Cobalt allergic reaction

Nickel plays a major role in sensitization of patients. Even the small amount present in cobalt chrome alloys often suffices to elicit allergic reactions. Reactions to cobalt are more generally toxic in nature (3). An increased rate of allergy to cobalt and nickel has been found in those patients bearing metallic implants who have developed bone infection in the surroundings of osteosynthesis material. 

In Hildebrand HE, Veron C and Martin P (1989a) Nickel Chromium Cobalt dental alloys and allergic reactions an overview. Biomaterials 10 545-548. 

Persons handling or wearing objects made from cobalt may become sensitized to the metal a boy wearing a wrist-watch and glasses with a metallic frame developed allergic reactions due to the cobalt content of both (Grimm 1971) likewise, a war veteran became cobalt-sensitized by a shell-fragment (Nover and Heinrich 1971). 

In nail art three layers are applied, with decorations added between the layers. An allergic reaction to cobalt chloride in... 

Attempts continue to predict metal sensitivity in the individual patient so that the choice of material can be made accordingly. In vitro tests for metal allergies have been developed on the basis of lymphokine (MIF) release from sensitized T lymphocytes exposed to metal-protein complexes (11). About 6% of patients without a previous metal implant had positive reactions to nickel, chromium, or cobalt. However, it is still not clear whether such a positive reaction is a reliable predictor of clinical problems. In practice few patients have either local or systemic reactions when symptoms occur and other causes are ruled out, the implant should be removed. Some workers recommend removal of an implant whenever there is both a positive MIF test and a positive skin test, even in the current absence of a serious reaction. Allergic dermatitis will clear up as soon as the metal has begun to be cleared from the tissue. The type of metal and the amount released into the tissue will affect the time taken for the disappearance of toxic dermatological phenomena. 

Another possible explanation of the observed reactions are the additives in pharmaceutical preparations. Thus Lagerholm et al. (1958) reported a case of hypersensitivity to benzyl alcohol added as a preservative to vitamin B 2 preparations, resulting in urticaria after injection, Hovding (1968), however, was not able to demonstrate a positive skin reaction either with benzyl alcohol or with cobalt chloride. However, skin tests with commercial brands of cyanocobalamin and hydroxocobalamin as well as with purified cyanocabalamin and hydroxocobalamin were positive. Malten (1975) reports a flare reaction in a woman due to the third injection of 250 pg vitamin B12. Prick and patch tests, however, remained negative. A recent short review of reactions after administration of vitamin Bj2 preparations was published by Meuwissen (1978). An extensive review covering the literature up to 1975 was presented by Faivre et al. (1975). The authors conclude that, despite the widespread use of vitamin B12 preparations, cases of accidents after vitamin Bi2 administration are very rare, but nevertheless are a potential risk. Therefore, skin and immunologic tests should be made prior to administration and especially parenteral application of the vitamin. The authors do not make an explicit statement as to a definite allergic mechanism of the observed phenomena. 

Contact sensitizers from a patient s own materials, such as formaldehyde, isothiazolinones, nickel, chromium, cobalt, colophony (in the form of resin acids), epoxy resin oligomers, reactive diluents, acrylates, methacrylates, polyamines and di-isocyanates, can be analyzed. In fact, any product can be analyzed, but it is not a routine task for laboratories and may be very expensive. There are two main reasons for chemical analyses. First, on patch testing, the patient is found to be allergic to a specific chemical, and the causative product(s) are analyzed for the chemical. Second, the patient s own material has caused an allergic test reaction, but MSDS or other information from the manufacturer did not reveal the causative chemical. In this case, it may be reasonable to analyze the material... 

Kalimo K, Lammintausta K, Jalava J, Niskanen T (1997) Is it possible to improve the prognosis in nickel contact dermatitis Contact Dermatitis 37 121-124 Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R (1993) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from nickel in bartender s metallic measuring cup. Am J Contact Dermatitis 4 39-41 Kanerva L, Kiilunen M, Jolanki R, et al. (1997) Hand dermatitis and allergic patch test reactions caused by nickel in electroplaters. Contact Dermatitis 36 137-140 Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R (1998) Bank clerk s occupational allergic nickel and cobalt contact dermatitis from coins. Contact Dermatitis 38 217-218 Katsarou A, Koufou K, Takou T, et al. (1995) Patch test results in hairdressers with contact dermatitis in Greece (1985-1994). Contact Dermatitis 33 347-361... 

Drawing Nickel-sulfate Cobalt-chloride Copper-sulfate 5%aq.sol 5% pet 2%aq. sol 1% pet 5% aq. sol Papular and pustural reaction Er ema multiforme-like contact dermatitis Contact urticaria Erythema multiforme-like contact dermatitis Allergic contact granuloma Contact urticaria Pemphigoid following chronic dermatitis... 

---