Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24464791›Full record

Trial reportInfection2014

Mupirocin/chlorexidine to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: post hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled, randomized trial using mupirocin/chlorhexidine and polymyxin/tobramycin for the prevention of acquired infections in intubated patients.

C Camus, V Sebille, A Legras, B Garo, A Renault, P Le Corre, P-Y Donnio, A Gacouin, D Perrotin, Y Le Tulzo and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Infection, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Rebound Inverts theAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

C CamusService de Maladies Infectieuses et Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital de Pontchaillou, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes, Université de Rennes 1, 2 rue Henri Le Guilloux, 35033, Rennes cedex, France, christophe.camus@chu-rennes.fr.
V Sebille
A Legras
B Garo
A Renault
P Le Corre
P-Y Donnio
A Gacouin
D Perrotin
Y Le Tulzo
E Bellissant
Université de Rennes · FRHôpital Maison Blanche · FRUniversité de Tours · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes · FRCIC Rennes · FRInserm · FRNantes Université · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe reduction in acquired infections (AI) due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) with the mupirocin/chlorhexidine (M/C) decontamination regimen has not been well studied in intubated patients. We performed post hoc analysis of a prior trial to assess the impact of M/C on MRSA AI and colonization.

methodsWe conducted a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study with the primary aim to reduce all-cause AI. The two regimens used [topical polymyxin and tobramycin (P/T), nasal mupirocin with chlorhexidine body wash (M/C), or corresponding placebos for each regimen] were administered according to a 2 × 2 factorial design. Participants were intubated patients in the intensive care units of three French university hospitals. The patients enrolled in the study (n = 515) received either active P/T (n = 130), active M/C (n = 130), both active regimens (n = 129), or placebos only (n = 126) for the period of intubation and an additional 24 h. The incidence and incidence rates (per 1,000 study days) of MRSA AI were assessed. Due to the absence of a statistically significant interaction between the two regimens, analysis was performed at the margins by comparing all patient receiving M/C (n = 259) to all patients not receiving M/C (n = 256), and all patients receiving P/T (n = 259) to all patients not receiving P/T (n = 256).

resultsIncidence [odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95 % confidence interval (CI) (0.16-0.96), P = 0.04] and incidence rates [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.41, 95 % CI 0.17-0.97, P = 0.05] of MRSA AI were significantly lower with the use of M/C. We also observed an increase in the incidence (OR 2.50, 95 % CI 1.01-6.15, P = 0.05) and the incidence rate (IRR 2.90, 95 % CI 1.20-8.03, P = 0.03) of MRSA AI with the use of P/T.

conclusionAmong our study cohort of intubated patients, the use of M/C significantly reduced MRSA AI.

Indexed as

Administration, TopicalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsChlorhexidineDouble-Blind MethodDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleFranceHospitals, UniversityHumansIncidenceIntubationMaleMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusAnti-Bacterial AgentsChlorhexidineMupirocinPlacebosPolymyxinsTobramycin

Identifiers

PMID24464791
OpenAlexW2019432511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.