Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Centre for the AIDS Program of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA) 004 trial assessed the effectiveness and safety of a 1% vaginal gel formulation of tenofovir, a nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor, for the prevention of HIV acquisition in women. A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing tenofovir gel (n = 445 women) with placebo gel (n = 444 women) in sexually active, HIV-uninfected 18- to 40-year-old women in urban and rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. HIV serostatus, safety, sexual behavior, and gel and condom use were assessed at monthly follow-up visits for 30 months. HIV incidence in the tenofovir gel arm was 5.6 per 100 women-years (person time of study observation) (38 out of 680.6 women-years) compared with 9.1 per 100 women-years (60 out of 660.7 women-years) in the placebo gel arm (incidence rate ratio = 0.61; P = 0.017). In high adherers (gel adherence > 80%), HIV incidence was 54% lower (P = 0.025) in the tenofovir gel arm. In intermediate adherers (gel adherence 50 to 80%) and low adherers (gel adherence < 50%), the HIV incidence reduction was 38 and 28%, respectively. Tenofovir gel reduced HIV acquisition by an estimated 39% overall, and by 54% in women with high gel adherence. No increase in the overall adverse event rates was observed. There were no changes in viral load and no tenofovir resistance in HIV seroconverters. Tenofovir gel could potentially fill an important HIV prevention gap, especially for women unable to successfully negotiate mutual monogamy or condom use.

Skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in patients with closed limb fractures but not in those with open fractures.

IntroductionPeripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most commonly used vascular access device in hospitalised patients. Yet PIVCs may be complicated by local or systemic infections leading to increased healthcare costs. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-impregnated dressings may help reduce PIVC-related infectious complications but have not yet been evaluated. We hypothesise an impregnated CHG transparent dressing, in comparison to standard polyurethane dressing, will be safe, effective and cost-effective in protecting against PIVC-related infectious complications and phlebitis.Methods and analysisThe ProP trial is a multicentre, superiority, randomised clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot, conducted across three centres in Australia and France. Patients (adults and children aged ≥6 years) requiring one PIVC for ≥48 hours are eligible. We will exclude patients with emergent PIVCs, known CHG allergy, skin injury at site of insertion or previous trial enrolment. Patients will be randomised to 3M Tegaderm Antimicrobial IV Advanced Securement dressing or standard care group. For the internal pilot, 300 patients will be enrolled to test protocol feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol fidelity, missing data and satisfaction of participants and staff), primary endpoint for internal pilot, assessed by independent data safety monitoring committee. Clinical outcomes will not be reviewed. Following feasibility assessment, the remaining 2624 (1312 per trial arm) patients will be enrolled following the same methods. The primary endpoint is a composite of catheter-related infectious complications and phlebitis. Recruitment began on 3 May 2023.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by Ouest I ethic committee in France and by The Queensland Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia. The findings will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT05741866.

Nursing home residents are often colonized with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In this trial involving 28 nursing homes, decolonization with chlorhexidine and povidone–iodine reduced the risk of hospitalization for infection.

