The cutaneous mirror: leveraging drug-induced skin phenotypes as early visual risk signals for systemic toxicity, a comprehensive review

Abstract

Drug-induced cutaneous phenotypes can act as early, bedside-visible clinical risk signals of systemic toxicity because the skin externalizes immune dysregulation, epithelial injury, and microvascular disturbance before organ-specific symptoms are obvious. This narrative review synthesizes peer-reviewed human evidence linking drug-related eruptions to systemic harm and actionable clinical decisions. We searched databases through January 2026 with citation chasing and organized findings using a morphology-anchored framework cross mapped to drug classes and mechanisms. High-risk patterns repeatedly signal urgent systemic risk: painful dusky or targetoid lesions with mucosal involvement and blistering/epidermal detachment require immediate culprit withdrawal and admission-level supportive care; widespread eruption with facial edema plus fever, lymphadenopathy, eosinophilia, or atypical lymphocytosis requires drug discontinuation and close monitoring for drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). Research priorities include prospective validation of phenotypes as quantitative predictive risk signals, harmonized outcomes, reproducible imaging standards, and bias-aware digital implementation.

1 Introduction

The skin is uniquely positioned to act as a sentinel organ for drug toxicity because it is continuously exposed, densely populated with immune sentinels, and designed to translate chemical and inflammatory danger signals into visible morphologic change (Nestle et al., 2009). Skin immunosurveillance relies on coordinated sensing and effector functions across keratinocytes, antigen-presenting cells, resident T cells, and vascular and lymphatic networks, creating an early warning system that can externalize internal immune dysregulation and toxic injury (Kupper and Fuhlbrigge, 2004; Di Meglio et al., 2011). In many systemic disorders, the surface phenotype provides actionable clues that prompt diagnostic reorientation and urgent referral, and the same principle applies to medication harms, where the first clinically detectable sign may be cutaneous rather than visceral (Marzano et al., 2016; Sampaio et al., 2021).

Drug-induced skin phenotypes are common across inpatient and outpatient practice, spanning benign self-limited rashes to severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) with multiorgan involvement and high mortality risk (Del Pozzo-Magaña and Liy-Wong, 2024; Lee et al., 2010). Importantly, the skin can signal systemic toxicity through recognizable patterns that track with immune activation, epithelial injury, vascular inflammation, or drug accumulation, and these patterns may precede laboratory abnormalities or organ-specific symptoms (Marzano et al., 2016; Zalewska-Janowska et al., 2017). SCARs illustrate this sentinel role most clearly. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is defined by a heterogeneous eruption coupled to internal organ involvement, often hepatic, renal, pulmonary, or cardiac, and diagnostic frameworks such as RegiSCAR were developed because clinical recognition is time sensitive and complex (Sasidharanpillai et al., 2022; Calle et al., 2023). Stevens–Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS–TEN) represent mucocutaneous epidermal necrosis with systemic illness and substantial mortality, where early recognition and supportive management are central (Shah H. et al., 2024). Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is classically pustular and febrile and can include systemic involvement in a clinically meaningful subset, reinforcing that a surface eruption can be a systemic event (Szatkowski and Schwartz, 2015).

Visual risk signals matter because they can accelerate triage, shorten time to culprit drug withdrawal, and prevent progression to severe outcomes. In epidermal necrolysis, time to stopping the offending medication is linked to survival, making the skin finding not merely descriptive but operational for risk reduction (Miliszewski et al., 2016). Beyond classic hypersensitivity syndromes, oncology has made the clinical value of visible toxicity especially clear. Cutaneous reactions during epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition, such as acneiform eruptions, can reflect on-target pathway inhibition and have been repeatedly associated with treatment activity, making the skin phenotype a real-time pharmacodynamic readout that can guide supportive care and dosing decisions (Urban and Anadkat, 2013). Likewise, immune checkpoint inhibitors frequently cause early cutaneous immune-related adverse events, and these visible toxicities can serve as the first clinical signal of systemic immune activation, warranting closer monitoring for extracutaneous immune toxicities (Wang et al., 2021; Apalla et al., 2021; Vaez-Gharamaleki et al., 2025).

This review focuses on drug-induced skin phenotypes as early visual risk signals that can signal systemic toxicity, with priority given to patterns that predict organ involvement, clinical deterioration, or the need for urgent drug cessation and escalation of care. While individual phenotype–drug associations have been described in prior reviews, this work adds value by integrating morphology-anchored pattern recognition with an explicit risk-stratification framework that separates high-risk, time-critical phenotypes from lower-risk or self-limited reactions, providing a clinically actionable triage pathway supported by a minimum laboratory set and clear escalation criteria. In this review, a skin phenotype refers to a reproducible, clinician-observable pattern of cutaneous change defined by morphology, distribution, timing relative to drug exposure, and accompanying mucosal, appendageal, or vascular features (Del Pozzo-Magaña and Liy-Wong, 2024). Systemic toxicity refers to drug-related injury or dysfunction affecting internal organs or whole-body physiology, including immune dysregulation, epithelial injury, and organ inflammation, whether clinically apparent or detectable by laboratory or imaging abnormalities (Marzano et al., 2016). An early warning sign refers to a cutaneous phenotype that appears early enough in the toxicity trajectory to permit timely intervention that changes risk, most often by stopping the offending agent, modifying exposure, or initiating targeted treatment (Lee et al., 2010). On-target toxicity refers to adverse effects arising from exaggerated pharmacologic action at the intended target in tissues that share that target biology, while off-target toxicity refers to adverse effects mediated through unintended targets or non-specific chemical injury pathways, concepts used broadly in toxicology and translational safety science (Rudmann, 2013; Garon et al., 2017). Finally, immune-mediated toxicity refers to reactions driven by adaptive or innate immune mechanisms, such as drug-specific T-cell responses and related cytokine programs, whereas direct toxicity refers to nonimmune injury, including cumulative toxicity, photosensitivity, and other nonimmunologic mechanisms that still produce distinctive skin phenotypes (Lee, 2024).

2 Methods

This narrative review was developed using a structured search combined with iterative citation chasing, aligning with published recommendations for improving transparency and reproducibility in narrative reviews and with key quality domains captured by the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) (Baethge et al., 2019). We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception through January 2026. Search terms were combined across three concept families: drug exposure, cutaneous phenotype, and systemic toxicity signal, using keywords such as cutaneous adverse drug reaction, drug eruption, drug hypersensitivity, skin toxicity, severe cutaneous adverse reaction, SJS–TEN, DRESS, AGEP, vasculitis, and biomarker or signal. Eligible records were peer-reviewed human studies that described a temporally linked, drug-associated skin phenotype with documented systemic toxicity, organ involvement, clinically significant physiologic derangement, hospitalization, or a clear need for urgent drug withdrawal or escalation of care. We excluded purely local irritant reactions without systemic relevance, non-drug etiologies, and articles without sufficient clinical detail to assign a phenotype or link it to systemic outcomes.

Phenotypes were organized primarily using a morphology-anchored framework because bedside recognition typically begins with pattern identification, distribution, timing, and mucosal involvement, rather than with prior certainty about drug class (Brockow et al., 2019). This morphology-centered approach was cross mapped to drug classes and mechanistic groupings to support clinical triage and capture recurring syndrome-level entities, particularly severe reactions where early recognition and prompt withdrawal of the causative drug are central to the outcome. Classification decisions were informed by contemporary summaries of cutaneous adverse drug reaction patterns and by consensus frameworks for drug hypersensitivity and SCARs (Del Pozzo-Magaña and Liy-Wong, 2024). When a phenotype could be reasonably attributed to more than one category, for example, overlap between exanthematous eruptions and early severe cutaneous adverse reactions, we privileged the higher risk categorization when systemic toxicity features were present or when the literature described a progression risk (Pinto Gouveia et al., 2016).

Evidence was appraised using a light-touch hierarchy appropriate for harms, recognizing that drug safety signals often originate outside randomized trials and that different evidence streams contribute distinct strengths in pharmacovigilance. Randomized trials and comparative observational studies were used to inform incidence, risk modifiers, and treatment associations when available, while acknowledging broader debates about hierarchies of evidence across designs. Pharmacovigilance sources, including spontaneous report analyses and disproportionality methods, were used to identify signal patterns, detect rare events, and generate drug phenotype associations that may not be visible in trials. Case reports and case series were included to capture rare, high-acuity phenotypes and early clinical warning patterns, and they were interpreted with attention to reporting completeness using established case reporting guidance. Throughout the review, qualifying language is used to indicate the type and strength of supporting evidence. Recommendations supported primarily by case series and pharmacovigilance data are distinguished from those informed by comparative studies or consensus guidelines, and expert opinion is identified where evidence is limited or absent.

3 The skin as a window to systemic harm

The skin can reveal systemic harm early because it sits at the interface of chemical exposure and host defense, and because its resident cells translate danger signals into visible changes. Keratinocytes are not passive barrier bricks (Nguyen and Soulika, 2019). They sense injury and microbial patterns, activate innate programs, and coordinate cytokine and chemokine signaling that recruit and shape immune responses, converting molecular toxicity into a readable eruption (Pavlos et al., 2015). The skin also contains a dense network of resident T cells and antigen-presenting cells that can mount delayed drug hypersensitivity responses with systemic consequences, making early surface findings clinically meaningful rather than cosmetic (Pavlos et al., 2015; Thomson et al., 2022).

Microvascular biology provides a second early detection channel. The cutaneous circulation is a high-signal tissue in which disturbances in vasomotor tone, endothelial activation, permeability, and occlusion can rapidly produce patterned discoloration, purpura, retiform changes, or necrosis (Munoz et al., 2020; Sajjan et al., 2015). This matters for drug toxicity because many severe adverse reactions involve endothelial injury and coagulation imbalance, and the skin is one of the first organs where small vessel dysfunction becomes visible (Thornsberry et al., 2013). Epidermal renewal also contributes to sensitivity. Keratinocytes continuously balance self-renewal and differentiation, with rapid turnover that makes the epidermis vulnerable to cytotoxic injury, metabolic disruption, and inflammatory derailment (Finnegan et al., 2019).

Across drug classes, several shared pathways link a phenotype to systemic risk. Delayed drug hypersensitivity is commonly driven by T-cell mechanisms and can progress from a morbilliform eruption to severe syndromes with hepatic, renal, pulmonary, hematologic, or cardiac involvement. The skin may be the first visible proxy for a whole-body immune crisis (Pichler, 2025; Shah P. N. et al., 2024). Vasculitis provides another bridge. Drug-induced small-vessel vasculitis often presents with palpable purpura and can remain skin limited or progress to systemic disease with kidney, gastrointestinal, joint, or constitutional involvement. The rash could serve as an entry point for organ risk stratification (Castañeda et al., 2024; Kelly et al., 2022). Thrombotic and vasculopathic pathways can also be externally legible. Reticular or racemose livedo patterns and retiform purpura reflect impaired cutaneous blood flow and are strongly linked to systemic hypercoagulable and thromboembolic states, making the skin a practical screening surface for potentially life-threatening vascular risk (Kontic et al., 2018; Lamadrid-Zertuche et al., 2018). Mitochondrial toxicity and direct cytotoxicity illustrate nonimmune routes. Mitochondrial dysfunction is a recognized mechanism in drug-induced organ injury. It can also intersect with cutaneous and adnexal biology, while cytotoxic agents can injure rapidly renewing epithelia and eccrine-rich sites, producing phenotypes such as hand-foot syndrome that often track cumulative exposure and may force treatment modification (Kwakman et al., 2020; Natarelli et al., 2024; Begriche et al., 2011).

A practical conceptual model for this review is phenotype → mechanism → systemic risk → action. A patterned eruption becomes clinically useful when it reliably maps to a small set of mechanisms, and those mechanisms predict a bounded set of systemic hazards that require specific steps. Reviews that connect cutaneous adverse drug reactions to organ damage support this mechanistic mapping approach, particularly when time to drug withdrawal and targeted evaluation changes outcomes (Marzano et al., 2016; Del Pozzo-Magaña and Liy-Wong, 2024). In this framework, an early exanthem accompanied by systemic symptoms signals immune-mediated hypersensitivity and triggers prompt cessation of the causative drug and screening for organ involvement (Stirton et al., 2022; Broyles et al., 2020). Palpable purpura signals small vessel inflammation and directs evaluation for systemic vasculitis features, including renal and gastrointestinal involvement, while reticular livedo patterns signal flow disturbance and prompt assessment for thrombotic drivers and urgent prevention of progression to necrosis or systemic thrombosis (Sajjan et al., 2015; Fraticelli et al., 2021). Hand-foot syndrome and other cytotoxic injury phenotypes signal dose-limiting epithelial damage and support early supportive care and treatment adjustment to prevent escalation and preserve systemic therapy delivery (Shar et al., 2013; Vargas-Hernández and Vargas Aguilar, 2024). The conceptual framework linking cutaneous phenotypes to mechanistic inference, systemic risk, and clinical action is summarized in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

4 Morphology-based taxonomy of drug-induced skin phenotypes

Each phenotype syndrome is described systematically using a structured format, including visual appearance, associated symptoms or their absence, and typical latency relative to drug exposure.

4.1 Exanthematous and urticarial patterns

4.1.1 Morbilliform eruption

Visual appearance consists of diffuse pink to red macules and papules that coalesce into patches, often starting on the trunk and spreading symmetrically, typically sparing mucosa in uncomplicated cases (Yan et al., 2025; Ernst and Giubellino, 2022). Common causative drugs include beta-lactam antibiotics, sulfonamides, antiepileptics, allopurinol, and many other agents used in the inpatient setting, with morphology alone insufficient to assign causality without timing and medication history (Noe et al., 2018). Systemic toxicities flagged are usually limited for uncomplicated exanthems, but this pattern can be an early hypersensitivity signal when paired with fever, facial edema, lymphadenopathy, eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytosis, or evolving organ injury, particularly early DRESS (Choudhary et al., 2013; Kardaun et al., 2013). Timing is classically several days to a few weeks after starting the culprit, with longer latency raising suspicion for DRESS when systemic features appear. Red flags include mucosal erosions, skin pain, dusky targets, blistering, facial edema, hypotension, rapidly progressive rash, laboratory signals of hepatitis, nephritis, cytopenias, or myocarditis, and evolution or overlap with a higher risk phenotype such as epidermal necrolysis, DRESS, or vasculitic or necrotic patterns (Ramirez et al., 2023; Dagnon da Silva et al., 2023). Workup should prioritize basic severity screening rather than exhaustive testing in every patient, focusing on complete blood count with differential, liver enzymes, creatinine, and urinalysis when systemic symptoms or high-risk drugs are present, and dermatology consultation plus biopsy when features suggest a SCAR or vasculitis (Yan et al., 2025). Management is to stop the most likely culprit if red flags are present, avoid rechallenge, provide symptomatic care for low-risk cases, and escalate to urgent SCAR evaluation when mucosa, skin pain, blistering, or systemic instability appear (Yan et al., 2025; Chang et al., 2022).

