The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial To Evaluate the Efficacy of Mupirocin for Eradicating Carriage of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Open accessAbstract
Mupirocin has been widely used for the clearance of nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriage during outbreaks, but no placebo-controlled trial has evaluated its value for eradicating MRSA carriage at multiple body sites in settings where MRSA is not epidemic. In a 1,500-bed teaching hospital with endemic MRSA, 102 patients colonized with MRSA were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and treated with either mupirocin (group M) or placebo (group P) applied to the anterior nares for 5 days; both groups used chlorhexidine soap for body washing. Follow-up screening, susceptibility testing, and genotyping were performed to evaluate treatment success, mupirocin or chlorhexidine resistance, and exogenous recolonization. At baseline, MRSA carriage was 60% in the nares, 38% in the groin, and 62% in other sites (skin lesions, urine). The MRSA eradication rate (all body sites) was 25% in group M (12 of 48 patients), compared to 18% in group P (9 of 50 patients; relative risk [RR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI 95 ], 0.33 to 1.55). At the end of follow-up, 44% of patients (19 of 43) were free of nasal MRSA in group M, compared to 23% (11 of 44) in group P (RR, 0.57; CI 95 , 0.31 to 1.04). Ten patients developed MRSA infections (three in group M and seven in group P). One mupirocin treatment failure was due to exogenous MRSA recolonization. No MRSA isolate showed chlorhexidine resistance or high-level mupirocin resistance; however, we observed an association ( P = 0.003) between low-level mupirocin resistance at study entry (prevalence, 23%) and subsequent treatment failure in both study arms. These results suggest that nasal mupirocin is only marginally effective in the eradication of multisite MRSA carriage in a setting where MRSA is endemic.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
David, M. Z., & Daum, R. S. (2010) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00081-09 · Cited by 1,972
Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection
Huang, S. S., Septimus, E., Kleinman, K., Moody, J., Hickok, J., Avery, T. R., Lankiewicz, J., Gombosev, A., Terpstra, L., Hartford, F., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1207290 · Cited by 795
Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control in Acute-Care Settings
Sydnor, E. R. M., & Perl, T. M. (2011) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00027-10 · Cited by 652
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Community-acquired Skin Infections
Moran, G. J., Amii, R. N., Abrahamian, F. M., & Talan, D. A. (2005) · Emerging Infectious Diseases · doi:10.3201/eid1106.040641 · Cited by 278
Metadata
- Authors
- Harbarth, S., Dharan, S., Liassine, N., Herrault, P., Auckenthaler, R., & Pittet, D.
- Venue
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1999-06
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1412-1416
- ISSN
- 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6596
- OpenAlex
- W2135399995
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial To Evaluate the Efficacy of Mupirocin for Eradicating Carriage of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.43.6.1412
- The paper
- Harbarth, S., Dharan, S., Liassine, N., Herrault, P., Auckenthaler, R., & Pittet, D. (1999). Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial To Evaluate the Efficacy of Mupirocin for Eradicating Carriage of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.43.6.1412
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.