Results of patch testing propolis in the European baseline series: A 4-year retrospective study.
Brazilian propolis
Chinese propolis
Myroxylon pereirae resin
allergic contact dermatitis
balsam of Peru
bee glue
colophonium
contact allergy
cosmetics
cross‐reactions
fragrance mix 1
fragrance mix 2
propolis
pseudo‐cross‐reactions
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Aug 2024
21 Aug 2024
Historique:
revised:
10
07
2024
received:
11
05
2024
accepted:
08
08
2024
medline:
22
8
2024
pubmed:
22
8
2024
entrez:
22
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Propolis was added to the European baseline series (EBS) in 2019. To investigate the frequency and relevance of positive patch tests to propolis in the EBS and to study co-reactivities. Retrospective study in patients patch tested between June 2019 and November 2023 in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Of 3134 consecutive patients, 299 (9.5%) had a positive reaction to propolis 10% pet. Only nine reactions (3%) were judged to be clinically relevant. There were significant co-reactivities to Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru), colophonium, fragrance mixes 1 and 2, and to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides. A steep increase in rates of positive reactions to propolis was observed from 2020 to 2023. This was highly likely the result of the replacement of Chinese propolis with Brazilian propolis by the manufacturer. Positive patch tests for propolis are very frequent in Amsterdam, but only a few of these reactions are relevant. Most are probably (pseudo-)cross-reactions in patients with fragrance allergies. Propolis in the EBS has very limited value for dermatologists and patients in The Netherlands. Changes in patch test materials should be provided to all users to avoid misinterpretation of patch test results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Propolis was added to the European baseline series (EBS) in 2019.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the frequency and relevance of positive patch tests to propolis in the EBS and to study co-reactivities.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective study in patients patch tested between June 2019 and November 2023 in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 3134 consecutive patients, 299 (9.5%) had a positive reaction to propolis 10% pet. Only nine reactions (3%) were judged to be clinically relevant. There were significant co-reactivities to Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru), colophonium, fragrance mixes 1 and 2, and to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides. A steep increase in rates of positive reactions to propolis was observed from 2020 to 2023. This was highly likely the result of the replacement of Chinese propolis with Brazilian propolis by the manufacturer.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Positive patch tests for propolis are very frequent in Amsterdam, but only a few of these reactions are relevant. Most are probably (pseudo-)cross-reactions in patients with fragrance allergies. Propolis in the EBS has very limited value for dermatologists and patients in The Netherlands. Changes in patch test materials should be provided to all users to avoid misinterpretation of patch test results.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Wilkinson M, Gonçalo M, Aerts O, et al. The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2019. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80(1):1‐4. doi:10.1111/cod.13155
Wilkinson M, Gallo R, Goossens A, et al. A proposal to create an extension to the European baseline series. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78(2):101‐108. doi:10.1111/cod.12918
Johansen JD, Aalto‐Korte K, Agner T, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing—recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:195‐221. doi:10.1111/cod.12432
De Groot AC. Propolis: a review of properties, applications, chemical composition, contact allergy, and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2013;24(6):263‐282. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000011
DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2019‐2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34(2):90‐104. doi:10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk
Schubert S, Geier J, Dickel H, et al. Contact sensitization to propolis in the information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) 2013 to 2019 and market survey of propolis commerce in Germany. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85(6):722‐724. doi:10.1111/cod.13960
Uter W, Wilkinson SM, Aerts O, et al. Patch test results with the European baseline series, 2019/20—Joint European results of the ESSCA and the EBS working groups of the ESCD, and the GEIDAC. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87(4):343‐355. doi:10.1111/cod.14170
Nyman GSA, Giménez‐Arnau AM, Grigaitiene J, Malinauskiene L, Paulsen E, Hagvall L. Patch testing with propolis of different geographical origins in a baseline series. Acta Derm Venereol. 2021;101(11):adv00591. doi:10.2340/actadv.v101.423
Minteguiaga M, González HA, Ferreira F, Dellacassa E. Baccharis dracunculifolia DC. In: Máthé Á, Bandoni A, eds. Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of South America Vol. 2. Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of the World. Vol 7. Springer; 2021. doi:10.1007/978‐3‐030‐62818‐5_5. Erratum in: Acta Derm Venereol. 2022;102:adv00775.
Gazim ZC, Valle JS, Carvalho dos Santos I, et al. Ethnomedicinal, phytochemical and pharmacological investigations of Baccharis dracunculifolia DC. (ASTERACEAE). Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:1048688. doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.1048688