4.1.2 Urticaria and angioedema

The visual appearance consists of transient wheals with pruritus and blanching, sometimes with deeper swelling of lips, eyelids, tongue, or airway (Kanani et al., 2018). Common culprits include antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, radiocontrast, and many biologics, with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors a key trigger for bradykinin-mediated angioedema that may lack hives (Pier and Bingemann, 2020; Puxeddu et al., 2016). Systemic toxicities flagged range from none to immediate anaphylaxis risk, so the phenotype becomes a systemic warning sign when accompanied by dyspnea, stridor, hypotension, syncope, or gastrointestinal symptoms suggestive of systemic mediator release (Hanschmann et al., 2023). Timing is often minutes to hours after exposure for immediate reactions, although delayed urticaria can occur and should be interpreted alongside exposure chronology (Kanani et al., 2018). Red flags include airway symptoms, rapidly progressive tongue or laryngeal swelling, hypotension, and refractory symptoms despite first-line therapy (Bizjak et al., 2025). Workup is mostly clinical for acute events, with targeted evaluation for bradykinin-mediated angioedema when hives are absent and for suspected drug allergy documentation to prevent future high-risk re-exposure (Nettis et al., 2020). Management is to treat suspected anaphylaxis immediately with intramuscular epinephrine and supportive care, stop the suspected trigger, avoid angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors permanently in bradykinin angioedema, and arrange allergy evaluation when drug allergy labeling will affect future care (Miller et al., 2019; Macy, 2021).

4.1.3 Serum sickness-like patterns

Visual appearance combines urticarial or morbilliform eruptions with fever and prominent arthralgia or arthritis, sometimes with lymphadenopathy, and can be confused with viral illness or an evolving SCAR (Chatzigrigoriadis et al., 2025; Khalaf et al., 2025). Common causative drugs include beta-lactam antibiotics such as cefaclor and amoxicillin, along with other drugs and occasional vaccine exposures (Steering Committee Authors et al., 2025). Systemic toxicities flagged are usually inflammatory and self-limited but can drive significant functional impairment, prolonged symptoms, and diagnostic error that delays stopping the trigger (Rixe and Tavarez, 2025). Timing is typically days to weeks after exposure, with recurrence after re-exposure supporting the diagnosis (Khalaf et al., 2025). Red flags include mucosal erosions, skin pain, blistering, hypotension, or laboratory evidence of organ injury that would redirect concern toward a SCAR (Cho and Chu, 2017). Workup is guided by severity and differential diagnosis, commonly including complete blood count, inflammatory markers, and renal and hepatic function when systemic symptoms are significant (Chatzigrigoriadis et al., 2025). Management is to stop the culprit drug, provide symptomatic therapy for pain and pruritus, and document the reaction to prevent re-exposure, with specialist input when the clinical picture overlaps with SCARs (Jeimy et al., 2025).

4.2 Purpura, vasculitic, and livedoid patterns

4.2.1 Palpable purpura and cutaneous small vessel vasculitis

Visual appearance consists of non-blanching purple papules and plaques, often on dependent areas such as the legs, sometimes with burning or pain (Alpsoy, 2022). Common culprit drugs include beta-lactam antibiotics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among many others, and the skin-limited form can still signal a broader systemic vasculitis in a subset (Al-Nesf et al., 2013). Systemic toxicities flagged include renal involvement, gastrointestinal involvement, arthralgias, and constitutional symptoms, with drug-induced disease capable of being either skin limited or systemic. Timing often occurs days to weeks after exposure, and recurrence after re-exposure strengthens causality (Russell and Gibson, 2006). Red flags include hematuria, proteinuria, abdominal pain, melena, neurologic symptoms, rapidly progressive purpura, or necrosis (Alpsoy, 2022). Workup generally includes skin biopsy with direct immunofluorescence when diagnosis is uncertain or severe, plus urinalysis and renal function assessment to detect systemic involvement (Alpsoy, 2022; Chango Azanza et al., 2020). Management is to stop the suspected drug when temporally plausible, assess for systemic involvement, and coordinate rheumatology or nephrology input when renal or gastrointestinal features appear (Russell and Gibson, 2006).

4.2.2 Retiform purpura, livedo racemosa, and cutaneous necrosis

Visual appearance is angulated or netlike purpura that may progress to necrosis, reflecting vessel occlusion or severe vascular injury rather than simple capillary leakage (Georgesen et al., 2020; Timoney et al., 2019). Common culprits and contexts include anticoagulant-related necrosis syndromes, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with skin necrosis, vasopressor-related ischemia, and drug-triggered coagulopathies, with pattern recognition guiding urgent systemic evaluation (Dissemond et al., 2024). Systemic toxicities flagged include thrombotic syndromes, antiphospholipid spectrum disease, disseminated intravascular coagulation in sepsis, and catastrophic vascular occlusion, all of which carry immediate morbidity and mortality risk (Wysong and Venkatesan, 2011; Abdul Gafoor et al., 2026; Patriarcheas et al., 2025). Timing is often tightly linked to the inciting exposure, such as early days after starting warfarin for warfarin-induced skin necrosis, or several days after heparin exposure for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia-associated necrosis, although distant site necrosis can occur (Kakagia et al., 2014; Quiles-Recuenco et al., 2023). Red flags include severe pain, rapid progression, hemorrhagic bullae, expanding necrosis, fever or shock, and laboratory signs of thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy (Mohamed Osman et al., 2025; David et al., 2024). Workup requires immediate coagulation and platelet assessment, evaluation for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia when appropriate, and broader evaluation for sepsis and antiphospholipid syndrome when the livedoid pattern is widespread or accompanied by thrombosis (Wysong and Venkatesan, 2011; Abdul Gafoor et al., 2026; Tassava and Warkentin, 2015). Management is a stop rule for the offending anticoagulant when suspected, urgent hematology input, initiation of alternative anticoagulation when indicated for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, reversal and management protocols for warfarin-induced necrosis, and sepsis-directed resuscitation when purpura fulminans is suspected (Abdul Gafoor et al., 2026; Mohamed Osman et al., 2025; David et al., 2024).

4.3 Severe cutaneous adverse reactions

4.3.1 Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis

Visual appearance is painful erythematous or dusky lesions that progress to blistering and epidermal detachment with prominent mucosal erosions, often accompanied by fever and systemic illness (Miliszewski et al., 2016). Common culprits include high-risk antibiotics, antiepileptics, allopurinol, and other agents known to trigger epidermal necrolysis, with recent drug exposure history central to triage (Shah H. et al., 2024). Systemic toxicities flagged include fluid loss, electrolyte disturbance, infection risk, respiratory compromise, and multiorgan failure, with high mortality in toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) (Canhão et al., 2022). Timing is commonly within the first weeks after starting a new medication, and the earliest actionable signal may be a prodrome with mucosal pain and skin tenderness before full detachment (Harris et al., 2016). Red flags include skin pain out of proportion to rash, any mucosal erosions, blistering, targetoid dusky lesions, and rapid progression. Workup includes immediate severity assessment using validated mortality tools such as SCORTEN, baseline labs to guide intensive supportive care, infection surveillance, and early specialty involvement (Charlton et al., 2020). Management is an immediate stop rule for all potential culprit drugs, urgent admission, burn-unit-style supportive care, and multidisciplinary management, because prompt withdrawal of the causative drug is linked to improved survival (Al-Benna, 2021).

4.3.2 Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms

Visual appearance is a widespread eruption that may be morbilliform, edematous, or polymorphic, frequently accompanied by facial edema and systemic symptoms such as fever and malaise (Stirton et al., 2022). Common culprits include anticonvulsants, allopurinol, sulfonamides, and other agents, with a characteristic longer latency that helps distinguish it from immediate allergy (Soria et al., 2021; Woodruff and Botto, 2022). Systemic toxicities flagged include hepatitis, nephritis, pneumonitis, cytopenias, and, less commonly, myocarditis that can be fatal (Watanabe et al., 2024; Oliveira et al., 2016). Timing often occurs 2 weeks to 8 weeks after drug initiation, which is a key bedside clue when a patient deteriorates weeks into therapy (Calle et al., 2023). Red flags include jaundice, rising transaminases, creatinine increase, dyspnea, chest pain, tachycardia, syncope, and rapidly progressive systemic symptoms (Castellazzi et al., 2018). Workup should be systematic rather than symptom driven because organ involvement may be clinically silent early, typically including complete blood count with differential, liver enzymes, bilirubin, creatinine, urinalysis, and targeted cardiac evaluation when symptoms or biomarker abnormalities suggest involvement (Cho et al., 2017). Management is to stop the culprit drug immediately, document avoidance, initiate close monitoring for organ involvement over weeks, and escalate immunosuppression decisions with specialist input when internal organ injury progresses (Wang et al., 2024).

4.3.3 Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis

Visual appearance consists of a sudden eruption of many small non-follicular pustules on an erythematous base, often with fever and leukocytosis, followed by desquamation (Moore et al., 2025). Common culprits include antibiotics and other acute exposures, with a rapid onset after drug exposure often helping to narrow the culprit list (Que et al., 2025). Systemic toxicities flagged are usually limited, but systemic involvement can occur and requires recognition when fever, organ dysfunction, or hemodynamic instability appear (Feldmeyer et al., 2016). Timing is often rapid, frequently within days of exposure, and resolution is expected within about 2 weeks after withdrawal in typical cases (Que et al., 2025). Red flags include hypotension, extensive skin involvement with pain, mucosal erosions that suggest alternative diagnoses, and laboratory evidence of organ injury. Workup includes confirmation support with histopathology when uncertain and laboratory screening for systemic involvement when clinically indicated (Tetart et al., 2024). Management is to stop the suspected trigger, provide supportive care, and escalate care when systemic involvement is present, or diagnosis overlaps with SJS and TEN (Tetart et al., 2024).

4.4 Bullous and blistering phenotypes beyond SJS and TEN

4.4.1 Drug-induced bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus spectrum

Visual appearance is tense pruritic bullae on erythematous or urticarial bases in pemphigoid, and flaccid bullae and erosions in pemphigus, with variable mucosal involvement depending on phenotype (Verheyden et al., 2020). Common culprit drugs include dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and other medications reported across autoimmune blistering disease literature, with drug-induced forms sometimes improving after withdrawal (Kardaun et al., 2022). Systemic toxicities flagged are less about direct multiorgan failure and more about infection risk, fluid and protein loss, and adverse effects from systemic corticosteroids or steroid-sparing immunosuppression used for control (Didona et al., 2023). Timing can vary widely, from weeks to months after starting the culprit, making medication reconciliation over longer windows important (Verheyden et al., 2020). Red flags include extensive blistering with systemic symptoms, ocular involvement suggesting mucous membrane pemphigoid, and secondary infection signs (Daniel and Murrell, 2019). The workup includes lesional and perilesional biopsies with direct immunofluorescence to confirm autoimmune blistering disease and guide immunosuppressive strategy (Didona et al., 2023). Management is to stop the suspected drug when feasible, start appropriate wound care and anti-inflammatory therapy tailored to severity, and coordinate monitoring for complications of immunosuppression (Myers and Culton, 2025).

4.4.2 Drug-induced linear IgA bullous dermatosis

The visual appearance consists of tense vesicles and bullae that can form annular or clustered patterns and may involve mucosa (Garel et al., 2019). The common culprit drug is vancomycin, with reported onset ranging from about a day to 2 weeks after starting therapy in many cases (Peake and Chow, 2025). Systemic toxicities flagged depend on the clinical context, such as a serious infection requiring vancomycin, so the skin finding becomes a safety signal that forces antimicrobial reassessment and balancing of infection control against immune blistering risk (Yang et al., 2025). Timing is often close to exposure and may persist after discontinuation in patients with renal impairment, supporting the need for careful medication review and renal context (Didona et al., 2023). Red flags include mucosal involvement, extensive blistering, and secondary infection (Starzyk et al., 2024). The workup mirrors other autoimmune blistering diseases, including biopsy and direct immunofluorescence to confirm linear IgA deposition (Lammer et al., 2019). Management is to stop vancomycin when possible, switch to alternative antimicrobials guided by infection needs, and treat the dermatosis severity with dermatology support (Khan et al., 2023).

4.5 Pigmentary, nail, and hair changes as toxicity signals

4.5.1 Hyperpigmentation and dyschromia

Visual appearance ranges from blue-gray pigmentation in photo-distributed areas to diffuse or localized hyperpigmentation involving skin, mucosa, and sclera, depending on the drug and pigment deposition pattern (Giménez García and Carrasco Molina, 2019). Common culprits include minocycline, amiodarone, antimalarials, and several chemotherapies, with some patterns linked to cumulative dose and prolonged exposure (Fiscus et al., 2014; Sethumadhavan et al., 2024; Konda et al., 2025). Systemic toxicities flagged are context dependent, sometimes representing drug accumulation that can also involve deeper tissues, sometimes indicating photosensitization behavior that increases chronic photodamage risk, and sometimes serving mainly as a marker of chronic exposure that prompts medication reassessment (Camayo et al., 2025). Timing is typically subacute to chronic over months to years for many pigmentary toxicities, although earlier onset can occur with certain agents (Tang et al., 2025). Red flags include rapid onset with systemic symptoms that would suggest vasculitis or necrosis rather than deposition, and mucosal ulceration, which redirects toward a SCAR or an infection (Shah H. et al., 2024). Workup is often clinical, with biopsy reserved for diagnostic uncertainty, and medication timeline review is the main diagnostic tool (Giménez García and Carrasco Molina, 2019). Management is to confirm the culprit exposure, counsel on sun protection when photosensitization is contributing, and discontinue or substitute the drug when the risk–benefit evaluation is unfavorable, recognizing that reversal may be slow or incomplete. New laser therapy options are emerging (Zhao et al., 2023).