PurposeAntiseptic bathing has garnered attention in an effort to reduce hospital-acquired infections. Previous studies have shown the efficacy of antiseptic bathing in high-risk environments, such as intensive care units (ICUs), using chlorhexidine. In this study we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of octenidine as a potential alternative due to its established popularity and widespread use in Europe.MethodsWe compared the rates of ICU-acquired primary bacteremia and ICU-acquired multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in a multicenter, cluster-randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study using octenidine-impregnated and placebo washcloths. On 44 ICUs in 23 hospitals throughout Germany, we compared individual ICUs with themselves over two 12-month time periods. All data were obtained digitally via hospital information systems as individual ward-movement data and microbiological test results; both endpoints were algorithmically derived.Results104,039 ICU episodes from 93,438 patients with 712,784 microbiological test results were analyzed, thereby detecting 1508 cases of ICU-acquired primary bacteremia and 1871 cases of ICU-acquired MDRO. Bathing with octenidine-impregnated washcloths prevented ICU-acquired primary bacteremia; a risk reduction of 17% was seen homogeneously across all participating ICUs (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.75; 0.92], p = 0.0003). This reduction affected predominantly coagulase-negative staphylococci (53%) and enterococci (17%). However, no intervention effect was seen for ICU-acquired MDROs (adjusted HR 0.98, 95% CI [0.83; 1.15]). Heterogeneity among intra-ICU intervention effects on MDRO acquisition was substantial.ConclusionsAntiseptic bathing with octenidine may be effective in preventing ICU-acquired primary bacteremia, particularly due to Gram-positive bacteria and common skin commensals.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication worldwide. WHO guidelines to prevent SSI recommend alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation and fascial closure using triclosan-coated sutures, but called for assessment of both interventions in low-resource settings. This study aimed to test both interventions in low-income and middle-income countries. FALCON was a 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial stratified by whether surgery was clean-contaminated, or contaminated or dirty, including patients undergoing abdominal surgery with a skin incision of 5 cm or greater. This trial was undertaken in 54 hospitals in seven countries (Benin, Ghana, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa). Patients were computer randomised 1:1:1:1 to: (1) 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine and non-coated suture, (2) 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine and triclosan-coated suture, (3) 10% aqueous povidone–iodine and non-coated suture, or (4) 10% aqueous povidone–iodine and triclosan-coated suture. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to intervention allocation. The primary outcome was SSI, reported by trained outcome assessors, and presented using adjusted relative risks and 95% CIs. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03700749. Between Dec 10, 2018, and Sept 7, 2020, 5788 patients (3091 in clean-contaminated stratum, 2697 in contaminated or dirty stratum) were randomised (1446 to alcoholic chlorhexidine and non-coated suture, 1446 to alcoholic chlorhexidine and triclosan-coated suture, 1447 to aqueous povidone–iodine and non-coated suture, and 1449 to aqueous povidone–iodine and triclosan-coated suture). 14·0% (810/5788) of patients were children and 66·9% (3873/5788) had emergency surgery. The overall SSI rate was 22·0% (1163/5284; clean-contaminated stratum 15·5% [454/2923], contaminated or dirty stratum 30·0% [709/2361]). For both strata, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI with alcoholic chlorhexidine versus povidone–iodine (clean-contaminated stratum 15·3% [223/1455] vs 15·7% [231/1468], relative risk 0·97 [95% CI 0·82–1·14]; contaminated or dirty stratum 28·3% [338/1194] vs 31·8% [371/1167], relative risk 0·91 [95% CI 0·81–1·02]), or with triclosan-coated sutures versus non-coated sutures (clean-contaminated stratum 14·7% [215/1459] vs 16·3% [239/1464], relative risk 0·90 [95% CI 0·77–1·06]; contaminated or dirty stratum 29·4% [347/1181] vs 30·7% [362/1180], relative risk 0·98 [95% CI 0·87–1·10]). With both strata combined, there were no differences using alcoholic chlorhexidine or triclosan-coated sutures. This trial did not show benefit from 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation compared with povidone–iodine, or with triclosan-coated sutures compared with non-coated sutures, in preventing SSI in clean-contaminated or contaminated or dirty surgical wounds. Both interventions are more expensive than alternatives, and these findings do not support recommendations for routine use. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit Grant, BD.

Universal skin and nasal decolonisation reduces multidrug-resistant pathogens and bloodstream infections in intensive care units. The effect of universal decolonisation on pathogens and infections in non-critical-care units is unknown. The aim of the ABATE Infection trial was to evaluate the use of chlorhexidine bathing in non-critical-care units, with an intervention similar to one that was found to reduce multidrug-resistant organisms and bacteraemia in intensive care units. The ABATE Infection (active bathing to eliminate infection) trial was a cluster-randomised trial of 53 hospitals comparing routine bathing to decolonisation with universal chlorhexidine and targeted nasal mupirocin in non-critical-care units. The trial was done in hospitals affiliated with HCA Healthcare and consisted of a 12-month baseline period from March 1, 2013, to Feb 28, 2014, a 2-month phase-in period from April 1, 2014, to May 31, 2014, and a 21-month intervention period from June 1, 2014, to Feb 29, 2016. Hospitals were randomised and their participating non-critical-care units assigned to either routine care or daily chlorhexidine bathing for all patients plus mupirocin for known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers. The primary outcome was MRSA or vancomycin-resistant enterococcus clinical cultures attributed to participating units, measured in the unadjusted, intention-to-treat population as the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period in the decolonisation group versus the HR in the routine care group. Proportional hazards models assessed differences in outcome reductions across groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02063867. There were 189 081 patients in the baseline period and 339 902 patients (156 889 patients in the routine care group and 183 013 patients in the decolonisation group) in the intervention period across 194 non-critical-care units in 53 hospitals. For the primary outcome of unit-attributable MRSA-positive or VRE-positive clinical cultures (figure 2), the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period was 0·79 (0·73–0·87) in the decolonisation group versus 0·87 (95% CI 0·79–0·95) in the routine care group. No difference was seen in the relative HRs (p=0·17). There were 25 (<1%) adverse events, all involving chlorhexidine, among 183 013 patients in units assigned to chlorhexidine, and none were reported for mupirocin. Decolonisation with universal chlorhexidine bathing and targeted mupirocin for MRSA carriers did not significantly reduce multidrug-resistant organisms in non-critical-care patients. National Institutes of Health.

