Comparison Between Brazilian Propolis and Chinese Propolis: Results From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2019-2022

Joel G. DeKoven, From the Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Samuel J. DeKoven, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Unity Health St. Michael's, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Erin M. Warshaw, Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Amber Reck Atwater, Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Margo J. Reeder, Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
James S. Taylor, Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Marie-Claude Houle, Division of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Québec, Laval University, Québec, Canada.
Donald V. Belsito, Department of Dermatology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Melanie D. Pratt, Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Brandon L. Adler, Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Jonathan Silverberg, Department of Dermatology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Cory A. Dunnick, Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
Christen M. Mowad, Division of Dermatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, USA.
Nina Botto, Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
JiaDe Yu, Department of Dermatology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Peggy A. Wu, Department of Dermatology, University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Jonathan H. Zippin, Department of Dermatology and Pharmacology, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.
Anton C. de Groot, Dermato-Allergology and Occupational Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

12-3-2025

Journal

Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug

DOI

10.1177/17103568251403564

Abstract

Prevalence of positive patch test (ppt) reactions to propolis in Europe has varied with different allergen source origins. Compared with previous cycles, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) noted a marked increase in propolis positivity in 2019-2020. To compare propolis positivity in North American centers between 3 periods (2019, 2020, and 2021/2022), based on geographic origin and supplier. Retrospective analysis of NACDG patch test data (2019-2022) utilizing 3 different sources of propolis: Chinese propolis (Allergeaze-CPA), Chinese propolis (Chemotechnique-CPC), and Brazilian propolis (Allergeaze-BPA). Proportions of ppt reactions to propolis were: 3.7% (84/2260) to CPA in 2019, 14.7% (271/1838) to BPA in 2020, and 2.2% (66/3052) to CPC in 2021/2022. There was a statistically significant difference in prevalence of reactions for BPA compared with both CPA and CPC (P < 0.00001). When unexpected changes are noted in patch test positivity, especially with naturally derived allergens, the reasons behind those changes should be investigated. The substitution of Brazilian for Chinese propolis resulted in a significant increase in ppt reactions.

Department

Dermatology

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS