Contact Allergy in Western Sweden to Propolis of Four Different Origins

Abstract

Propolis, which is produced by honeybees and is used in “natural” products, can cause contact allergy. The composition of propolis varies between regions, but little is known about how this variation affects contact allergenicity. The aims of this study were to investigate the frequency of propolis contact allergy in western Sweden, and whether the frequency varies according to the origin of the propolis. Patch-testing was performed using propolis from China, Lithuania, North America, and Sweden in 722 consecutive patients with dermatitis in western Sweden. Frequencies of positive patch-test reactions ranged from 2.4% to 3.6%. There were some, not statistically significant, differences in frequency of contact allergy to the 4 samples of propolis of different origins, with the highest frequency to the sample from China and the lowest frequency to the sample from Sweden. Concomitant positive patch-test reactions to plant and fragrance substances in the baseline series were common, most frequently to Myroxylon pereirae resin and colophonium.

Patch Testing with Propolis of Different Geographical Origins in a Baseline Series

“…In the current study of patients with dermatitis from Denmark, Lithuania and Spain, the same 4 batches of propolis from different geographical regions were used, as in our previous study of patients with dermatitis from western Sweden. The results from Denmark and Lithuania are in line with this study (Table I) (10), where positive reactions to any type of propolis were recorded in 6.2% of tested patients, ranging from 2.2% to 3.6% among the 4 types of propolis. In the Swedish patients, the frequency of positive reactions to any type of propolis was significantly higher (p < 0.0001), than that of the Spanish patients.…”

A Nano-Liposomal Formulation of Caffeic Acid Phenethyl Ester Modulates Nrf2 and NF-κβ Signaling and Alleviates Experimentally Induced Acute Pancreatitis in a Rat Model

“…This was mainly attributed to difference in uptake mechanisms and/or biodistribution in body tissues of nano-sized particles, controlled release of the loaded drug, in addition to the overall improvement in the oral bioavailability of the encapsulated drug thus allowing dose reduction [ 73 , 74 ]. Therefore, the optimal nanoliposomal formulation of CAPE might reduce any adverse effects associated with the exposure to the free drug such as the reported propolis- and CAPE-induced allergy [ 75 , 76 , 77 ]. It has been shown that the most important allergic molecules in propolis are caffeic acid esters (especially caffeic acid phenyl ester), cinnamic acids and their aromatic esters [ 77 , 78 ].…”

Contact sensitization to propolis in the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) 2013 to 2019 and market survey of propolis commerce in Germany

“…Since 2016, increased import and decreased export of propolis to and from Germany, respectively, probably indicate increased propolis use and exposure, which most likely explains the upward trend of propolis sensitization. Nevertheless, one has to be aware that differences in propolis composition, even between poplar‐type propolis species, and heterogeneity of the propolis used in PT preparations as well as in propolis on the (cosmetics) market do exist and affect diagnostic accuracy in patch tested patients, as recently demonstrated in a Swedish study 10 . The compositional (chemical) heterogeneity of commercially available PT preparations year on year should be studied.…”

“…Nevertheless, one has to be aware that differences in propolis composition, even between poplar-type propolis species, and heterogeneity of the propolis used in PT preparations as well as in propolis on the (cosmetics) market do exist and affect diagnostic accuracy in patch tested patients, as recently demonstrated in a Swedish study. 10 The compositional (chemical) heterogeneity of commercially available PT preparations year on year should be studied.…”