巴西蜂胶与中国蜂胶同步斑贴试验结果。

IF 4.8 1区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY Contact Dermatitis Pub Date : 2024-12-26 DOI:10.1111/cod.14748
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在阿姆斯特丹,欧洲基线系列观察到蜂胶阳性反应从2020年的2.8%急剧增加到2023年的16.4%。我们假设这是由于中国蜂胶被巴西蜂胶取代造成的。目的:验证这一假设,并比较巴西蜂胶和中国蜂胶的贴片试验阳性率。患者和方法:在前瞻性研究中,除巴西蜂胶外,还对2个中国商用蜂胶贴片试验样品进行了连续试验。结果:239例患者中,巴西蜂胶阳性57例(23.8%),中国蜂胶阳性9例(3.8%)。在57例巴西蜂胶反应中,仅有2例(3.5%)与临床相关,而中国蜂胶反应为3/9(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精混合物1和2以及柠檬烯氢过氧化物的共同反应性明显更高。结论:研究结果证实了我们的假设,即在2020年至2023年期间,蜂胶阳性试验的增加是由中国蜂胶转向巴西蜂胶的结果。中国蜂胶样品的反应速率明显低于巴西蜂胶样品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis 医学-过敏
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
30.90%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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".
期刊最新文献
The Usefulness of Scratch-Patch Testing in Imatinib-Induced DRESS Syndrome. A New Case of Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Topical Simvastatin Used for Treatment of Porokeratosis. Multiple Allergens Causing Sofa Dermatitis: A Case Report of Polysensitisation. Shiitake Dermatitis: First Report From Turkey. Two Cases of Facial Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Hexyl Resorcinol, a 'New' Resorcinol Derivative in Depigmenting Products.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1