van Oers Emma M, Ipenburg Norbertus A, de Groot Anton, Calta Evelyn, Rustemeyer Thomas
Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dermato-Allergology and Occupational Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Contact Dermatitis. 2025 May;92(5):344-348. doi: 10.1111/cod.14748. Epub 2024 Dec 26.
In Amsterdam, a steep increase in positive reactions to propolis in the European baseline series was observed from 2.8% in 2020 to 16.4% in 2023. We hypothesised that this was caused by the replacement of Chinese propolis by Brazilian propolis.
To test this hypothesis and to compare rates of positive patch tests to Brazilian propolis with those to Chinese popolis.
In a prospective study, 2 commercial Chinese propolis patch test samples were tested in consecutive patients in addition to Brazilian propolis.
Of 239 patients patch tested, 57 (23.8%) had a positive reaction to Brazilian propolis, and 9 (3.8%) to Chinese propolis. Of the 57 reactions to Brazilian propolis, only 2 (3.5%) were found to be clinically relevant, versus 3/9 (33.3%) for Chinese propolis. Patients reacting to Brazilian propolis had significantly more co-reactivities to fragrance mixes 1 and 2 and to limonene hydroperoxides than propolis B-negative individuals.
The results confirm our hypothesis that the observed increase in positive patch tests to propolis between 2020 and 2023 was the result of the switch from Chinese to Brazilian propolis. The rates of reactions to both propolis samples from China were significantly lower than to Brazilian propolis.
在阿姆斯特丹，欧洲基线系列中对蜂胶的阳性反应从2020年的2.8%急剧上升至2023年的16.4%。我们推测这是由于巴西蜂胶取代了中国蜂胶所致。
验证这一假设，并比较对巴西蜂胶和中国蜂胶进行斑贴试验的阳性率。
在一项前瞻性研究中，除了巴西蜂胶外，还对2种市售中国蜂胶斑贴试验样本在连续的患者中进行了测试。
在接受斑贴试验的239名患者中，57名（23.8%）对巴西蜂胶有阳性反应，9名（3.8%）对中国蜂胶有阳性反应。在对巴西蜂胶的57例反应中，仅2例（3.5%）被发现具有临床相关性，而中国蜂胶为3/9例（33.3%）。与蜂胶B阴性个体相比，对巴西蜂胶有反应的患者对香料混合物1和2以及氢过氧化苎烯的共同反应性明显更高。
结果证实了我们的假设，即2020年至2023年间观察到的对蜂胶斑贴试验阳性率的增加是从中国蜂胶转向巴西蜂胶的结果。来自中国的两种蜂胶样本的反应率均显著低于巴西蜂胶。
