Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 372

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of an Investigational Vaccine for Preventing Staphylococcus aureus Infections After Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Randomized Trial

Fowler, Vance G., Allen, Keith B., Moreira, Edson D., Moustafa, Moustafa, Isgro, Frank, Boucher, Helen W., Corey, G. Ralph, Carmeli, Yehuda, Betts, Robert, Hartzel, Jonathan S., Chan, Ivan S. F., McNeely, Tessie B., Kartsonis, Nicholas A., Guris, Dalya, Onorato, Matthew T., Smugar, Steven S., DiNubile, Mark J., Sobanjo-ter Meulen, Ajoke·2013·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Infections due to Staphylococcus aureus are serious complications of cardiothoracic surgery. A novel vaccine candidate (V710) containing the highly conserved S. aureus iron surface determinant B is immunogenic and generally well tolerated in volunteers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of preoperative vaccination in preventing serious postoperative S. aureus infection in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blind, randomized, event-driven trial conducted between December 2007 and August 2011 among 8031 patients aged 18 years or older who were scheduled for full median sternotomy within 14 to 60 days of vaccination at 165 sites in 26 countries. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single 0.5-mL intramuscular injection of either V710 vaccine, 60 μg (n = 4015), or placebo (n = 4016). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy end point was prevention of S. aureus bacteremia and/or deep sternal wound infection (including mediastinitis) through postoperative day 90. Secondary end points included all S. aureus surgical site and invasive infections through postoperative day 90. Three interim analyses with futility assessments were planned. RESULTS: The independent data monitoring committee recommended termination of the study after the second interim analysis because of safety concerns and low efficacy. At the end of the study, the V710 vaccine was not significantly more efficacious than placebo in preventing either the primary end points (22/3528 V710 vaccine recipients [2.6 per 100 person-years] vs 27/3517 placebo recipients [3.2 per 100 person-years]; relative risk, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.44-1.48; P = .58) or secondary end points despite eliciting robust antibody responses. Compared with placebo, the V710 vaccine was associated with more adverse experiences during the first 14 days after vaccination (1219/3958 vaccine recipients [30.8%; 95% CI, 29.4%-32.3%] and 866/3967 placebo recipients [21.8%; 95% CI, 20.6%-23.1%], including 797 [20.1%; 95% CI, 18.9%-21.4%] and 378 [9.5%; 95% CI, 8.6%-10.5%] with injection site reactions and 66 [1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.1%] and 51 [1.3%; 95% CI, 1.0%-1.7%] with serious adverse events, respectively) and a significantly higher rate of multiorgan failure during the entire study (31 vs 17 events; 0.9 [95% CI, 0.6-1.2] vs 0.5 [95% CI, 0.3-0.8] events per 100 person-years; P = .04). Although the overall incidence of vaccine-related serious adverse events (1 in each group) and the all-cause mortality rate (201/3958 vs 177/3967; 5.7 [95% CI, 4.9-6.5] vs 5.0 [95% CI, 4.3-5.7] deaths per 100 person-years; P = .20) were not statistically different between groups, the mortality rate in patients with staphylococcal infections was significantly higher among V710 vaccine than placebo recipients (15/73 vs 4/96; 23.0 [95% CI, 12.9-37.9] vs 4.2 [95% CI, 1.2-10.8] per 100 person-years; difference, 18.8 [95% CI, 8.0-34.1] per 100 person-years). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery with median sternotomy, the use of a vaccine against S. aureus compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of serious postoperative S. aureus infections and was associated with increased mortality among patients who developed S. aureus infections. These findings do not support the use of the V710 vaccine for patients undergoing surgical interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00518687.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2013.3010

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 372

Metadata

Authors
Fowler, V. G., Allen, K. B., Moreira, E. D., Moustafa, M., Isgro, F., Boucher, H. W., Corey, G. R., Carmeli, Y., Betts, R., Hartzel, J. S., Chan, I. S. F., McNeely, T. B., Kartsonis, N. A., Guris, D., Onorato, M. T., Smugar, S. S., DiNubile, M. J., & Sobanjo-ter Meulen, A.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2013-04-03
Volume
309
Issue
13
Pages
1368
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2086165685
Cited by
372
References
7
FWCI
27.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of an Investigational Vaccine for Preventing Staphylococcus aureus Infections After Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2013.3010
The paper
Fowler, V. G., Allen, K. B., Moreira, E. D., Moustafa, M., Isgro, F., Boucher, H. W., Corey, G. R., Carmeli, Y., Betts, R., Hartzel, J. S., Chan, I. S. F., McNeely, T. B., Kartsonis, N. A., Guris, D., Onorato, M. T., Smugar, S. S., DiNubile, M. J., & Sobanjo-ter Meulen, A. (2013). Effect of an Investigational Vaccine for Preventing Staphylococcus aureus Infections After Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.3010

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.