Patch Testing with Propolis of Different Geographical Origins in a Baseline Series
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/actadv.v101.423Keywords:
propolis, allergic contact dermatitis, patch test, cross-reaction, colophonium, balsam of PeruAbstract
The chemical composition of propolis varies with geographical origin; however, it is not known whether this affects the frequency of contact allergy to propolis. In order to study the frequency of contact allergy to propolis of different geographical origins and concomitant reactions, 1,470 consecutive patients with dermatitis from Denmark, Lithuania and Spain were patch tested with propolis from China, Lithuania, North America and Sweden, and with a baseline series. Patch test reactions to any type of propolis ranged from 1.3% to 5.8%. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of positive reactions between the 4 types of propolis in the respective countries. Testing with a single commercially available type of propolis detects only approximately half of propolis-allergic patients. In patients allergic to propolis, concomitant reactions to Myroxylon pereirae resin, colophonium and Fragrance mix I were common, ranging from 12.5% to 50.0%.
This article has a related Corrigendum.
Downloads
References
Malhotra S DS, Singal A, Kaur M. To study the incidence of contact hypersensitivity to commonly used topical antibacterials. Internet J Dermatol 2010; 8: 1-7.
Wolf R, Wolf D, Tüzün B, Tüzün Y. Cosmetics and contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 2001; 14: 181-187.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1529-8019.2001.01025.x
Rastogi S, Patel KR, Singam V, Silverberg JI. Allergic contact dermatitis to personal care products and topical medications in adults with atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; 79: 1028-1033.e6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.07.017
Corazza M, Borghi A, Lauriola MM, Virgili A. Use of topical herbal remedies and cosmetics: a questionnaire-based investigation in dermatology out-patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol 2009; 23: 1298-1303.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2009.03314.x
AC dG. Propolis: a review of properties, applications, chemical composition, contact allergy, and other adverse effects. Dermatitis 2013; 24: 263-284.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000011
Walgrave S.E. WEM, Glesne L.A. Allergic contact dermatitis from propolis. Dermatitis 2005; 16: 209-215.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01206501-200512000-00004
Hausen BM, Evers P, Stüwe HT, König WA, Wollenweber E. Propolis allergy (IV) Studies with further sensitizers from propolis and constituents common to propolis, poplar buds and balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 1992; 26: 34-44.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb00865.x
Hausen BM. Evaluation of the main contact allergens in propolis (1995-2005). Dermatitis 2005; 16: 127-129.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01206501-200509000-00007
Rudzki E, Grzywa Z. Dermatitis from propolis. Contact Dermatitis 1983; 9: 40-45.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1983.tb04624.x
Nyman G, Wagner S, Prystupa-Chalkidis K, Ryberg K, Hagvall L. Contact allergy in western Sweden to propolis of four different origins. Acta Derm Venereol 2020; 100: adv00256.
https://doi.org/10.2340/00015555-3615
Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bircher A, Bruze M, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing - recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis 2015; 73: 195-221.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12432
Bruze M. Thoughts on how to improve the quality of multicentre patch test studies. Contact Dermatitis 2016; 74: 168-174.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12507
Uter W, Amario-Hita JC, Balato A, Ballmer-Weber B, Bauer A, Fortina AB, et al. European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results with the European baseline series, 2013/14. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2017; 31: 1516-1525.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.14423
Uter W, Spiewak R, Cooper SM, Wilkinson M, Sánchez Pérez J, Schnuch A, et al. Contact allergy to ingredients of topical medications: results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), 2009-2012. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety 2016; 25: 1305-1312.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4064
Giusti F, Miglietta R, Pepe P, Seidenari S. Sensitization to propolis in 1255 children undergoing patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51: 255-258.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.00455.x
Pietowska J CE, Spiewak R. The most frequent contact sensitizers and atopic diseases among consecutive patients of a Polish test clinic. Allergy 2008; 63: 320.
Bunney MH. Contact dermatitis in beekeepees due to propolis (bee glue). Br J Dermatol 1968; 80: 17-23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.1968.tb11900.x
Barile M, Cozzani E, Anonide A, Usiglio D, Burroni A, Guarrera M. Is contact allergy rare in psoriatics? Contact Dermatitis 1996; 35: 113-114.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02309.x
Svedman C, Isaksson M, Björk J, Mowitz M, Bruze M. 'Calibration' of our patch test reading technique is necessary. Contact Dermatitis 2012; 66: 180-187.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.02044.x
Brasch J, Schnuch A, Geier J, Aberer W, Uter W. Iodopropynylbutyl carbamate 0.2% is suggested for patch testing of patients with eczema possibly related to preservatives. Br J Dermatol 2004; 151: 608-615.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2004.06141.x
Gruvberger B, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruynzeel DP, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, et al. Patch testing with methyldibromo glutaronitrile, a multicentre study within the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52: 14-18.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00480.x
Wlodek C, Penfold CM, Bourke JF, Chowdhury MMU, Cooper SM, Ghaffar S, et al. Recommendation to test limonene hydroperoxides 0.3% and linalool hydroperoxides 1.0% in the British baseline patch test series. Br J Dermatol 2017; 177: 1708-1715.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15648
Deza G, García-Bravo B, Silvestre JF, Pastor-Nieto MA, González-Pérez R, Heras-Mendaza F, et al. Contact sensitization to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides in Spain: a GEIDACprospective study: contact allergy to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides. Contact Dermatitis 2017; 76: 74-80.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12714
Wilkinson M, Gallo R, Goossens A, Johansen JD, Rustemeyer T, Sánchez-Pérez J, et al. A proposal to create an extension to the European baseline series. Contact Dermatitis 2018; 78: 101-108.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12918
Nyman GSA, Tang M, Inerot A, Osmancevic A, Malmberg P, Hagvall L. Contact allergy to beeswax and propolis among patients with cheilitis or facial dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2019; 81: 110-116.
Published
Versions
- 2022-09-29 (2)
- 2021-11-10 (1)
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Gunnar S. A. Nyman, Ana Maria Giménez‐Arnau , Jurate Grigaitiene, Laura Malinauskiene, Evy Paulsen, Lina Hagvall
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All digitalized ActaDV contents is available freely online. The Society for Publication of Acta Dermato-Venereologica owns the copyright for all material published until volume 88 (2008) and as from volume 89 (2009) the journal has been published fully Open Access, meaning the authors retain copyright to their work.
Unless otherwise specified, all Open Access articles are published under CC-BY-NC licences, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