4.5.2 Nail changes and alopecia

Visual appearance includes melanonychia, leukonychia, Beau lines, onycholysis, and nail plate fragility, while hair toxicity can present as diffuse shedding or patterned alopecia depending on the mechanism and drug class (Piraccini and Alessandrini, 2013). Common culprits include cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapies, with nail matrix injury producing characteristic transverse or longitudinal changes that can track dose cycles (Samal et al., 2021). Systemic toxicities flagged vary, sometimes reflecting marrow toxicity context in oncology care, sometimes reflecting nutritional compromise from systemic illness, and often functioning as an adherence-limiting toxicity signal that can precede dose reductions or interruptions (Trivedi et al., 2024; Gilbar et al., 2009). Timing aligns with growth kinetics, so nails often show changes weeks after exposure, while chemotherapy-related alopecia typically starts within weeks of treatment initiation (Valeyrie-Allanore et al., 2007). Red flags include painful paronychia with systemic signs of infection in immunosuppressed patients and nail bed hemorrhage patterns suggesting thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy in the right clinical context (Piraccini and Alessandrini, 2013). Workup is usually clinical, with blood counts and infection evaluation driven by oncology status and symptoms rather than the nail finding alone (Wollina and Abdel-Naser, 2020). Management centers on supportive care to prevent secondary infection and preserve therapy delivery, plus targeted evaluation when nail findings coincide with systemic cytopenia risk (Patel and Tosti, 2014).

4.6 Photosensitivity and phototoxic or photoallergic reactions

Visual appearance ranges from exaggerated sunburn-like erythema, edema, and blistering in phototoxicity to eczematous pruritic dermatitis in photoallergy, usually in photo-exposed distribution (Di Bartolomeo et al., 2022; Rok et al., 2024). Common culprits include tetracyclines, thiazide diuretics, amiodarone, voriconazole, and several oncology drugs, with systematic reviews cataloging frequent offenders in clinical reports (Hofmann and Weber, 2021). Systemic toxicities flagged are most often chronic photodamage risk and, for selected agents such as voriconazole in transplant recipients, elevated cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma risk that makes photosensitivity a long-term safety signal rather than a transient nuisance (Di Bartolomeo et al., 2022). Timing can be immediate with sun exposure after starting a photosensitizer or cumulative over weeks, and recurrence with re-exposure is common (Alrashidi et al., 2020). Red flags include blistering with systemic symptoms suggesting broader drug reaction, extensive involvement with dehydration risk, and persistent phototoxicity in immunosuppressed patients where cancer risk is elevated (Davis et al., 2024). Workup is usually clinical, with phototesting or biopsy reserved for uncertainty, and careful medication and sun-exposure history being the key diagnostic step (Hofmann and Weber, 2021). Management is strict photoprotection and medication reassessment, with stronger urgency for voriconazole-exposed transplant populations where cohort data link exposure to increased keratinocyte carcinoma risk (Kim et al., 2018).

4.7 Mucocutaneous patterns involving the mouth, eyes, and genitals

Visual appearance includes stomatitis or mucositis with erosions and pain, conjunctivitis or ocular surface inflammation, and genital ulcers or aphthous-like lesions, sometimes as part of broader mucocutaneous syndromes (Villa and Kuten-Shorrer, 2023). Common culprits include cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapies including EGFR inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors, each with distinct lesion patterns and timelines (Deutsch et al., 2020; Srivastava et al., 2024). Systemic toxicities flagged include neutropenia-associated infection risk in chemotherapy-related mucositis, dehydration and nutritional compromise, and SJS and TEN spectra when mucosal disease accompanies painful skin lesions and epidermal detachment (Naidu et al., 2004). Timing is often within treatment cycles for chemotherapy, variable for targeted therapy, and can occur early in immune checkpoint inhibitor courses, so the timing relative to regimen changes helps interpret risk (Tao et al., 2025). Red flags include the inability to swallow, fever in a neutropenic patient, ocular pain or vision change, extensive genital erosions, and mucosal involvement paired with skin pain or blistering (Elad et al., 2022). Workup depends on context, with immediate blood count assessment and infection evaluation when febrile or immunosuppressed, and ophthalmology evaluation when ocular involvement occurs (Deutsch et al., 2020). Management is supportive care with pain control and oral hygiene measures, rapid neutropenia and infection triage when indicated, and immediate SCAR stop rules when mucosal disease sits within an epidermal necrolysis picture (Brown and Gupta, 2020).

4.8 Acneiform eruptions and follicular disorders

Visual appearance consists of papulopustular follicular eruption on the face, scalp, and upper trunk without comedones, often accompanied by xerosis, fissuring, and paronychia in targeted therapy settings (Nair et al., 2025). Common culprits include EGFR inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids, lithium, and halogenated compounds such as iodides, with EGFR inhibitors producing a well-described, on-target cutaneous toxicity (Fabbrocini et al., 2015). Systemic toxicities flagged differ by drug class, with EGFR inhibitor rash serving as a pharmacodynamic exposure marker in many oncology contexts and severe skin toxicity driving dose modifications that can affect cancer therapy delivery (Abdullah et al., 2012). Timing for EGFR inhibitors is often within the first weeks of therapy, which makes early prophylaxis and treatment strategies clinically useful (Abdullah et al., 2012). Red flags include extensive skin breakdown, secondary infection, fever, or inability to maintain therapy due to symptom burden (Lacouture et al., 2011). Workup is usually clinical, with bacterial culture or evaluation for superinfection when pustules crust, pain increases, or systemic symptoms appear (Fabbrocini et al., 2015). Management is to start guideline-informed supportive care early, often with topical anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial strategies and, when indicated, systemic tetracyclines, while coordinating with oncology to preserve effective dosing when feasible (Baas et al., 2012; Gorji et al., 2022).

4.9 Injection site and local reactions with systemic implications

Visual appearance includes immediate erythema, pruritus, and swelling minutes to hours after injection, delayed indurated plaques or eczematous reactions days later, and more concerning patterns such as hemorrhagic purpura or necrosis at or distant from injection sites (Kim et al., 2023). Common culprits include subcutaneously administered biologic therapies, heparins, vaccines, and other injectable agents, with delayed reactions sometimes reflecting T cell-mediated hypersensitivity rather than infection (Zeltser et al., 2001; Patel and Khan, 2017). Systemic toxicities flagged include IgE-mediated immediate allergy with anaphylaxis risk, immune complex vasculitis in selected settings, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia characterized by painful purpura progressing to necrosis, thrombocytopenia, and thrombosis risk (Fraticelli et al., 2021; Hanschmann et al., 2023). Timing separates phenotypes, with immediate reactions suggesting acute allergy, delayed reactions appearing over one to several days, and heparin-induced necrosis often developing after days of exposure or even at distant sites in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (Broyles et al., 2020; David et al., 2024). Red flags include systemic symptoms after injection, hypotension or respiratory symptoms, rapidly progressive pain and necrosis, and unexplained thrombocytopenia (Zeltser et al., 2001; Singla et al., 2013). Workup focuses on ruling out anaphylaxis in acute presentations, infection when warmth and tenderness predominate, and urgent platelet and coagulation evaluation when necrosis or retiform purpura appears, with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia testing when clinically appropriate (Anders and Trautmann, 2013). Management is to stop the suspected injectable trigger when a serious reaction is suspected, treat anaphylaxis immediately when present, avoid further heparin exposure in suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia while initiating alternative anticoagulation as indicated, and involve dermatology when diagnosis is uncertain or necrosis is present (Kim et al., 2023; Patel and Khan, 2017). A practical triage algorithm for drug-induced cutaneous reactions is shown in Figure 2. Table 1 provides a morphology-based framework linking cutaneous phenotypes to common culprit drugs, systemic toxicity signals, and recommended immediate actions.

FIGURE 2

5 Drug-class-centered signature phenotypes

In oncology, immune checkpoint inhibitors commonly produce inflammatory eruptions that act as an early surface readout of systemic immune activation, including vitiligo-like depigmentation, lichenoid dermatitis, and immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated bullous pemphigoid (Asdourian et al., 2022; Thakker et al., 2025; Guida et al., 2021; Geisler et al., 2020). These phenotypes flag higher risk for concurrent immune toxicities and usually warrant symptom-graded management with a low threshold for coordinated screening when systemic symptoms develop, while aiming to preserve anticancer benefit through early dermatologic control (Geisler et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019). Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors produce a characteristic acneiform follicular eruption that often correlates with exposure and clinical outcomes, so the management implication is not simply to stop therapy but to treat early and prevent dose-limiting severity (Gorji et al., 2022; Wacker et al., 2007; Kiyohara et al., 2013). Hand-foot syndrome and hand-foot skin reaction from fluoropyrimidines and multikinase inhibitors are classic dose-limiting toxicities for which the actionable step is rapid supportive care plus timely dose delay or reduction to prevent ulceration and treatment discontinuation (Kwakman et al., 2020; Chu et al., 2008).

Among antimicrobials, beta-lactams and sulfonamides frequently trigger morbilliform eruptions and urticaria that are often benign, yet they also account for a large share of antibiotic-associated SCARs, so escalation hinges on timing, fever, mucosal disease, skin pain, and laboratory evidence of organ injury (Lee et al., 2023; Frey et al., 2018; Mockenhaupt et al., 2008). Vancomycin has a signature autoimmune blistering phenotype, drug-induced linear IgA bullous dermatosis, which can mimic epidermal necrolysis and therefore should prompt urgent drug withdrawal and antimicrobial substitution while confirming diagnosis by biopsy and direct immunofluorescence (Chu et al., 2008; Pereira et al., 2016). In antiretroviral therapy, abacavir hypersensitivity is a paradigm of actionable visual toxicity prevention because prospective HLA-B*57:01 screening reduces clinically suspected hypersensitivity, and rechallenge is contraindicated (Mounzer et al., 2019). Nevirapine remains a recognized driver of SCARs in pharmacovigilance series, making early rash with systemic symptoms a stop signal with escalation for mucosal or blistering disease (Oshikoya et al., 2020; du Toit et al., 2021).

For anticonvulsants and psychiatric drugs, aromatic anticonvulsants are signature culprits for SCARs, and the HLA-B*15:02 association with carbamazepine-related SJS–TEN underpins risk-targeted prescribing and avoidance in at-risk populations (Tangamornsuksan et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2011). Lithium has recognizable acneiform and psoriasiform phenotypes that primarily signal adherence and quality of life risk but can drive systemic treatment changes when severe, so management often balances dermatologic therapy with psychiatric necessity (El-Mallakh et al., 2025; Jafferany, 2008).

In cardio metabolic care, amiodarone phototoxicity and blue-gray hyperpigmentation serve as visible markers of cumulative exposure that should trigger sun-avoidance counseling and reconsideration of long-term therapy when cosmetically or functionally significant (Jaworski et al., 2014; Ammoury et al., 2008). Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists most often cause injection-site reactions and occasional generalized hypersensitivity eruptions, so the management implications are site rotation, evaluation for allergy when generalized rash occurs, and discontinuation when reactions recur or escalate (Samhani et al., 2024; Taj et al., 2025). In rheumatology and biologics, tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors have a well-described paradoxical psoriasis phenotype that may require topical therapy, systemic psoriasis treatment, or switching to a different biologic class, depending on severity and underlying disease control (Li et al., 2019; Maronese et al., 2024). Janus kinase inhibitors can cause acneiform lesions that are usually manageable without stopping therapy but require anticipatory counseling and infection surveillance when lesions are severe (Ballanger et al., 2023; Honap et al., 2026). Interleukin 17 inhibitors have a signature mucocutaneous candidiasis signal that should prompt early recognition and antifungal treatment and may require reassessment in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms suggestive of inflammatory bowel disease events (Truong et al., 2021; Davidson et al., 2022). Table 2 presents signature cutaneous phenotypes organized by drug class, highlighting systemic implications and key management considerations for oncology, antimicrobial, neuropsychiatric, and rheumatologic agents.

6 Timing, dose, and patient susceptibility

Latency is one of the most informative features when the skin is used as an early warning sign. Immediate reactions, including urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis, usually occur within minutes to several hours after drug exposure, and this short window supports rapid trigger identification and urgent risk mitigation when systemic features appear (Brockow et al., 2023). Delayed exanthematous reactions typically evolve over days, with morbilliform drug eruptions often appearing about 2 days to 21 days after starting a culprit medication, and recurrence after re-exposure can occur sooner (Calle et al., 2023; Yan et al., 2025). SCARs also follow characteristic windows that help distinguish them from low-risk rashes. AGEP often begins rapidly, frequently within about 48 h of the causative medication (Calle et al., 2023; Moore et al., 2025). SJS–TEN most often begins within the first month after drug initiation, with many drugs clustering in a roughly 4–28-day interval (Valeyrie-Allanore et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2014). DRESS has a longer latency, typically 2 weeks to 6 weeks and sometimes longer, which is diagnostically useful when systemic deterioration occurs weeks into therapy (Calle et al., 2023).

Some phenotypes are largely dose related, while others are idiosyncratic. Phototoxic drug reactions are dose dependent with respect to both drug and light exposure, making counseling and photoprotection immediately actionable when the pattern is recognized (Di Bartolomeo et al., 2022; Hofmann and Weber, 2021). Hand-foot syndrome from fluoropyrimidines and related agents behaves like an exposure-linked toxicity that can worsen with ongoing dosing and improve with dose interruption or reduction, so early identification supports prevention of ulceration and treatment disruption (de With et al., 2023; Abushullaih et al., 2002). In contrast, severe immune-mediated reactions such as SJS–TEN and DRESS are generally not predictable from dose alone and are shaped by immune recognition and host factors (Calle et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2014).

Susceptibility is modified by patient context. Older age and polypharmacy increase the baseline risk of adverse drug events and complicate culprit identification, which is particularly relevant for cutaneous reactions in older adults (Carneiro et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2024). Renal dysfunction and a high starting dose increase the risk for allopurinol hypersensitivity and severe outcomes, illustrating how impaired clearance can convert standard prescribing into higher effective exposure (Yang et al., 2015; Chung et al., 2015; Alotaibi et al., 2024). In DRESS, herpesvirus reactivation is repeatedly linked to more severe or prolonged courses. Early recognition can justify closer organ monitoring and follow-up (Chan et al., 2024; Mizukawa and Shiohara, 2025).

