Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38426071›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Safety and efficacy of whole-body chlorhexidine gluconate cleansing with or without emollient in hospitalised neonates (NeoCHG): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, factorial pilot trial.

Neal Russell, Michelle N Clements, Kazi Shammin Azmery, Adrie Bekker, Julia Bielicki, Angela Dramowski, Sally Ellis, Aaqilah Fataar, Mahbubul Hoque, Kristen LeBeau and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

18 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Neal RussellCentre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, St George's University, London, United Kingdom.
Michelle N ClementsMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Kazi Shammin AzmeryChild Health Research Foundation (CHRF), Dhaka Shishu Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Adrie BekkerDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Julia BielickiCentre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, St George's University, London, United Kingdom.
Angela DramowskiDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Sally EllisGlobal Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP), Geneva, Switzerland.
Aaqilah FataarDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Mahbubul HoqueBangladesh Shishu Hospital and Institute, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Kristen LeBeauMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Seamus O'BrienGlobal Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP), Geneva, Switzerland.
Francesca SchiavoneMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Peter SkoutariMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Mohammad Shahidul IslamChild Health Research Foundation (CHRF), Bangladesh Shishu Hospital and Institute, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Samir K SahaChild Health Research Foundation (CHRF), Dhaka Shishu Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Ann Sarah WalkerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew WhitelawDivision of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Michael SharlandCentre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, St George's University, London, United Kingdom.
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBBangladesh Shishu (Children) Hospital & Institute · BDSt George's, University of London · GBWestern Cape Department of Health · ZAGlobal Antibiotic Research & Development Partnership · CHChild Health Research Foundation · BDStellenbosch University · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Healthcare-associated infections account for substantial neonatal in-hospital mortality. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) whole body skin application could reduce sepsis by lowering bacterial colonisation density, although safety and optimal application regimen is unclear. Emollients, including sunflower oil, may independently improve skin condition, thereby reducing sepsis. We aimed to inform which concentration and frequency of CHG, with or without emollient, would best balance safety and the surrogate marker of efficacy of reduction in bacterial colonisation, to be taken forward in a future pragmatic trial evaluating clinical outcomes of sepsis and mortality. Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, factorial pilot trial, neonates in two hospital sites (South Africa, Bangladesh) aged 1-6 days with gestational age ≥ 28 weeks and birthweight 1000-1999 g were randomly assigned in a factorial design stratified by site to three different concentrations of CHG (0.5%, 1%, and 2%), with or without emollient (sunflower oil) applied on working days vs alternate working days. A control arm received neither product. Caregivers were unblinded although laboratory staff were blinded to randomisation Co-primary outcomes were safety (change in neonatal skin condition score incorporating dryness, erythema, and skin breakdown) and efficacy in reducing bacterial colonisation density (change in total skin bacterial log Findings: Between Apr 12 2021 and Jan 18 2022, 208 infants were randomised and 198 were included in the final analysis. Skin condition scores were low with mean 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 208) at baseline, 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 199) at day 3 and 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 189) at day 8, with no evidence of differences between concentration (1% CHG vs 0.5% estimate = -0.3, 95% CI = (-1.2, 0.6), p = 0.55. 2% CHG vs 0.5% CHG estimate = 0.5 (-0.4, 1.4), p = 0.30), increasing frequency (estimate = -0.4; 95% CI = (-1.1, 0.4), p = 0.33), emollient (estimate = -0.5, (-1.2, 0.3), p = 0.23) or with control (estimate = -0.9, (-2.3, 0.4), p = 0.18). Mean log Interpretation: In this pilot trial of CHG with or without sunflower oil, no safety issues were identified, and further trials examining clinical outcomes are warranted. The relatively late start application of emollient, at a mean of 3.8 days of life, may have reduced the impact of the intervention although no subgroup effects were detected. There was no clear evidence in favour of a specific concentration of chlorhexidine, and there was rapid colonisation with Enterobacterales with frequent antimicrobial resistance, regardless of skin application regimen. Funding: The MRC Joint Applied Global Health award, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP), MRC Clinical Trials Unit core funding (UKRI) and St. George's, University of London.

Indexed as

AntisepticInfection preventionNeonatal sepsis

Identifiers

PMID38426071
PMCPMC10904231
OpenAlexW4392145302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.