ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries. The main outcome was the proportion of records that reported the noninferiority design and margin. Results We analyzed 87 registry records of published noninferiority trials and 149 registry records describing noninferiority trials. Thirty-five (40%) of 87 records from published trials described the trial as a noninferiority trial; only two (2%) reported the noninferiority margin. Reporting of the noninferiority design was more frequent in the ISRCTN registry (13 of 18 records, 72%) compared with ClinicalTrials.gov (22 of 69 records, 32%; P = 0.002). Among the 149 records identified in the registries, 13 (9%) reported the noninferiority margin. Only one of the industry-sponsored trial compared with 11 of the publicly funded trials reported the margin (P = 0.001). Conclusion Most registry records of noninferiority trials do not mention the noninferiority design and do not include the noninferiority margin. The registration of noninferiority trials is unsatisfactory and must be improved.

Improved safety and reduction in stent thrombosis associated with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5-year report of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) randomized, noninferiority trial

OBJECTIVES This study sought to report the final 5 years follow-up of the landmark LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) trial. BACKGROUND The LEADERS trial is the first randomized study to evaluate biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) against durable polymer DES. METHODS The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, noninferiority, "all-comers" trial (N = 1,707). All patients were centrally randomized to treatment with either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) (n = 857) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (n = 850). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization within 9 months. Secondary endpoints included extending the primary endpoint to 5 years and stent thrombosis (ST) (Academic Research Consortium definition). Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS At 5 years, the BES was noninferior to SES for the primary endpoint (186 [22.3%] vs. 216 [26.1%], rate ratio [RR]: 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 1.02], p for noninferiority <0.0001, p for superiority = 0.069). The BES was associated with a significant reduction in the more comprehensive patient-orientated composite endpoint of all-cause death, any MI, and all-cause revascularization (297 [35.1%] vs. 339 [40.4%], RR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.98], p for superiority = 0.023). A significant reduction in very late definite ST from 1 to 5 years was evident with the BES (n = 5 [0.7%] vs. n = 19 [2.5%], RR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.10 to 0.68], p = 0.003), corresponding to a significant reduction in ST-associated clinical events (primary endpoint) over the same time period (n = 3 of 749 vs. n = 14 of 738, RR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.71], p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS The safety benefit of the biodegradable polymer BES, compared with the durable polymer SES, was related to a significant reduction in very late ST (>1 year) and associated composite clinical outcomes. (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating [LEADERS] trial; NCT00389220).

Comparison of noninferiority margins reported in protocols and publications showed incomplete and inconsistent reporting.

OBJECTIVES To compare noninferiority margins defined in study protocols and trial registry records with margins reported in subsequent publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Comparison of protocols of noninferiority trials submitted 2001 to 2005 to ethics committees in Switzerland and The Netherlands with corresponding publications and registry records. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library issue 01/2012), and Google Scholar in September 2013 to identify published reports, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization in March 2013 to identify registry records. Two readers recorded the noninferiority margin and other data using a standardized data-abstraction form. RESULTS The margin was identical in study protocol and publication in 43 (80%) of 54 pairs of study protocols and articles. In the remaining pairs, reporting was inconsistent (five pairs, 9%), or the noninferiority margin was either not reported in the publication (five pairs, 9%) or not defined in the study protocol (one pair). The confidence interval or the exact P-value required to judge whether the result was compatible with noninferior, inferior, or superior efficacy was reported in 43 (80%) publications. Complete and consistent reporting of both noninferiority margin and confidence interval (or exact P-value) was present in 39 (72%) protocol-publication pairs. Twenty-nine trials (54%) were registered in trial registries, but only one registry record included the noninferiority margin. CONCLUSION The reporting of noninferiority margins was incomplete and inconsistent with study protocols in a substantial proportion of published trials, and margins were rarely reported in trial registries.