Pharmacogenomics is most clinically used for a small set of high-risk gene–drug pairs. HLA-B*57:01 screening before abacavir reduces immunologically confirmed hypersensitivity and is integrated into clinical practice guidance and CPIC recommendations (Mallal et al., 2008; Martin et al., 2014). HLA-B*15:02 testing before carbamazepine in higher-prevalence ancestries reduces SJS–TEN risk, and CPIC guidance also addresses HLA-A*31:01 in relation to carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine reactions (Chen et al., 2011; Phillips et al., 2018). HLA-B*58:01 is strongly associated with allopurinol-induced SCARs and is supported by CPIC guidance for genotype-informed prescribing (Saito et al., 2016). Many additional associations are under study, such as HLA-B*13:01 for dapsone hypersensitivity, but routine screening is not yet widespread outside specific indications and settings (Zhang et al., 2013). Table 3 summarizes typical latency windows and recommended laboratory evaluations for major drug-induced cutaneous syndromes to guide early recognition and workup.

7 From rash to risk: a practical diagnostic and triage framework

At the bedside, the priority is separating high-risk, time-critical phenotypes that require immediate drug withdrawal and urgent evaluation from lower-risk or self-limited eruptions that may be managed with symptomatic care and watchful monitoring. Triage works best when the first pass is visual pattern plus clock plus danger signs. The start should be anchoring morphology and then mapping latency to mechanism. Minutes to hours with wheals or angioedema points to an immediate mediator-driven risk, while days to weeks with a morbilliform eruption raises concern for delayed hypersensitivity concern, and a latency of 2 weeks to 8 weeks with facial edema or systemic symptoms should shift suspicion toward DRESS (Justiniano et al., 2008). When epidermal tenderness, dusky targetoid change, blistering, or any mucosal erosion is present, the presentation should be treated as potential epidermal necrolysis until proven otherwise with application of SCORTEN early to frame prognosis and level-of-care needs (Bastuji-Garin et al., 2000).

The essential screenings are fever, facial edema, mucosal disease, skin pain, necrosis, hypotension, tachycardia out of proportion, or rapidly expanding involvement. The minimum lab set for any eruption with systemic symptoms or high-risk morphology is complete blood count with the differential including eosinophils, liver enzymes with bilirubin, creatinine, urinalysis, and basic electrolytes to detect early organ involvement and fluid and electrolyte imbalance (Dagnon da Silva et al., 2023; Martinez-Cabriales et al., 2019; Schunkert and Divito, 2021). Creatine kinase can be added when pain is prominent or myositis is possible, and troponin with electrocardiography can be added when chest symptoms, marked tachycardia, syncope, or biomarker concern suggest myocarditis risk in DRESS (Bourgeois et al., 2012; Radovanovic et al., 2022). Using structured scoring reduces diagnostic drift; RegiSCAR can be used for DRESS severity attribution, and EuroSCAR criteria provide support for AGEP because both syndromes can look like common exanthems early yet diverge in monitoring and escalation needs (Sasidharanpillai et al., 2022; De et al., 2018).

Biopsy is most useful when the morphology is high risk, the diagnosis is uncertain, or management hinges on distinguishing between competing syndromes such as early SJS and TEN versus AGEP or autoimmune blistering disease (Mockenhaupt, 2009). In suspected cutaneous small vessel vasculitis, biopsy is a core diagnostic step because clinicopathologic discordance is common, and adding a second specimen for direct immunofluorescence increases yield and mechanistic classification (Alpsoy, 2022; Nandeesh and Tirumalae, 2013). Timing matters, with the highest direct immunofluorescence positivity when sampling is early in lesion evolution (Alpsoy, 2022).

Admission thresholds are guided by physiology and barrier failure. Any suspected SJS or TEN, extensive blistering, significant mucosal involvement, hemodynamic instability, inability to maintain oral intake, rapidly progressive purpura with pain or necrosis, or laboratory evidence of hepatitis, nephritis, cytopenias, or cardiac involvement warrants urgent inpatient care, with burn-unit-style management for epidermal necrolysis phenotypes (Bastuji-Garin et al., 2000).

8 Visual risk signals: measurement, documentation, and digital opportunities

Reliable visual risk signals start with standardized language for morphology, primary lesion type, secondary change, and surface anatomy terms so that different clinicians describe the same eruption in the same way across settings (Nast et al., 2016). Distribution should be recorded with precise anatomic labels, laterality, and regional qualifiers because location patterns often narrow differential diagnosis and improve follow-up comparability when images are not available (Navarrete-Dechent et al., 2020).

Extent should be quantified as body surface area using a consistent method, and for epidermal necrolysis phenotypes, this measurement is clinically decisive because consensus classification separates SJS–TEN by percent detachment thresholds (Bastuji-Garin et al., 1993). For toxic epidermal necrolysis, severity documentation should include SCORTEN variables alongside skin findings because this score was developed and validated to predict mortality and supports early escalation decisions tied to outcomes (Bastuji-Garin et al., 2000).

For DRESS, a structured case definition using the RegiSCAR scoring system improves consistency and helps distinguish true syndrome cases from common exanthems that do not carry the same organ monitoring burden (Sasidharanpillai et al., 2022).

Clinical photography adds value when it is reproducible, so acquire close-up views with stable lighting, fixed distance, and a scale marker, while considering cross-polarized and white light pairs, when feasible, to reduce glare and improve identification of erythema and texture (Oh et al., 2022). Because image sharing can expose identifiable information, consent should be explicit, purpose-specific, and paired with secure storage and restricted-access workflows that match modern secondary use risks in clinical care and education (Shinkai et al., 2023). Real-world audits of referral photos show that image quality and data handling are variable, supporting the need for minimum technical standards and governance before photographs are relied on for triage decisions (Castro Almeida et al., 2025). The clinical triage framework described above depends on accurate, timely pattern recognition, and digital tools can extend this capability beyond specialist settings by enabling remote assessment, standardized documentation, and, prospectively, automated phenotype detection.

Teledermatology can function as an early warning layer when bedside expertise is limited, and evidence syntheses in skin cancer pathways show it can support referral decisions, although performance varies by setting and lesion type (Chuchu et al., 2018). In inpatient care, store-and-forward teledermatology has been associated with improved management for high-risk bullous eruptions, illustrating how rapid image-based review can accelerate recognition of dangerous drug phenotypes (Shah and English, 2024). Computer vision systems trained on clinical images can reach specialist-level performance for selected classification tasks and may eventually support automated alerts when new drug-linked morphologies appear during therapy (Esteva et al., 2017; Choy et al., 2023). Limitations are material because dermatology models show performance drops and bias with underrepresented skin tones and dataset shifts, so any early warning deployment needs external validation, fairness evaluation, and human oversight to prevent systematic harm (Choy et al., 2023; Benčević et al., 2024).

9 Management principles and stop/continue decisions

In suspected SJS or TEN, immediate cessation of all temporally culprit drugs is an absolute rule because earlier withdrawal is associated with lower mortality (Garcia-Doval et al., 2000). When blistering or erosions develop during a drug eruption, prompt withdrawal remains the priority action even before confirmatory testing because delay can translate into preventable deaths (Miliszewski et al., 2016). In DRESS, the core management decision is immediate withdrawal of the offending drug followed by structured surveillance for evolving organ involvement over subsequent weeks (Wang et al., 2024). For low-risk morbilliform eruptions without fever, mucosal disease, skin pain, facial edema, or laboratory signals of organ injury, clinicians may continue essential therapy while treating symptoms and reassessing frequently for trajectory change (Broyles et al., 2020).

Symptom control for uncomplicated exanthems and urticaria relies on oral antihistamines and topical corticosteroids, with escalation only when systemic features or high-risk morphology appear (Khan et al., 2022). Systemic corticosteroids are commonly used in DRESS with significant organ involvement or clinical deterioration, with careful tapering to reduce relapse risk while monitoring hepatic, renal, hematologic, and cardiopulmonary parameters (Wang et al., 2024).

In SJS and TEN, supportive care remains the universally accepted foundation because comparative evidence for systemic immunomodulators is heterogeneous and inconsistent across meta-analyses (Chang et al., 2022). Cyclosporine has shown a mortality signal in pooled analyses and is used in select settings where contraindications are absent, and expert teams can monitor infection and renal risk (Ng et al., 2018). Intravenous immunoglobulin remains controversial due to variable outcome data and is generally considered only within protocolized care alongside meticulous supportive management (Chang et al., 2022).

After SJS, TEN, or DRESS, re-exposure through drug challenge or desensitization is contraindicated because recurrence can be catastrophic (Broyles et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2022). For aromatic antiepileptic drug rashes, cross reactivity is clinically meaningful, so alternative selection should avoid related aromatic agents when the initial reaction was severe or systemic (Alve et al., 2008). Future prevention depends on precise documentation of the culprit drug, timing, phenotype, severity, and organ involvement, plus formal reporting to pharmacovigilance systems because spontaneous reports are a major input for detecting rare SCAR signals and high-risk drug patterns (Mwakawanga et al., 2023). Hospital-based pharmacovigilance studies in cutaneous adverse drug reactions show that systematic reporting can identify preventable contributors and support safer prescribing through feedback loops (Sharma et al., 2019).

10 Special populations

Pregnancy adds dual patient stakes and different baseline differentials, so a suspected SCAR is managed with the same urgent stop rules and supportive priorities while incorporating obstetric assessment for fetal status and delivery planning (Sharma et al., 2020). Systematic reviews and population data suggest SJS and TEN during pregnancy are uncommon and often have favorable maternal outcomes, although higher preterm birth risk has been reported, so early recognition and multidisciplinary care remain essential (Sharma et al., 2020; Wasuwanich et al., 2024). HIV coinfection and antiretroviral exposure can shape pregnancy risk, with nevirapine repeatedly linked to SJS and TEN and higher baseline CD4 counts described as a risk context in several cohorts and reviews (Knight et al., 2015).

In pediatrics, delayed hypersensitivity syndromes can present with less classic prodrome and faster trajectory to systemic involvement, so clinicians often apply structured criteria and a low threshold laboratory screening when fever or facial edema accompanies a drug eruption (Kim et al., 2020; Chiriac et al., 2024). A systematic review of pediatric DRESS found liver involvement to be common and overall prognosis frequently good with treatment, but it also documented serious complications that justify standardized monitoring after culprit withdrawal (Kim et al., 2020).

In older and frail adults, polypharmacy, multimorbidity, and age-related pharmacokinetic changes increase the probability of drug eruptions and complicate culprit attribution, so deprescribing-focused reconciliation is often part of rash management (Carneiro et al., 2011; Woo et al., 2020). Frailty is independently associated with higher vulnerability to adverse drug events, which supports more conservative stop or continue decisions and earlier escalation when systemic symptoms accompany a rash (Dorj et al., 2023).

In immunocompromised and transplant populations, cutaneous toxicity may signal cumulative exposure and increased malignancy risk rather than classic immune hypersensitivity, as illustrated by cohort evidence linking voriconazole exposure to higher keratinocyte carcinoma risk in lung transplant recipients (D’Arcy et al., 2020). In people living with HIV, severe cutaneous reactions remain clinically relevant, with pediatric series documenting nevirapine-associated SJS and reinforcing the need for rapid drug substitution when mucosal or painful dusky lesions appear (du Toit et al., 2021).

In darker skin tones, erythema can be less visible, which can delay recognition of inflammatory severity and contribute to diagnostic disparities, so clinicians should deliberately assess warmth, edema, dyschromia, and textural change rather than relying on redness alone (Forsyth et al., 2025; Taylor, 2023). Adjunct tools such as dermoscopy can help as pigmentary surrogates of inflammation may be more apparent than vascular color change in richly pigmented skin, improving detection when erythema is muted (Bhat and Jha, 2021).

11 Knowledge gaps and research agenda

A central gap is that most drug eruption phenotypes are treated as categorical syndromes rather than validated predictive risk signals with quantified sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for organ toxicity, which limits how confidently clinicians can act on early morphology alone (Blumenthal et al., 2024). Bridging that gap requires prospective, deeply phenotyped cohorts that capture standardized morphology, timing, drug exposure windows, and sequential laboratory and imaging endpoints so that phenotype can be linked to incident hepatic, renal, pulmonary, hematologic, and cardiac outcomes with time-to-event analyses (King et al., 2024).

For DRESS, current cohorts show substantial heterogeneity by culprit drug and organ patterning, but much of the literature remains retrospective and vulnerable to misclassification, underscoring the need for prospective designs that anchor adjudication to RegiSCAR definitions while collecting objective outcome data (Blumenthal et al., 2024; King et al., 2024). For epidermal necrolysis, systematic reviews document marked heterogeneity in reported outcomes, definitions, and timing, which impairs comparison of immunomodulatory strategies and supportive care models across studies (Libson et al., 2024; Dobry et al., 2022). A practical research agenda, therefore, includes harmonized outcome sets that go beyond mortality to capture time to re-epithelialization, infection, ocular sequelae, patient-reported symptoms, and long-term function, aligned with international consensus efforts (Ingen-Housz-Oro et al., 2025).

Imaging standards are a second bottleneck because prediction models and multicenter cohorts cannot generalize when clinical photographs vary in lighting, framing, scale, and metadata, so protocolized acquisition and training standards from teledermatology guidance should be adapted for drug toxicity research (Quigley et al., 2015; Ashique et al., 2015). Digital triage and computer vision offer a route to earlier detection and wider access, but safe implementation depends on datasets that include diverse skin tones, real-world inpatient images, and labels that reflect clinician consensus and biopsy where appropriate (Tjiu and Lu, 2025; Weir et al., 2025). Multiple evaluations show performance drops and fairness gaps for darker skin tones and non-specialist settings, making external validation, subgroup reporting, and deployment monitoring mandatory rather than optional (Benčević et al., 2024). Near-term priorities include standardized skin tone labeling methods, transparent reporting of dataset composition, and calibration strategies that minimize false reassurance in underrepresented groups while maintaining acceptable false alert rates in routine care (Tjiu and Lu, 2025; Weir et al., 2025).

12 Conclusion

The most actionable drug-related skin signs for systemic toxicity are those that predict rapid deterioration or occult organ injury. Skin pain, dusky or targetoid change, blistering, and any mucosal erosion are stop signals for possible epidermal necrolysis and should trigger immediate culprit withdrawal, urgent admission-level supportive care, and early specialty coordination. Facial edema with a widespread eruption plus fever, lymphadenopathy, eosinophilia, or atypical lymphocytosis should trigger a DRESS pathway with prompt drug cessation and systematic screening for hepatic, renal, pulmonary, hematologic, and cardiac involvement. Palpable purpura, retiform purpura, livedo racemosa, and evolving necrosis should trigger urgent evaluation for vasculitis, thrombosis, and coagulopathy with rapid escalation when renal, gastrointestinal, or hemodynamic features are present.