The indications for collagenase ointment (CO) and its efficacy are not clearly established in the treatment of second-degree burn wounds. To evaluate the efficacy of CO versus silver sulfadiazine ointment (SSD) in the treatment of second-degree burn wounds. A total of 170 eligible patients with deep second-degree burns, aged 18–65 years, with injuries occurring within 48–96 h, and having a total wound area of less than 30% of the total body surface area were included from 5 centers in China. The primary outcome was the wound healing time, and the secondary outcomes were the clearance time of wound necrotic tissues, wound healing rate, and wound inflammation. The study included 85 patients in SSD group and 84 in CO group in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. The median time of wound healing was comparable in both groups (10 days vs. 10.5 days P  = 0.16). The time for wound necrotic tissue removal was significantly shortened by CO compared with SSD (5 vs. 10 days P  < 0.01). Wound inflammation, pain, wound healing rate, and scar were compared with SSD (all P-values > 0.05). No adverse events, such as infection or allergic reactions to the drugs and materials used, were reported. Both CO and SSD could heal the burn wounds at 10 days of treatment. However, CO significantly shortened the time of wound necrotic tissue removal by 5 days. Trial Registration: ChiCTR2100046971.

PurposeWhether skin disinfection of the surgical site using chlorhexidine-alcohol is superior to povidone-iodine-alcohol in reducing reoperation and surgical site infection rates after major cardiac surgery remains unclear.MethodsCLEAN 2 was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-arm, assessor-blind, superiority trial conducted in eight French hospitals. We randomly assigned adult patients undergoing major heart or aortic surgery via sternotomy, with or without saphenous vein or radial artery harvesting, to have all surgical sites disinfected with either 2% chlorhexidine-alcohol or 5% povidone-iodine-alcohol. The primary outcome was any resternotomy by day 90 or any reoperation at the peripheral surgical site by day 30.ResultsOf 3242 patients (1621 in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group [median age, 69 years; 1276 (78.7%) men] and 1621 in the povidone-iodine-alcohol group [median age, 69 years; 1247 (76.9%) men], the percentage required reoperation within 90 days was similar (7.7% [125/1621] in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group vs 7.5% [121/1621] in the povidone-iodine-alcohol group; risk difference, 0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI), − 1.58–2.07], P = 0.79). The incidence of surgical site infections at the sternum or peripheral sites was similar (4% [65/1621] in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group vs 3.3% [53/1621] in the povidone-iodine-alcohol group; risk difference, 0.74 [95% CI − 0.55–2.03], P = 0.26). Length of hospital stay, intensive care unit or hospital readmission, mortality and surgical site adverse events were similar between the two groups.ConclusionAmong patients requiring sternotomy for major heart or aortic surgery, skin disinfection at the surgical site using chlorhexidine-alcohol was not superior to povidone-iodine-alcohol for reducing reoperation and surgical site infection rates.

New catheter materials for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may reduce the risk of device failure due to infectious, thrombotic, and catheter occlusion events. However, data from randomized trials comparing these catheters are lacking. We conducted a randomized, controlled, superiority trial in three Australian tertiary hospitals. Adults and children who were referred for PICC placement were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a hydrophobic or chlorhexidine PICC or a standard polyurethane PICC and were followed for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was device failure, which was a composite of infectious (bloodstream or local) or noninfectious (thrombosis, breakage, or occlusion) complications. A total of 1098 participants underwent randomization; 365 were assigned to the hydrophobic group, 365 to the chlorhexidine group, and 368 to the standard-polyurethane group. Device failure occurred in 21 of 358 participants (5.9%) in the hydrophobic group, in 36 of 363 (9.9%) in the chlorhexidine group, and in 22 of 359 (6.1%) in the standard-polyurethane group (risk difference, hydrophobic vs. standard polyurethane, -0.2 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, -3.7 to 3.2; P = 0.89]; and chlorhexidine vs. standard polyurethane, 3.8 percentage points [95% CI, -0.1 to 7.8; P = 0.06]). In the hydrophobic group as compared with the standard-polyurethane group, the odds ratio for device failure was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.78), and in the chlorhexidine group as compared with the standard-polyurethane group, the odds ratio was 1.71 (95% CI, 0.98 to 2.99). Complications from any cause during the period of PICC placement occurred in 77 participants (21.5%) in the hydrophobic group, in 140 (38.6%) in the chlorhexidine group, and in 78 (21.7%) in the standard-polyurethane group (odds ratio, hydrophobic vs. standard polyurethane, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.42]; and chlorhexidine vs. standard polyurethane, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.68 to 3.29]). No adverse events were attributable to the interventions. Among adults and children who were referred for PICC placement, the risk of device failure due to noninfectious or infectious complications was not lower with hydrophobic or chlorhexidine PICCs than with standard polyurethane PICCs. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; PICNIC Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12619000022167.).