Bone Marrow Concentrate and Bovine Bone Mineral for Sinus Floor Augmentation: A Controlled, Randomized, Single-Blinded Clinical and Histological Trial-Per-Protocol Analysis

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to evaluate the potential of substituting autogenous bone (AB) by bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). Both AB and BMAC were tested in combination with a bovine bone mineral (BBM) for their ability of new bone formation (NBF) in a multicentric, randomized, controlled, clinical and histological noninferiority trial. Materials and Methods: Forty-five severely atrophied maxillary sinus from 26 patients were evaluated in a partial cross-over design. As test arm, 34 sinus of 25 patients were augmented with BBM and BMAC containing mesenchymal stem cells. Eleven control sinus from 11 patients were augmented with a mixture of 70% BBM and 30% AB. Biopsies were obtained after a 3-4-month healing period at time of implant placement and histomorphometrically analyzed for NBF. Results: NBF was 14.3%+/- 1.8% for the control and nonsignificantly lower (12.6%+/- 1.7%) for the test (90% confidence interval: -4.6 to 1.2). Values for BBM (31.3%+/- 2.7%) were significantly higher for the test compared with control (19.3%+/- 2.5%) (p < 0.0001). Nonmineralized tissue was lower by 3.3% in the test compared with control (57.6%; p = 0.137). Conclusions: NBF after 3-4 months is equivalent in sinus, augmented with BMAC and BBM or a mixture of AB and BBM. This technique could be an alternative for using autografts to stimulate bone formation.

Transfusion Requirements After Cardiac Surgery The TRACS Randomized Controlled Trial

Context Perioperative red blood cell transfusion is commonly used to address anemia, an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality after cardiac operations; however, evidence regarding optimal blood transfusion practice in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is lacking. Objective To define whether a restrictive perioperative red blood cell transfusion strategy is as safe as a liberal strategy in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Patients The Transfusion Requirements After Cardiac Surgery (TRACS) study, a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical noninferiority trial conducted between February 2009 and February 2010 in an intensive care unit at a university hospital cardiac surgery referral center in Brazil. Consecutive adult patients (n=502) who underwent cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass were eligible; analysis was by intention-to-treat. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to a liberal strategy of blood transfusion (to maintain a hematocrit >= 30%) or to a restrictive strategy (hematocrit >= 24%). Main Outcome Measure Composite end point of 30-day all-cause mortality and severe morbidity (cardiogenic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or acute renal injury requiring dialysis or hemofiltration) occurring during the hospital stay. The noninferiority margin was predefined at -8% (ie, 8% minimal clinically important increase in occurrence of the composite end point). Results Hemoglobin concentrations were maintained at a mean of 10.5 g/dL(95% confidence interval [CI], 10.4-10.6) in the liberal-strategy group and 9.1 g/dL (95% CI, 9.09.2) in the restrictive-strategy group (P<.001). A total of 198 of 253 patients (78%) in the liberal-strategy group and 118 of 249 (47%) in the restrictive-strategy group received a blood transfusion (P<.001). Occurrence of the primary end point was similar between groups (10% liberal vs 11% restrictive; between-group difference, 1% [95% CI, -6% to 4%]; P=.85). Independent of transfusion strategy, the number of transfused red blood cell units was an independent risk factor for clinical complications or death at 30 days (hazard ratio for each additional unit transfused, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.4]; P=.002). Conclusion Among patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the use of a restrictive perioperative transfusion strategy compared with a more liberal strategy resulted in noninferior rates of the combined outcome of 30-day all-cause mortality and severe morbidity. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01021631 JAMA. 2010; 304(14):1559-1567 www.jama.com

Locally Advanced and Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Intermittent Androgen Monotherapy or Maximal Androgen Blockade: Results from a Randomised Phase 3 Study by the South European Uroncological Group

BACKGROUND: Few randomised studies have compared antiandrogen intermittent hormonal therapy (IHT) with continuous maximal androgen blockade (MAB) therapy for advanced prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether overall survival (OS) on IHT (cyproterone acetate; CPA) is noninferior to OS on continuous MAB. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 3 randomised trial compared IHT and continuous MAB in patients with locally advanced or metastatic PCa. INTERVENTION: During induction, patients received CPA 200 mg/d for 2 wk and then monthly depot injections of a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH; triptoreline 11.25 mg) analogue plus CPA 200 mg/d. Patients whose prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was <4 ng/ml after 3 mo of induction treatment were randomised to the IHT arm (stopped treatment and restarted on CPA 300 mg/d monotherapy if PSA rose to ≥20 ng/ml or they were symptomatic) or the continuous arm (CPA 200 mg/d plus monthly LHRH analogue). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measurement was OS. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific survival, time to subjective or objective progression, and quality of life. Time off therapy in the intermittent arm was recorded. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recruited 1045 patients, of which 918 responded to induction therapy and were randomised (462 to IHT and 456 to continuous MAB). OS was similar between groups (p=0.25), and noninferiority of IHT was demonstrated (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.07). There was a trend for an interaction between PSA and treatment (p=0.05), favouring IHT over continuous therapy in patients with PSA ≤1 ng/ml (HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02). Men treated with IHT reported better sexual function. Among the 462 patients on IHT, 50% and 28% of patients were off therapy for ≥2.5 yr or >5 yr, respectively, after randomisation. The main limitation is that the length of time for the trial to mature means that other therapies are now available. A second limitation is that T3 patients may now profit from watchful waiting instead of androgen-deprivation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Noninferiority of IHT in terms of survival and its association with better sexual activity than continuous therapy suggest that IHT should be considered for use in routine clinical practice.

A randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the performance and safety of platelets treated with MIRASOL pathogen reduction technology.

BACKGROUND: Pathogen reduction of platelets (PRT-PLTs) using riboflavin and ultraviolet light treatment has undergone Phase 1 and 2 studies examining efficacy and safety. This randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) assessed the efficacy and safety of PRT-PLTs using the 1-hour corrected count increment (CCI(1hour) ) as the primary outcome. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A noninferiority RCT was performed where patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (six centers) were randomly allocated to receive PRT-PLTs (Mirasol PRT, CaridianBCT Biotechnologies) or reference platelet (PLT) products. The treatment period was 28 days followed by a 28-day follow-up (safety) period. The primary outcome was the CCI(1hour) determined using up to the first eight on-protocol PLT transfusions given during the treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients were randomly assigned (60 to PRT-PLTs; 58 to reference). Four patients per group did not require PLT transfusions leaving 110 patients in the analysis (56 PRT-PLTs; 54 reference). A total of 541 on-protocol PLT transfusions were given (303 PRT-PLTs; 238 reference). The least square mean CCI was 11,725 (standard error [SE], 1.140) for PRT-PLTs and 16,939 (SE, 1.149) for the reference group (difference, -5214; 95% confidence interval, -7542 to -2887; p<0.0001 for a test of the null hypothesis of no difference between the two groups). CONCLUSION: The study failed to show noninferiority of PRT-PLTs based on predefined CCI criteria. PLT and red blood cell utilization in the two groups was not significantly different suggesting that the slightly lower CCIs (PRT-PLTs) did not increase blood product utilization. Safety data showed similar findings in the two groups. Further studies are required to determine if the lower CCI observed with PRT-PLTs translates into an increased risk of bleeding.

Effectiveness of olive oil for the prevention of pressure ulcers caused in immobilized patients within the scope of primary health care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Pressure ulcers are considered an important issue, mainly affecting immobilized older patients. These pressure ulcers increase the care burden for the professional health service staff as well as pharmaceutical expenditure. There are a number of studies on the effectiveness of different products used for the prevention of pressure ulcers; however, most of these studies were carried out at a hospital level, basically using hyperoxygenated fatty acids (HOFA). There are no studies focused specifically on the use of olive-oil-based products and therefore this research is intended to find the most cost-effective treatment and achieve an alternative treatment. METHODS/DESIGN The main objective is to assess the effectiveness of olive oil, comparing it with HOFA, to treat immobilized patients at home who are at risk of pressure ulcers. As a secondary objective, the cost-effectiveness balance of this new application with regard to the HOFA will be assessed. The study is designed as a noninferiority, triple-blinded, parallel, multi-center, randomized clinical trial. The scope of the study is the population attending primary health centers in Andalucía (Spain) in the regional areas of Malaga, Granada, Seville, and Cadiz. Immobilized patients at risk of pressure ulcers will be targeted. The target group will be treated by application of an olive-oil-based formula whereas the control group will be treated by application of HOFA to the control group. The follow-up period will be 16 weeks. The main variable will be the presence of pressure ulcers in the patient. Secondary variables include sociodemographic and clinical information, caregiver information, and whether technical support exists. Statistical analysis will include the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, symmetry and kurtosis analysis, bivariate analysis using the Student's t and chi-squared tests as well as the Wilcoxon and the Man-Whitney U tests, ANOVA and multivariate logistic regression analysis. DISCUSSION The regular use of olive-oil-based formulas should be effective in preventing pressure ulcers in immobilized patients, thus leading to a more cost-effective product and an alternative treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01595347.