A practical framework is phenotype to mechanism to systemic risk to action, using morphology, timing, and red flags to decide whether to stop or continue and to select a minimal but targeted evaluation set. Progress depends on standardized documentation, reproducible imaging, and multidisciplinary pathways linking dermatology, pharmacy, allergy, critical care, and the primary treating service to reduce delays and prevent recurrence.

References

• 1

  Abdul GafoorS. M.Gelson ThomasA.BoissiereJ.RobertsL.BernalW.CreamerD. (2026). Purpura fulminans: a dermatological emergency revisited. Clin. Exp. Dermatol.51 (2), 212–219. 10.1093/ced/llaf373

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AbdullahS. E.HaigentzM.PiperdiB. (2012). Dermatologic toxicities from monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors against EGFR: pathophysiology and management. Chemother. Res. Pract.2012, 351210. 10.1155/2012/351210

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AbushullaihS.SaadE. D.MunsellM.HoffP. M. (2002). Incidence and severity of hand-foot syndrome in colorectal cancer patients treated with capecitabine: a single-institution experience. Cancer Investig.20 (1), 3–10. 10.1081/cnv-120000360

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Al-BennaS. (2021). Toxic epidermal necrolysis syndrome: management and outcomes. Ann. Burns Fire Disasters34 (3), 226–234.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Al-NesfM. A.MobayedH. M. S.RazaT. (2013). Primary cutaneous vasculitis masquerading as drug induced following aspirin desensitization. Case Rep. Med.2013, 745714. 10.1155/2013/745714

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AlotaibiT.BjazevicJ.KimR.GrynS.SultanN.DresserG.et al (2024). Allopurinol hypersensitivity syndrome raising awareness of an uncommon but potentially serious adverse event among kidney stone patients. Can. Urol. Assoc. J.18 (5), E167–E172. 10.5489/cuaj.8685

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AlpsoyE. (2022). Cutaneous vasculitis; an algorithmic approach to diagnosis. Front. Med. (Lausanne)9, 1012554. 10.3389/fmed.2022.1012554

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AlrashidiA.RhodesL. E.SharifJ. C. H.KreeshanF. C.FarrarM. D.AhadT. (2020). Systemic drug photosensitivity-Culprits, impact and investigation in 122 patients. Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed.36 (6), 441–451. 10.1111/phpp.12583

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AlvestadS.LydersenS.BrodtkorbE. (2008). Cross-reactivity pattern of rash from current aromatic antiepileptic drugs. Epilepsy Res.80 (2–3), 194–200. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2008.04.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AmmouryA.MichaudS.PaulC.Prost-SquarcioniC.AlvarezF.LamantL.et al (2008). Photodistribution of blue-gray hyperpigmentation after amiodarone treatment: molecular characterization of amiodarone in the skin. Arch. Dermatol.144 (1), 92–96. 10.1001/archdermatol.2007.25

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  AndersD.TrautmannA. (2013). Allergic anaphylaxis due to subcutaneously injected heparin. Allergy Asthma Clin. Immunol.9 (1), 1. 10.1186/1710-1492-9-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  ApallaZ.PapageorgiouC.LallasA.DelliF.FotiadouC.KemanetziC.et al (2021). Cutaneous adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a literature review. Dermatol. Pract. Concept.11 (1), e2021155. 10.5826/dpc.1101a155

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  AsdourianM. S.ShahN.JacobyT. V.ReynoldsK. L.ChenS. T. (2022). Association of bullous pemphigoid with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with cancer: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol.158 (8), 933–941. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.1624

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  AshiqueK. T.KaliyadanF.AurangabadkarS. J. (2015). Clinical photography in dermatology using smartphones: an overview. Indian dermatol. Online J.6 (3), 158–163. 10.4103/2229-5178.156381

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  BaasJ. M.KrensL. L.GuchelaarH. J.OuwerkerkJ.de JongF. A.LavrijsenA. P. M.et al (2012). Recommendations on management of EGFR inhibitor-induced skin toxicity: a systematic review. Cancer Treat. Rev.38 (5), 505–514. 10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.09.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  BaethgeC.Goldbeck-WoodS.MertensS. (2019). SANRA-a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res. Integr. Peer Rev.4, 5. 10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  BallangerF.AuffretN.LecciaM.-T.ClaudelJ. P.DrénoB. (2023). Acneiform lesions but not acne after treatment with janus kinase inhibitors: diagnosis and management of janus kinase-acne. Acta Derm. Venereol.103, adv11657–Jun. 10.2340/actadv.v103.11657

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Di BartolomeoL.IrreraN.CampoG. M.BorgiaF.MotoleseA.VaccaroF.et al (2022). Drug-induced photosensitivity: clinical types of phototoxicity and photoallergy and pathogenetic mechanisms. Front. Allergy3, 876695. 10.3389/falgy.2022.876695

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Bastuji-GarinS.RzanyB.SternR. S.ShearN. H.NaldiL.RoujeauJ. C. (1993). Clinical classification of cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and erythema multiforme. Arch. Dermatol.129 (1), 92–96. 10.1001/archderm.1993.01680220104023

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Bastuji-GarinS.FouchardN.BertocchiM.RoujeauJ. C.RevuzJ.WolkensteinP. (2000). SCORTEN: a severity-of-illness score for toxic epidermal necrolysis. J. Investig. Dermatol.115 (2), 149–153. 10.1046/j.1523-1747.2000.00061.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  BegricheK.MassartJ.RobinM.-A.Borgne-SanchezA.FromentyB. (2011). Drug-induced toxicity on mitochondria and lipid metabolism: mechanistic diversity and deleterious consequences for the liver. J. Hepatol.54 (4), 773–794. 10.1016/j.jhep.2010.11.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  BenčevićM.HabijanM.GalićI.BabinD.PižuricaA. (2024). Understanding skin color bias in deep learning-based skin lesion segmentation. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed.245, 108044. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2024.108044

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  BhatY. J.JhaA. K. (2021). Dermatoscopy of inflammatory diseases in skin of color. Indian dermatol. Online J.12 (1), 45–57. 10.4103/idoj.IDOJ_613_20

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  BizjakM.AertsO.PesquéD.MuñozM.AseroR.GonçaloM.et al (2025). Contact urticaria and related conditions: clinical review. Contact Derm.93 (2), 87–107. 10.1111/cod.14794

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  BlumenthalK. G.Alvarez-ArangoS.KroshinskyD.LoY. C.SamarakoonU.SalemA. R.et al (2024). Drug reaction eosinophilia and systemic symptoms: clinical phenotypic patterns according to causative drug. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.90 (6), 1240–1242. 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.05.067

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  BourgeoisG. P.CafardiJ. A.GroysmanV.HugheyL. C. (2012). A review of DRESS-Associated myocarditis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.66 (6), e229–e236. 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.11.057

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  BrockowK.Ardern-JonesM. R.MockenhauptM.AbererW.BarbaudA.CaubetJ. C.et al (2019). EAACI position paper on how to classify cutaneous manifestations of drug hypersensitivity. Allergy74 (1), 14–27. 10.1111/all.13562

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  BrockowK.WurptsG.TrautmannA.PfütznerW.TreudlerR.BircherA. J.et al (2023). Guideline for allergological diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: S2k guideline of the German Society for allergology and clinical immunology (DGAKI) in cooperation with the German dermatological society (DDG), the association of German allergologists (ÄDA), the German society for pediatric allergology (GPA), the German contact dermatitis research group (DKG), the German society for pneumology (DGP), the German society of otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery, the Austrian society of allergology and immunology (ÖGAI), the Austrian society of dermatology and venereology (ÖGDV), the German academy of allergology and environmental medicine (DAAU), and the German documentation center for severe skin reactions (dZh). Allergol. Sel.7, 122–139. 10.5414/ALX02422E

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  BrownT. J.GuptaA. (2020). Management of cancer therapy-associated oral mucositis. JCO Oncol. Pract.16 (3), 103–109. 10.1200/JOP.19.00652

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  BroylesA. D.BanerjiA.BarmettlerS.BiggsC. M.BlumenthalK.BrennanP. J.et al (2020). Practical guidance for the evaluation and management of drug hypersensitivity: specific drugs. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract.8 (9S), S16–S116. 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.08.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  CalleA. M.AguirreN.ArdilaJ. C.Cardona VillaR. (2023). DRESS syndrome: a literature review and treatment algorithm. World Allergy organiz. J.16 (3), 100673. 10.1016/j.waojou.2022.100673

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  CamayoT. V.LeeV. R.ZhouX. A. (2025). “Drug-induced pigmentation,” in StatPearls, treasure island (FL) (Treasure Island, FL:StatPearls Publishing).

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  CanhãoG.PinheiroS.CabralL. (2022). Toxic epidermal necrolysis: a clinical and therapeutic review. EBJ3 (3), 407–424. 10.3390/ebj3030036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  CarneiroS. C. da S.Azevedo-e-SilvaM. C.Ramos-e-SilvaM. (2011). Drug eruptions in the elderly. Clin. Dermatol.29 (1), 43–48. 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2010.07.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  CastañedaS.Quiroga-ColinaP.FloranesP.Uriarte-EcenarroM.Valero-MartínezC.Vicente-RabanedaE. F.et al (2024). IgA vasculitis (Henoch-Schönlein purpura): an update on treatment. J. Clin. Med.13 (21), 6621. 10.3390/jcm13216621

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  CastellazziM. L.EspositoS.ClautL. E.DaccòV.ColomboC. (2018). Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome in two young children: the importance of an early diagnosis. Ital. J. Pediatr.44 (1), 93. 10.1186/s13052-018-0535-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Castro AlmeidaE.Rocha-NevesJ.PedrosaA. F.Paulo AndradeJ. (2025). Medical photography in dermatology: quality and safety in the referral process to secondary healthcare. Diagn. (Basel)15 (12), 1518. 10.3390/diagnostics15121518

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  ChanL. C. E.SultanaR.ChooK. J. L.YeoY. W.PangS. M.LeeH. Y. (2024). Viral reactivation and clinical outcomes in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). Sci. Rep.14 (1), 28492. 10.1038/s41598-024-69054-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  ChangH.-C.WangT.-J.LinM.-H.ChenT.-J. (2022). A review of the systemic treatment of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Biomedicines10 (9), 2105. 10.3390/biomedicines10092105

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Chango AzanzaJ. J.Calle SarmientoP. M.Lopetegui LiaN.AlexanderS. A.ModiV. (2020). Leukocytoclastic vasculitis: an early skin biopsy makes a difference. Cureus12 (5), e7912. 10.7759/cureus.7912

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  CharltonO. A.HarrisV.PhanK.MewtonE.JacksonC.CooperA. (2020). Toxic epidermal necrolysis and steven-johnson syndrome: a comprehensive review. Adv. Wound Care (New Rochelle)9 (7), 426–439. 10.1089/wound.2019.0977

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  ChatzigrigoriadisC.KoufopoulosE.AvramidisP.ErginousakisI.KarakoidaV.PapadopoulosT.et al (2025). Serum sickness-like reaction: a narrative review of epidemiology, immunopathogenesis, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic approaches. Clin. Pract.15 (10), 178. 10.3390/clinpract15100178

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  ChenP.LinJ. J.LuC. S.OngC. T.HsiehP. F.YangC. C.et al (2011). Carbamazepine-induced toxic effects and HLA-B*1502 screening in Taiwan. N. Engl. J. Med.364 (12), 1126–1133. 10.1056/NEJMoa1009717

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  ChiriacA. E.PintealaT.ChiriacA.WollinaU. (2024). Cutaneous adverse drug reactions in children with a focus on hypersensitivity to systemic drugs: a narrative review. IJSA3, 2–11. 10.25259/IJSA_14_2024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  ChoY.-T.ChuC.-Y. (2017). Treatments for severe cutaneous adverse reactions. J. Immunol. Res.18 (6), 1243. 10.1155/2017/1503709

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  ChoY.-T.YangC.-W.ChuC.-Y. (2017). Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS): an interplay among drugs, viruses, and immune system. Int. J. Mol. Sci.18 (6), 1243. 10.3390/ijms18061243

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  ChoudharyS.McLeodM.TorchiaD.RomanelliP. (2013). Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome. J. Clin. Aesthet. Dermatol.6 (6), 31–37.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  ChoyS. P.KimB. J.PaolinoA.TanW. R.LimS. M. L.SeoJ.et al (2023). Systematic review of deep learning image analyses for the diagnosis and monitoring of skin disease. Npj Digit. Med.6 (1), 180. 10.1038/s41746-023-00914-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  ChuD.LacoutureM. E.FillosT.WuS. (2008). Risk of hand-foot skin reaction with sorafenib: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Oncol.47 (2), 176–186. 10.1080/02841860701765675

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  ChuchuN.DinnesJ.TakwoingiY.MatinR. N.BaylissS. E.DavenportC.et al (2018). Teledermatology for diagnosing skin cancer in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.12 (12), CD013193. 10.1002/14651858.CD013193

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  ChungW.-H.ChangW. C.StockerS. L.JuoC. G.GrahamG. G.LeeM. H. H.et al (2015). Insights into the poor prognosis of allopurinol-induced severe cutaneous adverse reactions: the impact of renal insufficiency, high plasma levels of oxypurinol and granulysin. Ann. Rheum. Dis.74 (12), 2157–2164. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-205577

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Dagnon da SilvaM.DominguesS. M.OluicS.RadovanovicM.KodelaP.NordinT.et al (2023). Renal manifestations of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome: a systematic review of 71 cases. J. Clin. Med.12 (14), 4576. 10.3390/jcm12144576

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  DanielB. S.MurrellD. F. (2019). Review of autoimmune blistering diseases: the pemphigoid diseases. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol.33 (9), 1685–1694. 10.1111/jdv.15679

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  DavidF.TrigoA. C.RibeiroJ.CancelaJ. (2024). Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a rare presentation with skin necrosis. Dermatol. Rep.16 (3), 9855. 10.4081/dr.2023.9855

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  DavidsonL.van den ReekJ. M. P. A.BrunoM.van HunselF.HeringsR. M. C.MatzarakiV.et al (2022). Risk of candidiasis associated with interleukin-17 inhibitors: a real-world observational study of multiple independent sources. Lancet Reg. Health Eur.13, 100266. 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100266

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  DavisA. E.KennelleyG. E.Amaye-ObuT.JowdyP. F.GhadersohiS.Nasir-MoinM.et al (2024). The phenomenon of phototoxicity and long-term risks of commonly prescribed and structurally diverse drugs. J. Photochem. Photobiol.19 (Feb), 100221. 10.1016/j.jpap.2023.100221

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  DeA.DasS.SardaA.PalD.BiswasP. (2018). Acute generalised exanthematous pustulosis: an update. Indian J. dermatol.63 (1), 22–29. 10.4103/ijd.IJD_581_17

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Del Pozzo-MagañaB. R.Liy-WongC. (2024). Drugs and the skin: a concise review of cutaneous adverse drug reactions. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.90 (8), 1838–1855. 10.1111/bcp.15490

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  DeutschA.LeboeufN. R.LacoutureM. E.McLellanB. N. (2020). Dermatologic adverse events of systemic anticancer therapies: cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book40, 485–500. 10.1200/EDBK_289911

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  de WithM.van DoornL.MaaslandD. C.MulderT. A. M.Oomen-de HoopE.MostertB.et al (2023). Capecitabine-induced hand-foot syndrome: a pharmacogenetic study beyond DPYD. Biomed. Pharmacother.159, 114232. 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.114232

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  DidonaD.SchmidtM. F.MaglieR.SolimaniF. (2023). Pemphigus and pemphigoids: clinical presentation, diagnosis and therapy. J. Dtsch. Dermatol Ges.21 (10), 1188–1209. 10.1111/ddg.15174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Di MeglioP.PereraG. K.NestleF. O. (2011). The multitasking organ: recent insights into skin immune function. Immunity35 (6), 857–869. 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.12.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  DissemondJ. (2024). “Skin necrosis and ulcers induced by medications,” in Skin necrosis. Editors TéotL.MeaumeS.AkitaS.Del MarmolV.ProbstS. (Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland), 135–144.

