Es ist nicht klar, wie groß die Rolle von Antibiotika https://antibiotika-wiki.de/ in den Wettbewerbsbeziehungen zwischen Mikroorganismen unter natürlichen Bedingungen ist. Zelman vaxman glaubte, dass diese Rolle minimal ist, Antibiotika werden nicht anders als in reinen Kulturen auf reichen Umgebungen gebildet. Anschließend wurde jedoch festgestellt, dass bei vielen Produzenten die Aktivität der antibiotikasynthese in Gegenwart anderer Arten oder spezifischer Produkte Ihres Stoffwechsels zunimmt.

Systemic photoallergy to terbinafine

Table 1 Provocation cumulative dose, variation of total nasal resistance during the follow-up times, and symptoms in patient undergone metamizole challenge test R T0, nasal resistance at baseline; R T1, nasal resistance after the first dose.
Terbinafine is an allylamine antimycotic Accepted for publication 16 November 2009 1. Nettis E, Colanardi MC, Ferrannini A, Vacca A, Tursi A. Short-term tolerability of etoric- ated reaction. This hypothesis fits well oxib in patients with cutaneous hypersensitiv- (2–4). To the author’s knowledge, this is 2. Asero R. Detection of aspirin reactivity in disorders. Allergy 1998;53:214–215.
3. Clement PAR. Committee Report on stan- patients with urticaria following a single line: aspirin provocation tests for diagnosis of aspirin hypersensitivity. Allergy 2007;62: 5. An˜ı´barro B, Fontela JL. Immediate rhinocon- junctivitis induced by metamizole and metro- Zaffiro A, Di Sora F, Menzella F et al.
to progress on his face, de´collete´ and tions with allergic, nonallergic, or mixed 7. Himly M, Jahn-Schmid B, Pittertschatscher K, Bohle B, Grubmayr K, Ferreira F et al.
ing appeared in the preceding night.
Local and oral steroids led to a signifi- 8. Asero R. Oral aspirin challenges in patients with a history of intolerance to single non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Clin Exp Allergy 65 (2010) 1058–1072 ª 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S prior to the present episode, he wasprescribed LamisilattTM cream(terbinafine hydrochloride 1%) forsome rash on his hands. He couldrecall that he had used the cream for1–2 weeks and this was in the summer.
It seems that this combination of apre-existing inflammatory skin condi-tion (disrupted skin barrier, danger sig-nals) with exposure to terbinafine andsolar irradiation might have createdcircumstances (formation of photoad-ducts) leading to the induction of hisphotoallergy.
Figure 1 Photopatch testing with a dilution series (1–25%) of terbinafine hydrochloride, dis- solved in liquid paraffin, water and ethanol, 96 h after application of the tests and 48 h after irradiation with 5 J/cm2 UVA. On the left-hand side (nonirradiated), no reaction to the same Accepted for publication 24 November 2009 able until collecting more experience.
scored as ICDRG ‘‘+’’ after 72 h of application to the skin (24 h after irra- 1. Roberts DT. Oral terbinafine (Lamisil) in the and ‘‘++’’ after 96 h (48 h after irra- treatment of fungal infections of the skin and nails. Dermatology 1997;1(Suppl. 1):37–39.
2. Murphy M, Barnes L. Terbinafine-induced for initial testing; however, the results 3. Brooke R, Coulson IH, al-Dawoud A.
Terbinafine-induced subacute cutaneous lupus 10 and 25% – all with ‘‘+’’ to ‘‘++’’ terbinafine. Br J Dermatol 1998;139:1133.
5. Spiewak R. Patch testing for contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. Open Allergy ‘‘condition’’ effector lymphocytes to exclude false-positive (phototoxic) reac- 6. Vocanson M, Hennino A, Rozieres A, Poyet G, Nicolas JF. Effector and regulatory mech- tests – all with negative results. Later anisms in allergic contact dermatitis. Allergy Allergy 65 (2010) 1058–1072 ª 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S

Source: http://mail.radoslawspiewak.net/2010-1.pdf