Emma M van Oers, Norbertus A Ipenburg, Anton de Groot, Evelyn Calta, Thomas Rustemeyer
{"title":"巴西蜂胶与中国蜂胶同步斑贴试验结果。","authors":"Emma M van Oers, Norbertus A Ipenburg, Anton de Groot, Evelyn Calta, Thomas Rustemeyer","doi":"10.1111/cod.14748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To test this hypothesis and to compare rates of positive patch tests to Brazilian propolis with those to Chinese popolis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>In a prospective study, 2 commercial Chinese propolis patch test samples were tested in consecutive patients in addition to Brazilian propolis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Results of Concurrent Patch Testing of Brazilian and Chinese Propolis.\",\"authors\":\"Emma M van Oers, Norbertus A Ipenburg, Anton de Groot, Evelyn Calta, Thomas Rustemeyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cod.14748\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To test this hypothesis and to compare rates of positive patch tests to Brazilian propolis with those to Chinese popolis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>In a prospective study, 2 commercial Chinese propolis patch test samples were tested in consecutive patients in addition to Brazilian propolis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contact Dermatitis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contact Dermatitis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14748\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contact Dermatitis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14748","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Results of Concurrent Patch Testing of Brazilian and Chinese Propolis.
Background: 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.
Objectives: To test this hypothesis and to compare rates of positive patch tests to Brazilian propolis with those to Chinese popolis.
Patients and methods: In a prospective study, 2 commercial Chinese propolis patch test samples were tested in consecutive patients in addition to Brazilian propolis.
Results: 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.
Conclusions: 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.
期刊介绍：
Contact Dermatitis is designed primarily as a journal for clinicians who are interested in various aspects of environmental dermatitis. This includes both allergic and irritant (toxic) types of contact dermatitis, occupational (industrial) dermatitis and consumers" dermatitis from such products as cosmetics and toiletries. The journal aims at promoting and maintaining communication among dermatologists, industrial physicians, allergists and clinical immunologists, as well as chemists and research workers involved in industry and the production of consumer goods. Papers are invited on clinical observations, diagnosis and methods of investigation of patients, therapeutic measures, organisation and legislation relating to the control of occupational and consumers".
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