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  DobryA. S.HimedS.WatersM.KaffenbergerB. H. (2022). Scoring assessments in Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Front. Med. (Lausanne)9, 883121. 10.3389/fmed.2022.883121

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  DorjG.NairN. P.BereznickiL.KellyT. L.PrattN.Kalisch-EllettL.et al (2023). Risk factors predictive of adverse drug events and drug-related falls in aged care residents: secondary analysis from the ReMInDAR trial. Drugs Aging40 (1), 49–58. 10.1007/s40266-022-00983-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  D’ArcyM. E.PfeifferR. M.RiveraD. R.HessG. P.CahoonE. K.ArronS. T.et al (2020). Voriconazole and the risk of keratinocyte carcinomas among lung transplant recipients in the United States. JAMA Dermatol156 (7), 772–779. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1141

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  du ToitJ. D.KotzeK.van der WesthuizenH.-M.GauntT. L. (2021). Nevirapine-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome in children living with HIV in South Africa. South. Afr. J. HIV Med.22 (1), 1182. 10.4102/sajhivmed.v22i1.1182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  El-MallakhR. S.DoroodgarM.PahwaM.ElsayedO. H. A. (2025). Acneiform eruptions caused by lithium treatment may be related to demodex mites (prostigmata: demodecidae): a hypothesis. Biol. (Basel)14 (6), 605. 10.3390/biology14060605

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  EladS.YaromN.ZadikY.Kuten-ShorrerM.SonisS. T. (2022). The broadening scope of oral mucositis and oral ulcerative mucosal toxicities of anticancer therapies. CA Cancer J. Clin.72 (1), 57–77. 10.3322/caac.21704

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  ErnstM.GiubellinoA. (2022). Histopathologic features of maculopapular drug eruption. Dermatopathol. (Basel)9 (2), 111–121. 10.3390/dermatopathology9020014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  EstevaA.KuprelB.NovoaR. A.KoJ.SwetterS. M.BlauH. M.et al (2017). Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature542 (7639), 115–118. 10.1038/nature21056

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  FabbrociniG.PanarielloL.CaroG.CacciapuotiS. (2015). Acneiform rash induced by EGFR inhibitors: review of the literature and new insights. Skin. Appendage Disord.1 (1), 31–37. 10.1159/000371821

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  FeldmeyerL.HeidemeyerK.YawalkarN. (2016). Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis: pathogenesis, genetic background, clinical variants and therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci.17 (8), 1214. 10.3390/ijms17081214

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  FinneganA.ChoR. J.LuuA.HarirchianP.LeeJ.ChengJ. B.et al (2019). Single-cell transcriptomics reveals spatial and temporal turnover of keratinocyte differentiation regulators. Front. Genet.10, 775. 10.3389/fgene.2019.00775

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  FiscusV.HankinsonA.AlweisR. (2014). Minocycline-induced hyperpigmentation. J. Community Hosp. Intern. Med. Perspect.4 (3), 24063. 10.3402/jchimp.v4.24063

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  ForsythA.PrajapatiS.FrasierK. M.KriebelC.JacksonT.BatistaR.et al (2025). Diagnostic disparities in erythema visibility: a call to redefine inflammatory assessment in diverse skin tones. Cureus17 (10), e94930. 10.7759/cureus.94930

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  FraticelliP.BenfaremoD.GabrielliA. (2021). Diagnosis and management of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Intern. Emerg. Med.16 (4), 831–841. 10.1007/s11739-021-02688-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  FreyN.BircherA.BodmerM.JickS. S.MeierC. R.SpoendlinJ. (2018). Antibiotic drug use and the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: a population-based case-control study. J. Investig. Dermatol.138 (5), 1207–1209. 10.1016/j.jid.2017.12.015

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  Garcia-DovalI.LeCleachL.BocquetH.OteroX.-L.RoujeauJ.-C. (2000). Toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Arch. Dermatol.136 (3), 323–327. 10.1001/archderm.136.3.323

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  GarelB.Ingen-Housz-OroS.AfriatD.Prost-SquarcioniC.TétartF.BensaidB.et al (2019). Drug-induced linear immunoglobulin A bullous dermatosis: a French retrospective pharmacovigilance study of 69 cases. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.85 (3), 570–579. 10.1111/bcp.13827

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  GaronS. L.PavlosR. K.WhiteK. D.BrownN. J.StoneC. A.PhillipsE. J. (2017). Pharmacogenomics of off-target adverse drug reactions. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.83 (9), 1896–1911. 10.1111/bcp.13294

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  GeislerA. N.PhillipsG. S.BarriosD. M.WuJ.LeungD. Y. M.MoyA. P.et al (2020). Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related dermatologic adverse events. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.83 (5), 1255–1268. 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.03.132

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  GeorgesenC.FoxL. P.HarpJ. (2020). Retiform purpura: a diagnostic approach. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.82 (4), 783–796. 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.07.112

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  GilbarP.HainA.PeereboomV.-M. (2009). Nail toxicity induced by cancer chemotherapy. J. Oncol. Pharm. Pract.15 (3), 143–155. 10.1177/1078155208100450

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  Giménez GarcíaR. M.Carrasco MolinaS. (2019). Drug-induced hyperpigmentation: review and case series. J. Am. Board Fam. Med.32 (4), 628–638. 10.3122/jabfm.2019.04.180212

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  GorjiM.JosephJ.PavlakisN.SmithS. D. (2022). Prevention and management of acneiform rash associated with EGFR inhibitor therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Oncol.18 (6), 526–539. 10.1111/ajco.13740

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  GuidaM.StrippoliS.MauleM.QuaglinoP.RamondettaA.Chiaron SileniV.et al (2021). Immune checkpoint inhibitor associated vitiligo and its impact on survival in patients with metastatic melanoma: an Italian melanoma intergroup study. ESMO Open6 (2), 100064. 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100064

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  HanschmannT.FrancuzikW.Dölle-BierkeS.HofmeierK. S.GrabenhenrichL.RuëffF.et al (2023). Different phenotypes of drug-induced anaphylaxis-Data from the european anaphylaxis registry. Allergy78 (6), 1615–1627. 10.1111/all.15612

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  HarrisV.JacksonC.CooperA. (2016). Review of toxic epidermal necrolysis. Int. J. Mol. Sci.17 (12), 2135. 10.3390/ijms17122135

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  HofmannG. A.WeberB. (2021). Drug-induced photosensitivity: culprit drugs, potential mechanisms and clinical consequences. J. Dtsch. Dermatol Ges.19 (1), 19–29. 10.1111/ddg.14314

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  HonapS.TemidoM. J.ShakwehE.BadrulhishamF.ShieldsN.MehtaS.et al (2026). Janus kinase inhibitor-induced acne in inflammatory bowel disease: an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.24 (2), 484–492.e7. 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.04.031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  Ingen-Housz-OroS.de ProstN.WolkensteinP. (2025). Need for trial design change in epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis): example of cyclosporine. J. Investig. Dermatol.145 (5), 1005–1007. 10.1016/j.jid.2024.11.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  JafferanyM. (2008). Lithium and psoriasis: what primary care and family physicians should know. Prim. Care Companion J. Clin. Psychiatry10 (6), 435–439. 10.4088/pcc.v10n0602

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  JaworskiK.WaleckaI.RudnickaL.GnatowskiM.KosiorD. A. (2014). Cutaneous adverse reactions of amiodarone. Med. Sci. Monit.20, 2369–2372. 10.12659/MSM.890881

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  JeimyS.WongT.Ben-ShoshanM.CopaescuA. M.IsabweG. A. C.EllisA. K. (2025). Drug allergy. Allergy Asthma Clin. Immunol.20 (Suppl. 3), 78. 10.1186/s13223-024-00936-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  JustinianoH.Berlingeri-RamosA. C.SánchezJ. L. (2008). Pattern analysis of drug-induced skin diseases. Am. J. Dermatopathol.30 (4), 352–369. 10.1097/DAD.0b013e3181722ef4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  KakagiaD. D.PapanasN.KaradimasE.PolychronidisA. (2014). Warfarin-induced skin necrosis. Ann. Dermatol.26 (1), 96–98. 10.5021/ad.2014.26.1.96

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  KananiA.BetschelS. D.WarringtonR. (2018). Urticaria and angioedema. Allergy Asthma Clin. Immunol.14 (Suppl. 2), 59. 10.1186/s13223-018-0288-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  KardaunS. H.SekulaP.Valeyrie-AllanoreL.LissY.ChuC. Y.CreamerD.et al (2013). Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS): an original multisystem adverse drug reaction. Results from the prospective RegiSCAR study. Br. J. Dermatol.169 (5), 1071–1080. 10.1111/bjd.12501

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  KardaunS. H.MeijerJ. M. (2022). “Drug-induced pemphigoid and linear IgA disease,” in Autoimmune bullous diseases: text and review. Editor HorváthB. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 151–156.

  • Google Scholar

• 101

  KellyB. G.StrattonD. B.MansourI.TanrioverB.CulpepperK. S.Curiel-LewandrowskiC. (2022). Navigating the initial diagnosis and management of adult IgA vasculitis: a review. JAAD Int.8, 71–78. 10.1016/j.jdin.2022.05.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  KhalafR.ChoiUy.ProstyC.Ben-ShoshanM. (2025). Serum sickness-like reactions clinical characteristics and management: a systematic review. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract.13 (5), 1068–1074. 10.1016/j.jaip.2025.02.027

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  KhanM.ParkL.SkopitS. (2023). Management options for linear immunoglobulin A (Iga) bullous dermatosis: a literature review. Cureus15 (3), e36481. 10.7759/cureus.36481

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  KhanD. A.BanerjiA.BlumenthalK. G.PhillipsE. J.SolenskyR.WhiteA. A.et al (2022). Drug allergy: a 2022 practice parameter update. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.150 (6), 1333–1393. 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.08.028

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  KimE.-J.LimH.ParkS. Y.KimS.YoonS. Y.BaeY. J.et al (2014). Rapid onset of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis after ingestion of acetaminophen. Asia Pac. Allergy4 (1), 68–72. 10.5415/apallergy.2014.4.1.68

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  KimW. B.ShelleyA. J.NoviceK.JooJ.LimH. W.GlassmanS. J. (2018). Drug-induced phototoxicity: a systematic review. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.79 (6), 1069–1075. 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.06.061

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  KimG. Y.AndersonK. R.DavisD. M. R.HandJ. L.TollefsonM. M. (2020). Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) in the pediatric population: a systematic review of the literature. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.83 (5), 1323–1330. 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.03.081

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  KimP. J.LansangR. P.VenderR. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of injection site reactions in randomized-controlled trials of biologic injections. J. Cutan. Med. Surg.27 (4), 358–367. 10.1177/12034754231188444

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  KimG. J.LeeJ. S.JangS.LeeS.JeonS.LeeS.et al (2024). Polypharmacy and elevated risk of severe adverse events in older adults based on the Korea institute of drug safety and risk management-korea adverse event reporting system database. J. Korean Med. Sci.39 (28), e205. 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e205

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  KingG. G.ChungL. P.UsmaniO. S.NilsenK.ThompsonB. R. (2024). Improving asthma outcomes: clinicians’ perspectives on peripheral airways. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Glob.3 (2), 100228. 10.1016/j.jacig.2024.100228

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  KiyoharaY.YamazakiN.KishiA. (2013). Erlotinib-related skin toxicities: treatment strategies in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.69 (3), 463–472. 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.02.025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  KnightL.ToddG.MuloiwaR.MatjilaM.LehloenyaR. J. (2015). Stevens johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: maternal and foetal outcomes in twenty-two consecutive pregnant HIV infected women. PLoS ONE10 (8), e0135501. 10.1371/journal.pone.0135501

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  KondaD.SumanthT. S.SwamyA. (2025). Cyclophosphamide-induced nail pigmentation: an uncommon presentation. Pigment. Int.12 (1), 71–73. 10.4103/pigmentinternational_58_23

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  KonticM.StojanovichL.Mijailović-IvkovićM.VelinovićM.SrnkaJ.ZdravkovicM. (2018). Are the cutaneous manifestations in patients with primary antiphospholipid syndrome a marker for predicting lung manifestations?Clin. Exp. Rheumatol.36 (1), 56–61.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  KupperT. S.FuhlbriggeR. C. (2004). Immune surveillance in the skin: mechanisms and clinical consequences. Nat. Rev. Immunol.4 (3), 211–222. 10.1038/nri1310

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  KwakmanJ. J. M.ElshotY. S.PuntC. J. A.KoopmanM. (2020). Management of cytotoxic chemotherapy-induced hand-foot syndrome. Oncol. Rev.14 (1), 442. 10.4081/oncol.2020.442

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  LacoutureM. E.AnadkatM. J.BensadounR. J.BryceJ.ChanA.EpsteinJ. B.et al (2011). Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of EGFR inhibitor-associated dermatologic toxicities. Support. Care Cancer19 (8), 1079–1095. 10.1007/s00520-011-1197-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  Lamadrid-ZertucheA. C.Garza-RodríguezV.Ocampo-CandianiJ. de J. (2018). Pigmented purpura and cutaneous vascular occlusion syndromes. An. Bras. Dermatol.93 (3), 397–404. 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20187459

