Skip to main content

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

Publication ,  Journal Article
DeKoven, JG; DeKoven, SJ; Warshaw, EM; Atwater, AR; Reeder, MJ; Taylor, JS; Houle, M-C; Belsito, DV; Pratt, MD; Adler, BL; Silverberg, J ...
Published in: Dermatitis
March 10, 2026

Background: 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.Objective: To compare propolis positivity in North American centers between 3 periods (2019, 2020, and 2021/2022), based on geographic origin and supplier.Methods: 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).Results: 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).Conclusions: 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.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Dermatitis

DOI

EISSN

2162-5220

Publication Date

March 10, 2026

Start / End Page

17103568251403564

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Dermatology & Venereal Diseases
  • 3204 Immunology
  • 3202 Clinical sciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
DeKoven, J. G., DeKoven, S. J., Warshaw, E. M., Atwater, A. R., Reeder, M. J., Taylor, J. S., … de Groot, A. C. (2026). Comparison Between Brazilian Propolis and Chinese Propolis: Results From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2019-2022. Dermatitis, 17103568251403564. https://doi.org/10.1177/17103568251403564
DeKoven, Joel G., Samuel J. DeKoven, Erin M. Warshaw, Amber Reck Atwater, Margo J. Reeder, James S. Taylor, Marie-Claude Houle, et al. “Comparison Between Brazilian Propolis and Chinese Propolis: Results From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2019-2022.Dermatitis, March 10, 2026, 17103568251403564. https://doi.org/10.1177/17103568251403564.
DeKoven JG, DeKoven SJ, Warshaw EM, Atwater AR, Reeder MJ, Taylor JS, et al. Comparison Between Brazilian Propolis and Chinese Propolis: Results From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2019-2022. Dermatitis. 2026 Mar 10;17103568251403564.
DeKoven, Joel G., et al. “Comparison Between Brazilian Propolis and Chinese Propolis: Results From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2019-2022.Dermatitis, Mar. 2026, p. 17103568251403564. Pubmed, doi:10.1177/17103568251403564.
DeKoven JG, DeKoven SJ, Warshaw EM, Atwater AR, Reeder MJ, Taylor JS, Houle M-C, Belsito DV, Pratt MD, Adler BL, Silverberg J, Dunnick CA, Mowad CM, Botto N, Yu J, Wu PA, Zippin JH, de Groot AC. Comparison Between Brazilian Propolis and Chinese Propolis: Results From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2019-2022. Dermatitis. 2026 Mar 10;17103568251403564.

Published In

Dermatitis

DOI

EISSN

2162-5220

Publication Date

March 10, 2026

Start / End Page

17103568251403564

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Dermatology & Venereal Diseases
  • 3204 Immunology
  • 3202 Clinical sciences