This artice is free to access.
Background: Kathon CG, a combination of methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone, is widely used as preservative in cosmetics, as well in household cleaning products, industrial products such as paints and glues. It has emerged as an important sensitizing agent in allergic contact dermatitis. Objectives: This study evaluated the reactivity to this substance in patients subjected to patch tests at the Dermatology Institute in Bauru, São Paulo from 2015 to 2017 and its correlation with other preservatives, the professional activity and location of the lesions. Methods: The patients were submitted to standard series of epicutaneous tests, standardized by the Brazilian Group Studies on Contact Dermatitis. Results: Out the 267 patients tested, 192 presented positivity to at least one substance and 29 of the patients (15.10%) presented reaction to Kathon CG, with predominance of the female gender (n = 27); main professional activity associated with Kathon CG sensibilization was cleaning (17.24%), followed by aesthetic areas (13.79%) and health care (10.34%). The most prevalent sensitizations among the substances tested were nickel sulphate (56.3%), followed by cobalt chloride (23.4%), neomycin (18.2%), potassium dichromate (17.7%), thimerosal (14.5%), formaldehyde (13.2%), paraphenylenediamine (9.3%), and fragrance mix (8.3%). Study limitations: We do not have data from patients that were submitted to patch test a decade ago in order to confront to current data and establish whether or no sensitization to Kathon CG has increased. Conclusion: High positivity to Kathon CG corroborates the recent findings in the literature, suggesting more attention to concentration of this substance, used in cosmetics and products for domestic use.
Silva, E. A., Bosco, M. R. M., Lozano, R. R., Latini, A. C. P., & Souza, V. N. B. de. (2020). High rate of sensitization to Kathon CG, detected by patch tests in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, 95(2), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abd.2019.09.026