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  LammerJ.HeinR.RoennebergS.BiedermannT.VolzT. (2019). Drug-induced linear IgA bullous dermatosis: a case report and review of the literature. Acta Derm. Venereol.99 (6), 508–515. 10.2340/00015555-3154

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  LeeA.-Y. (2024). Immunological mechanisms in cutaneous adverse drug reactions. Biomol. Ther. Seoul.32 (1), 1–12. 10.4062/biomolther.2023.170

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  LeeH. Y.TayL. K.ThirumoorthyT.PangS. M. (2010). Cutaneous adverse drug reactions in hospitalised patients. Singap. Med. J.51 (10), 767–774.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  LeeE.KnoxC.PhillipsE. (2023). Prevalence of antibiotic-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.151 (2), AB57. 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.12.182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  LiS. J.Perez-ChadaL. M.MerolaJ. F. (2019). TNF inhibitor-induced psoriasis: proposed algorithm for treatment and management. J. Psoriasis Psoriatic Arthritis4 (2), 70–80. 10.1177/2475530318810851

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  LibsonK.MehtaN.KirvenR.KormanA. M.KaffenbergerB. H. (2024). Outcome measurements in epidermal necrolysis: a systematic review. Arch. Dermatol. Res.316 (7), 392. 10.1007/s00403-024-03062-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  MacyE. (2021). Practical management of new-onset urticaria and angioedema presenting in primary care, urgent care, and the emergency department. TPJ25 (4), 21.058. 10.7812/TPP/21.058

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  MallalS.PhillipsE.CarosiG.MolinaJ. M.WorkmanC.TomazicJ.et al (2008). HLA-B*5701 screening for hypersensitivity to abacavir. N. Engl. J. Med.358 (6), 568–579. 10.1056/NEJMoa0706135

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  MaroneseC. A.ValentiM.MoltrasioC.RomagnuoloM.FerrucciS. M.GillietM.et al (2024). Paradoxical psoriasis: an updated review of clinical features, pathogenesis, and treatment options. J. Investig. Dermatol.144 (11), 2364–2376. 10.1016/j.jid.2024.05.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  MartinM. A.HoffmanJ. M.FreimuthR. R.KleinT. E.DongB. J.PirmohamedM.et al (2014). Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium guidelines for HLA-B genotype and abacavir dosing: 2014 update. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.95 (5), 499–500. 10.1038/clpt.2014.38

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  Martinez-CabrialesS. A.ShearN. H.Gonzalez-MorenoE. I. (2019). Liver involvement in the drug reaction, eosinophilia, and systemic symptoms syndrome. World J. Clin. Cases7 (6), 705–716. 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i6.705

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  MarzanoA. V.BorghiA.CugnoM. (2016). Adverse drug reactions and organ damage: the skin. Eur. J. Intern. Med.28, 17–24. 10.1016/j.ejim.2015.11.017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  MiliszewskiM. A.KirchhofM. G.SikoraS.PappA.DutzJ. P. (2016). Stevens-johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: an analysis of triggers and implications for improving prevention. Am. J. Med.129 (11), 1221–1225. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.03.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  MillerR. L.ShtesselM.RobinsonL. B.BanerjiA. (2019). Advances in drug allergy, urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis in 2018. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.144 (2), 381–392. 10.1016/j.jaci.2019.06.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  MizukawaY.ShioharaT. (2025). Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of DIHS/DRESS in 2025. Allergol. Int.74 (3), 372–379. 10.1016/j.alit.2025.03.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  MockenhauptM. (2009). Severe drug-induced skin reactions: clinical pattern, diagnostics and therapy. J. Dtsch. Dermatol Ges.7 (2), 142–160. 10.1111/j.1610-0387.2008.06878.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  MockenhauptM.ViboudC.DunantA.NaldiL.HalevyS.Bouwes BavinckJ. N.et al (2008). Stevens-johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: assessment of medication risks with emphasis on recently marketed drugs. The EuroSCAR-study. J. Investig. Dermatol.128 (1), 35–44. 10.1038/sj.jid.5701033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  Mohamed OsmanR.SulimanA.MohamedosmanR.TahameedT.MohamedE. (2025). Warfarin-induced skin necrosis: a narrative review of clinical features, risk factors, and treatment strategies. Ann. Med. Surg. (Lond)87 (11), 7249–7260. 10.1097/MS9.0000000000003848

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  MooreM. J.SatheN. C.GanipisettiV. M. (2025). “Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis,” in StatPearls, treasure island (FL) (Treasure Island, FL:StatPearls Publishing).

  • Google Scholar

• 138

  MounzerK.HsuR.FuscoJ. S.BrunetL.HenegarC. E.VannappagariV.et al (2019). HLA-B*57:01 screening and hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir between 1999 and 2016 in the OPERA® observational database: a cohort study. AIDS Res. Ther.16 (1), 1. 10.1186/s12981-019-0217-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  MunozC. J.LucasA.WilliamsA. T.CabralesP. (2020). A review on microvascular hemodynamics: the control of blood flow distribution and tissue oxygenation. Crit. Care Clin.36 (2), 293–305. 10.1016/j.ccc.2019.12.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  MwakawangaD. L.KilonziM.PhilipoE. G.MartineA.MbilinyiT.KileoN. F.et al (2023). Pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions reporting: Healthcare providers’ experiences from southern highland Tanzania. Adv. Pharmacol. Pharm. Sci.2023, 5537592. 10.1155/2023/5537592

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  MyersE. L.CultonD. A. (2025). A narrative review of pemphigoid diseases: bridging associations, comorbidities, and management. Dermatol Ther. (Heidelb)15 (7), 1755–1770. 10.1007/s13555-025-01444-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  NaiduM. U. R.RamanaG. V.RaniP. U.MohanI. K.SumanA.RoyP. (2004). Chemotherapy-induced and/or radiation therapy-induced oral mucositis--complicating the treatment of cancer. Neoplasia6 (5), 423–431. 10.1593/neo.04169

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  NairP. A.SalehH. M.SalazarF. J. (2025). Acneiform eruptions,” in StatPearls, treasure island (FL). (Treasure Island, FL:StatPearls Publishing).

  • Google Scholar

• 144

  NandeeshB.TirumalaeR. (2013). Direct immunofluorescence in cutaneous vasculitis: experience from a referral hospital in India. Indian J. dermatol.58 (1), 22–25. 10.4103/0019-5154.105280

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  NastA.GriffithsC. E. M.HayR.SterryW.BologniaJ. L. (2016). The 2016 international league of dermatological societies’ revised glossary for the description of cutaneous lesions. Br. J. Dermatol.174 (6), 1351–1358. 10.1111/bjd.14419

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  NatarelliN.GahooniaN.AflatooniS.BhatiaS.SivamaniR. K. (2024). Dermatologic manifestations of mitochondrial dysfunction: a review of the literature. Int. J. Mol. Sci.25 (6), 3303. 10.3390/ijms25063303

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  Navarrete-DechentC.LiopyrisK.MolendaM. A.BraunR.Curiel-LewandrowskiC.DuszaS. W.et al (2020). Human surface anatomy terminology for dermatology: a Delphi consensus from the international skin imaging collaboration. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol.34 (11), 2659–2663. 10.1111/jdv.16855

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  NestleF. O.Di MeglioP.QinJ.-Z.NickoloffB. J. (2009). Skin immune sentinels in health and disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol.9 (10), 679–691. 10.1038/nri2622

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  NettisE.FotiC.AmbrifiM.BaiardiniI.BianchiL.BorghiA.et al (2020). Urticaria: recommendations from the Italian society of allergology, asthma and clinical immunology and the Italian society of allergological, occupational and environmental dermatology. Clin. Mol. Allergy18, 8. 10.1186/s12948-020-00123-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  NgQ. X.De DeynM. L. Z. Q.VenkatanarayananN.HoC. Y. X.YeoW.-S. (2018). A meta-analysis of cyclosporine treatment for stevens-johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. J. Inflamm. Res.11, 135–142. 10.2147/JIR.S160964

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  NguyenA. V.SoulikaA. M. (2019). The dynamics of the skin’s immune system. Int. J. Mol. Sci.20 (8), 1811. 10.3390/ijms20081811

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  NoeM. H. (2018). “Morbilliform drug eruption,” in Inpatient dermatology. Editors RosenbachM.WanatK. A.MichelettiR. G.TaylorL. A. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 13–16.

  • Google Scholar

• 153

  OhY.MarkovaA.NoorS. J.RotembergV. (2022). Standardized clinical photography considerations in patients across skin tones. Br. J. Dermatol.186 (2), 352–354. 10.1111/bjd.20766

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  OliveiraA. M.CarvalhoR.MartinsA.ReisJ. (2016). Acute hepatitis in the DRESS syndrome. GE Port. J. Gastroenterol.23 (6), 304–308. 10.1016/j.jpge.2016.06.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  OshikoyaK. A.OgunyinkaI. A.OgarC. K.AbiolaA.IbrahimA.OreagbaI. A. (2020). Severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions manifesting as Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis reported to the national pharmacovigilance center in Nigeria: a database review from 2004 to 2017. Ther. Adv. Drug Saf.11, 2042098620905998. 10.1177/2042098620905998

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  PatelS. V.KhanD. A. (2017). Adverse reactions to biologic therapy. Immunol. Allergy Clin. North Am.37 (2), 397–412. 10.1016/j.iac.2017.01.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  PatelS.TostiA. (2014). An overview of management of drug-induced hair and nail disorders. Clin. Pract.11 (3), 327–339. 10.2217/cpr.14.18

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  PatriarcheasV.TsamosG.VasdekiD.KotteasE.KolliasA.NikasD.et al (2025). Antiphospholipid syndrome: a comprehensive clinical review. J. Clin. Med.14 (3), 733. 10.3390/jcm14030733

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  PavlosR.MallalS.OstrovD.BuusS.MetushiI.PetersB.et al (2015). T cell-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to drugs. Annu. Rev. Med.66, 439–454. 10.1146/annurev-med-050913-022745

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  PeakeK. E.ChowE. Y. (2025). Drug-induced linear IgA bullous dermatosis emerging after vancomycin discontinuation in renal impairment: management amid serious infection. Cureus17 (8), e91255. 10.7759/cureus.91255

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  PereiraA. R.de MouraL. H. B.PinheiroJ. R. S.PasinV. P.EnokiharaM. M. S. E. S.PorroA. M. (2016). Vancomycin-associated linear IgA disease mimicking toxic epidermal necrolysis. An. Bras. Dermatol.91 (5 Suppl. 1), 35–38. 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20164665

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  PhillipsE. J.SukasemC.Whirl-CarrilloM.MüllerD. J.DunnenbergerH. M.ChantratitaW.et al (2018). Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium guideline for HLA genotype and use of carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine: 2017 update. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.103 (4), 574–581. 10.1002/cpt.1004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  PichlerW. J. (2025). Delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions: how p-i transforms pharmacology into immunology. Allergol. Int.74 (1), 33–41. 10.1016/j.alit.2024.08.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  PierJ.BingemannT. A. (2020). Urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis. Pediatr. Rev.41 (6), 283–292. 10.1542/pir.2019-0056

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  Pinto GouveiaM.GameiroA.CoutinhoI.PereiraN.CardosoJ. C.GonçaloM. (2016). Overlap between maculopapular exanthema and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms among cutaneous adverse drug reactions in a dermatology ward. Br. J. Dermatol.175 (6), 1274–1283. 10.1111/bjd.14704

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  PiracciniB. M.AlessandriniA. (2013). Drug-related nail disease. Clin. Dermatol.31 (5), 618–626. 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2013.06.013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  PuxedduI.CaltranE.RocchiV.Del CorsoI.TavoniA.MiglioriniP. (2016). Hypersensitivity reactions during treatment with biological agents. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol.34 (1), 129–132.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  QueH.ZhengX.LiX.WangW. (2025). Risk factors for drug-induced acute generalized exanthematous Pustulosis(AGEP) from 2004 to 2024: a real-world study based on the FAERS. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dermatol.18, 2835–2845. 10.2147/CCID.S544845

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  QuigleyE. A.TokayB. A.JewellS. T.MarchettiM. A.HalpernA. C. (2015). Technology and technique standards for camera-acquired digital dermatologic images: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol.151 (8), 883–890. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.33

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  Quiles-RecuencoA.Falcon-VegaS.Selles-GalianaN.Andreo-GaleraM.Sempere-MiraA. (2023). Low-molecular-weight heparin–induced skin necrosis without thrombocytopenia. Aim. Clin. Cases2 (8), e221236. 10.7326/aimcc.2022.1236

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  RadovanovicM.JevticD.CalvinA. D.PetrovicM.PaulsonM.Rueda PradaL.et al (2022). Heart in DRESS’: cardiac manifestations, treatment and outcome of patients with drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome: a systematic review. J. Clin. Med.11 (3), 704. 10.3390/jcm11030704

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  RamirezG. A.RipaM.BurasteroS.BenantiG.BagnascoD.NannipieriS.et al (2023). Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS): focus on the pathophysiological and diagnostic role of viruses. Microorganisms11 (2), 346. 10.3390/microorganisms11020346

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  RixeN.TavarezM. M. (2025). “Serum sickness,” in StatPearls, treasure island (FL) (Treasure Island, FL:StatPearls Publishing).

