Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42275064›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2026

Antiseptic Cleansing to Reduce Vertical Transmission of Pathogens to Neonates: The NeoVT-AMR Randomized Clinical Trial.

Emily Beales, Michelle N Clements, Nicholas A Feasey, David Lissauer, Maranatha Banda, Bertha Maseko, Julia A Bielicki, Samantha Lissauer, Aisleen Bennett, Kondwani Kawaza and 4 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Emily BealesCentre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, Institute for Infection and Immunity, City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Michelle N ClementsUniversity College London Innovative Clinical Trials Unit, London, United Kingdom.
Nicholas A FeaseySchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom.
David LissauerMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.
Maranatha BandaZomba Central Hospital, Zomba, Malawi.
Bertha MasekoMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.
Julia A BielickiCentre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, Institute for Infection and Immunity, City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Samantha LissauerMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.
Aisleen BennettDepartment of Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Imperial College Healthcare, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Kondwani KawazaDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi.
Luis A GadamaMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.
A Sarah WalkerUniversity College London Innovative Clinical Trials Unit, London, United Kingdom.
Mike SharlandCentre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, Institute for Infection and Immunity, City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Louise F HillCentre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, Institute for Infection and Immunity, City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Neonatal sepsis causes substantial mortality. Topical antisepsis for laboring women or neonates may reduce pathogenic colonization and sepsis risk. Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of various topical antiseptic regimens to reduce bacterial load in the maternal genital tract and on neonatal skin and assess suitability for future effectiveness trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 7, 2022, to March 29, 2023, at Zomba Central Hospital, Malawi, with 28-day follow-up. Participant populations were laboring women and, separately, facility-born neonates (aged <24 hours and with birth weight >1000 g) not born to a mother recruited to the trial. Data were analyzed from May 17 to December 28, 2023. Interventions: Participants were individually randomized in an unblinded factorial design to chlorhexidine 1% (1% CHG), chlorhexidine 2% (2% CHG), or octenidine 0.1% with phenoxyethanol 2% (OHP), each applied either once or multiple times (maternal: antiseptic applied every 4 hours during working hours for up to 6 applications; neonatal: antiseptic applied every 24 hours for up to 3 applications), or to standard of care (SOC; application of sterile water for mothers and no cleansing for neonates). Laboratory staff assessing primary outcomes were blinded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary outcomes were change in total skin bacterial load (log10 colony-forming units [log10CFU]) from baseline at each follow-up, analyzed separately in the maternal and neonatal populations and adjusted for intervention variables. Secondary outcomes included skin condition score (range, 0-12 for neonates and 0-16 for women; lower scores indicate better condition), serious adverse events (SAEs), and neonatal temperature. Results: A total of 149 women (mean [SD] age at enrollment, 25.7 [5.9] years) and 147 neonates (mean [SD] age at enrollment, 10.3 [6.3] hours; 82 [56%] male) participated. Mean (SD) infant gestational age was 37.7 (1.5) weeks in the maternal population and 36.7 (3.1) weeks in the neonatal population. Neonates' mean birth weight was 2729 g (712 g). Among mothers, compared with 1% CHG, bacterial load was higher (worse) with OHP (adjusted log10CFU difference, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9-2.5) and SOC (3.5; 95% CI, 2.4-4.6); there was no clear log10CFU difference with 2% CHG (-0.6; 95% CI, -1.4 to 0.2). There was no evidence of difference in effectiveness between multiple vs single application (log10CFU difference, -0.4; 95% CI, -1.1 to 0.2). In neonates, 1% CHG showed greater effectiveness than SOC (log10CFU difference, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.2-2.4) but no difference vs 2% CHG (-0.2; 95% CI, -1.1 to 0.7) or OHP (0.7; 95% CI, -0.2 to 1.6). Multiple applications showed increasing benefits over time (frequency × time interaction). Skin scores were low (almost all were 0-1 and none ≥3). There were no significant differences in SAE rates between arms and no signal of postantiseptic neonatal hypothermia. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of topical antiseptics applied in laboring women and in neonates, 1% CHG reduced maternal and neonatal bacterial colonization without safety concerns, suggesting it would be the optimal regimen to evaluate in a larger pragmatic trial powered for clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry Identifier: ISRCTN78026255.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalNeonatal SepsisAdultBacterial LoadChlorhexidineEthylene GlycolsFemaleHumansIminesInfant, NewbornMalawiPregnancyPyridinesAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineEthylene GlycolsIminesoctenidinephenoxyethanolPyridines

Identifiers

PMID42275064
PMCPMC13261496

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.