A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Mupirocin and Polysporin Triple Ointments in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Infectious complications remain a significant cause of peritoneal dialysis (PD) technique failure. Topical ointments seem to reduce peritonitis; however, concerns over resistance have led to a quest for alternative agents. This study examined the effectiveness of applying topical Polysporin Triple ointment (P(3)) against mupirocin in a multi-centered, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: PD patients routinely applied either P(3) or mupirocin ointment to their exit site. Patients were followed for 18 months or until death or catheter removal. The primary study outcome was a composite endpoint of exit-site infection (ESI), tunnel infection, or peritonitis. RESULTS: Seventy-five of 201 randomized patients experienced a primary outcome event (51 peritonitis episodes, 24 ESIs). No difference was seen in the time to first event for P(3) (13.2 months; 95% confidence interval, 11.9-14.5) and mupirocin (14.0 months; 95% confidence interval, 12.7-15.4) (P=0.41). Twice as many patients reported redness at the exit site in the P(3) group (14 versus 6, P=0.10). Over the complete study period, a higher rate per year of fungal ESIs was seen in patients using P(3) (0.07 versus 0.01; P=0.02) with a corresponding increase in fungal peritonitis (0.04 versus 0.00, respectively; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that P(3) is not superior to mupirocin in the prophylaxis of PD-related infections. Colonization of the exit site with fungal organisms is of concern and warrants further study. As such, the use of P(3) over mupirocin is not advocated in the prophylaxis of PD-related infections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".