  • Google Scholar

• 174

  RokJ.KowalskaJ.RzepkaZ.BanachK.WrześniokD. (2024). The assessment of the phototoxic potential of drugs forming complexes with melanin - screening in vitro studies using normal skin cells with varying pigmentation irradiated by a sunlight simulator. Chem. Biol. Interact.404, 111268. 10.1016/j.cbi.2024.111268

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  RudmannD. G. (2013). On-target and off-target-based toxicologic effects. Toxicol. Pathol.41 (2), 310–314. 10.1177/0192623312464311

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  RussellJ. P.GibsonL. E. (2006). Primary cutaneous small vessel vasculitis: approach to diagnosis and treatment. Int. J. Dermatol.45 (1), 3–13. 10.1111/j.1365-4632.2005.02898.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  SaitoY.StampL. K.CaudleK. E.HershfieldM. S.McDonaghE. M.CallaghanJ. T.et al (2016). Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium (CPIC) guidelines for human leukocyte antigen B (HLA-B) genotype and allopurinol dosing: 2015 update. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.99 (1), 36–37. 10.1002/cpt.161

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  SajjanV. V.LungeS.SwamyM. B.PanditA. M. (2015). Livedo reticularis: a review of the literature. Indian dermatol. Online J.6 (5), 315–321. 10.4103/2229-5178.164493

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  SamalK.MohantyS.SatapathyS. (2021). Chemotherapeutic drug-induced nail changes: a prospective observational study. Turk. J. Dermatol.15 (3), 61. 10.4103/tjd.tjd_44_21

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  SamhaniC.GuerciB.LaroseC. (2024). Cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction to dulaglutide: a case report of an allergic reaction. Diabetes Metab.50 (5), 101552. 10.1016/j.diabet.2024.101552

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  SampaioA. L.BressanA. L.VasconcelosB. N.GrippA. C. (2021). Skin manifestations associated with systemic diseases - part I. An. Bras. Dermatol.96 (6), 655–671. 10.1016/j.abd.2021.02.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  SasidharanpillaiS.AjithkumarK.JishnaP.KhaderA.AnaghaK. V.BinithaM. P.et al (2022). RegiSCAR DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) validation scoring system and Japanese consensus group criteria for atypical drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DiHS): a comparative analysis. Indian dermatol. Online J.13 (1), 40–45. 10.4103/idoj.idoj_196_21

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  SchunkertE. M.DivitoS. J. (2021). Updates and insights in the diagnosis and management of DRESS syndrome. Curr. Dermatol. Rep.10 (4), 192–204. 10.1007/s13671-021-00348-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  SethumadhavanS.MohananS.JeyashreeD.BalajiM.Varsha RamanC.Remya RajR.et al (2024). Cydnidae pigmentation: a clinico-dermoscopic case series with review of literature. Pigment. Int.10.4103/pigmentinternational_42_24

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  ShahV. K.EnglishJ. C. (2024). Store-and-forward inpatient teledermatology improves care for hospitalized patients with bullous eruptions after a primary inpatient team consultation: a retrospective study. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.90 (1), 174–177. 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.08.090

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  ShahH.ParisiR.MukherjeeE.PhillipsE. J.Dodiuk-GadR. P. (2024). Update on Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: diagnosis and management. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol.25 (6), 891–908. 10.1007/s40257-024-00889-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  ShahP. N.RomarG. A.ManukyanA.KoW. C.HsiehP. C.VelasquezG. A.et al (2024). Systemic and skin-limited delayed-type drug hypersensitivity reactions associate with distinct resident and recruited T cell subsets. J. Clin. Investig.134 (17), e178253. 10.1172/JCI178253

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  SharmaA.BaghmarS. (2013). Hand foot syndrome associated with standard dose cytarabine. Indian J. Med. Paediatr. Oncol.34 (4), 333. 10.4103/0971-5851.125263

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  SharmaS.JayakumarD.PalappallilD. S. (2019). Pharmacovigilance of cutaneous adverse drug reactions among patients attending dermatology department at a tertiary care hospital. Indian dermatol. Online J.10 (5), 547–554. 10.4103/idoj.IDOJ_419_18

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  SharmaA. N.HedayatiB.MesinkovskaN. A.WorswickS. (2020). Stevens-johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in pregnant patients: a systematic review. Int. J. Womens Dermatol6 (4), 239–247. 10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.04.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  ShinkaiK.BrucknerA. L.RobinsonJ. K. (2023). Best practices for sharing images in clinical care, research, and education—protecting patient privacy. JAMA Dermatol159 (7), 695–697. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.1080

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  SinglaA.AminiM. R.AlpertM. A.GornikH. L. (2013). Fatal anaphylactoid reaction associated with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Vasc. Med.18 (3), 136–138. 10.1177/1358863X13483865

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  SoriaA.AmslerE.BernierC.MilpiedB.TétartF.MoriceC.et al (2021). DRESS and AGEP reactions to iodinated contrast media: a french case series. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract.9 (8), 3041–3050. 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.02.060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  SrivastavaA.Nogueras-GonzalezG. M.GengY.SinghJ.MyersJ. N.LiY.et al (2024). Oral toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: meta-analyses of clinical trials. J. Immunother. Precis. Oncol.7 (1), 24–40. 10.36401/JIPO-23-14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  StarzykT.NikakisJ.RossR. (2024). Drug-induced linear IgA bullous dermatosis with extensive mucosal involvement. JAAD Case Rep.52, 77–79. 10.1016/j.jdcr.2024.07.021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  Steering Committee AuthorsBerges-GimenoM. P.Alvarez-CuestaE.Atanaskovic-MarkovicM.AttanassiM.CaffareliC.et al (2025). Drug hypersensitivity reactions in children in clinical practice: a WAO statement. World Allergy organiz. J.18 (9), 101087. 10.1016/j.waojou.2025.101087

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  StirtonH.ShearN. H.Dodiuk-GadR. P. (2022). Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DReSS)/Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DiHS)-Readdressing the DReSS. Biomedicines10 (5), 999. 10.3390/biomedicines10050999

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  SzatkowskiJ.SchwartzR. A. (2015). Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP): a review and update. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.73 (5), 843–848. 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.07.017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  TajS.ZuberM.RashidM.ChhabraM.UndelaK.RawalS.et al (2025). Injection-site and dermatologic reactions associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: insights from meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and real-world evidence. Diabetes Obes. Metab.28, 1956–1971. 10.1111/dom.70382

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  TangJ.LvB.LiuL.HuY.LiK.XuL.et al (2025). Survey of drugs induced skin pigmentation (hyper and hypo pigmentation). Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dermatol.18, 3061–3074. 10.2147/CCID.S557919

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  TangamornsuksanW.ChaiyakunaprukN.SomkruaR.LohitnavyM.TassaneeyakulW. (2013). Relationship between the HLA-B*1502 allele and carbamazepine-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol149 (9), 1025–1032. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.4114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  TaoY.ZengX.MaoH. (2025). Predictive models for chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis: a systematic review. Front. Oncol.15, 1608505. 10.3389/fonc.2025.1608505

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  TassavaT.WarkentinT. E. (2015). Non-injection-site necrotic skin lesions complicating postoperative heparin thromboprophylaxis. Am. J. Hematol.90 (8), 747–750. 10.1002/ajh.24018

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  TaylorS. C. (2023). Diagnosing skin diseases in skin of color. Dermatol. Clin.41 (3), xiii–xv. 10.1016/j.det.2023.03.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  TetartF.WalshS.MilpiedB.GasparK.VorobyevA.TiplicaG. S.et al (2024). Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis: european expert consensus for diagnosis and management. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol.38 (11), 2073–2081. 10.1111/jdv.20232

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  ThakkerS.AntonucciA.BenyounesA.AllaisB. S. (2025). Immune checkpoint inhibitor associated lichenoid dermatitis mimicking erythema multiforme major with a germline variant in human leukocyte antigen-B15. JAAD Case Rep.56, 67–70. 10.1016/j.jdcr.2024.11.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  ThomsonP.HammondS.NaisbittD. J. (2022). Pathology of drug hypersensitivity reactions and mechanisms of immune tolerance. Clin. Exp. Allergy52 (12), 1379–1390. 10.1111/cea.14235

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 208

  ThornsberryL. A.LoSiccoK. I.EnglishJ. C. (2013). The skin and hypercoagulable states. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.69 (3), 450–462. 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.01.043

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  TimoneyI.FlynnA.LeonardN.WynneB. (2019). Livedo racemosa: a cutaneous manifestation of Sneddon’s syndrome. BMJ Case Rep.12 (11), e232670. 10.1136/bcr-2019-232670

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  TjiuJ.-W.LuC.-F. (2025). Equity and generalizability of artificial intelligence for skin-lesion diagnosis using clinical, dermoscopic, and smartphone images: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med. Kaunas.61 (12), 2186. 10.3390/medicina61122186

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 211

  TrivediM.MehtaR. D.GhiyaB. C.SoniP. (2024). Impact of chemotherapy-induced nail changes on quality of life: a cross-sectional study from a tertiary care centre. Indian J. dermatol.69 (3), 205–211. 10.4103/ijd.ijd_723_22

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 212

  TruongS. L.ChinJ.LiewD. F. L.ZahirS. F.RyanE. G.RubelD.et al (2021). Systematic review and meta-analysis of inflammatory bowel disease adverse events with anti-interleukin 17A agents and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatic disease and skin psoriasis. Rheumatol. Ther.8 (4), 1603–1616. 10.1007/s40744-021-00360-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 213

  UrbanC.AnadkatM. J. (2013). A review of cutaneous toxicities from targeted therapies in the treatment of colorectal cancers. J. Gastrointest. Oncol.4 (3), 319–327. 10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2013.033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 214

  Vaez-GharamalekiY.AkbarzadehM. A.Jadidi-NiaraghF.MahmoodpoorA.SanaieS.HosseiniM.-S. (2025). Dermatologic toxicities related to cancer immunotherapy. Toxicol. Rep.14, 102021. 10.1016/j.toxrep.2025.102021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 215

  Valeyrie-AllanoreL.SassolasB.RoujeauJ.-C. (2007). Drug-induced skin, nail and hair disorders. Drug Saf.30 (11), 1011–1030. 10.2165/00002018-200730110-00003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 216

  Valeyrie-AllanoreL.Ingen-Housz-OroS.ChosidowO.WolkensteinP. (2013). French referral center management of stevens–johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Dermatol. Sin.31 (4), 191–195. 10.1016/j.dsi.2013.09.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217

  Vargas-HernándezV. M.Vargas AguilarV. M. (2024). Hand-foot syndrome, case presentation and literature review. Obstet. Gynecol. Int. J.15 (6), 308–313. 10.15406/ogij.2024.15.00776

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 218

  VerheydenM. J.BilgicA.MurrellD. F. (2020). A systematic review of drug-induced pemphigoid. Acta Derm. Venereol.100 (15), adv00224. 10.2340/00015555-3457

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 219

  VillaA.Kuten-ShorrerM. (2023). Pathogenesis of oral toxicities associated with targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci.24 (9), 8188. 10.3390/ijms24098188

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 220

  WackerB.NagraniT.WeinbergJ.WittK.ClarkG.CagnoniP. J. (2007). Correlation between development of rash and efficacy in patients treated with the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib in two large phase III studies. Clin. Cancer Res.13 (13), 3913–3921. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2610

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 221

  WangE.KraehenbuehlL.KetosugboK.KernJ. A.LacoutureM. E.LeungD. Y. M. (2021). Immune-related cutaneous adverse events due to checkpoint inhibitors. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol.126 (6), 613–622. 10.1016/j.anai.2021.02.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 222

  WangS.KangY.HeC.JinH. (2024). The systemic treatments for drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) beyond corticosteroids. World Allergy organiz. J.17 (8), 100935. 10.1016/j.waojou.2024.100935

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 223

  WasuwanichP.EgermanR. S.WenT. S.MotaparthiK. (2024). A nationwide study of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in hospitalized pregnant women in the United States, 2009-2020. JAAD Int.16, 175–182. 10.1016/j.jdin.2024.04.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 224

  WatanabeA.NakamotoY.AitaT.NaganumaT.TakahashiS.KikoY.et al (2024). Fatal myocarditis in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) without mortality-related risk factors: a case report and literature review. Cureus16 (6), e63541. 10.7759/cureus.63541

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 225

  WeirV. R.LiY.GillisM. C.KurtanskyN. R.SalvadorT.HalpernA. C.et al (2025). Evaluating skin tone scales for dermatologic dataset labeling: a prospective-comparative study. Npj Digit. Med.8 (1), 787. 10.1038/s41746-025-02245-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 226

  WollinaU.Abdel-NaserM. B. (2020). Drug reactions affecting hair and nails. Clin. Dermatol.38 (6), 693–701. 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.06.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 227

  WooS.-D.YoonJ.DooG. E.ParkY.LeeY.LeeS. H.et al (2020). Common causes and characteristics of adverse drug reactions in older adults: a retrospective study. BMC Pharmacol. Toxicol.21 (1), 87. 10.1186/s40360-020-00464-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 228

  WoodruffC. M.BottoN. (2022). The role of patch testing in evaluating delayed hypersensitivity reactions to medications. Clin. Rev. Allergy Immunol.62 (3), 548–561. 10.1007/s12016-022-08924-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 229

  WysongA.VenkatesanP. (2011). An approach to the patient with retiform purpura. Dermatol. Ther.24 (2), 151–172. 10.1111/j.1529-8019.2011.01392.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 230

  YanA.MadiganL.KormanA.ShearerS.DulmageB.PatelT.et al (2025). Morbilliform eruptions: differentiating low-risk drug eruptions, severe cutaneous adverse reactions, viral eruptions, and acute graft-versus-host disease. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol.26 (3), 379–393. 10.1007/s40257-025-00924-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 231

  YangC.-Y.ChenC. H.DengS. T.HuangC. S.LinY. J.ChenY. J.et al (2015). Allopurinol use and risk of fatal hypersensitivity reactions: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan. JAMA Intern. Med.175 (9), 1550–1557. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3536

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 232

  YangY.XieH.LiuS.JiaY.CuiB.XiaoZ. (2025). Linear IgA bullous dermatosis secondary to drugs: a real-world pharmacovigilance study of the FDA adverse event reporting system. Front. Med. (Lausanne)12, 1521697. 10.3389/fmed.2025.1521697

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 233

  Zalewska-JanowskaA.SpiewakR.KowalskiM. L. (2017). Cutaneous manifestation of drug allergy and hypersensitivity. Immunol. Allergy Clin. North Am.37 (1), 165–181. 10.1016/j.iac.2016.08.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 234

  ZeltserR.ValleL.TanckC.HolystM. M.RitchlinC.GaspariA. A. (2001). Clinical, histological, and immunophenotypic characteristics of injection site reactions associated with etanercept: a recombinant tumor necrosis factor α receptor: fc fusion protein. Archives Dermatology. 137 (7), 893–899. 10.1001/archderm.137.7.893

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 235

  ZhangF. R.LiuH.IrwantoA.FuX. A.LiY.YuG. Q.et al (2013). HLA-B*13:01 and the dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med.369 (17), 1620–1628. 10.1056/NEJMoa1213096

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 236

  ZhaoF.LiY.MengZ. (2023). Successful treatment of hyperpigmentation from fixed drug eruption with a low‐dose and large‐spot q‐switched 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser. J. Cosmet. Dermatol.22 (7), 2128–2130. 10.1111/jocd.15665

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar