Response to letter, 'inclusion of chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol-based presurgical hand antiseptics: Can a product be considered 'superior' if it does not meet established efficacy requirements?'

摘要

We thank Macinga and Edmonds for their interest in our article comparing the in vivo activity of a dual-active waterless presurgical hand antiseptic with waterless presurgical hand antiseptics containing alcohol only. The majority of the letter dealt with comments regarding the regulatory requirements established for demonstrating efficacy of surgical hand antiseptics. It should be pointed out that the study we presented was a comparison of commercially marketed products. All of the products evaluated have already been through regulatory approvals and passed the established efficacy requirements.