There is also this:A meta-analysis in 2008 concluded that...

Originally posted by Ooogerbooger

Not sure what study you have been reading. The ones I have seen for Mupirocin all show better results and more sustained results than this BOT one.

And that's the crux of it. What the treating specialist doesn't want is the following court conversation:

Barrister for the estate of the late Mr Smith: Was the nasal prophylaxis you used the best available, Doctor?
Specialist (going red): Well, I thought it was the ecologically responsible choice.
Barrister: But not the best available?
Specialist: I have to weigh up other considerations as well...
Barrister: So... not the best available?
In the gallery, Mrs Smith sobs loudly and the jurors look sympathetically at her.

There is also this:

A meta-analysis in 2008 concluded that mupirocin appears to be cost-effective only in those patients who are proven nasal carriers, where a significant and strong reduction in S. aureus infection was confirmed. A significant limitation to the use of mupirocin is resistance, which reportedly ranges from 1% to 81%.Jul 3, 2015

https://academic.oup.com/jac/article/70/10/2681/829798#:~:text=A%20meta%2Danalysis%20in%202008,aureus%20infection%20was%20confirmed.&text=A%20significant%20limitation%20to%20the,from%201%25%20to%2081%25.

So far BTX 1801 has not seen any signs of resistance.