ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Pharmacol., 13 July 2026

Sec. Pharmacogenetics and Pharmacogenomics

Volume 17 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2026.1827880

Association of decreased CYP2C9 function, HLA-B*40:06, and hemoglobin levels with phenytoin-induced cutaneous adverse reactions in a Southern Thai population

  • 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai/Songkhla, Thailand

  • 2. Division of Pharmacy, Songklangarind Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai/Songkhla, Thailand

  • 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai/Songkhla, Thailand

  • 4. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai/Songkhla, Thailand

  • 5. Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Science, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai/Songkhla, Thailand

  • 6. Neurological Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand

  • 7. Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand

  • 8. Thonburi Rajyindee Hospital, Hat Yai/Songkhla, Thailand

  • 9. Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Hat Yai Medical Education Center, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand

  • 10. Songkhla Hospital, Songkhla, Thailand

  • 11. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

  • 12. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Burapha University, Mueang, Chonburi, Thailand

Abstract

Background:

Phenytoin is an anticonvulsant used to treat epilepsy and prevent perioperative seizures. However, genetic prediction of phenytoin-induced cutaneous adverse reactions (PHT-cADRs) and the co-contributing role of non-genetic factors remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate genetic and non-genetic factors associated with PHT-cADRs in a Southern Thai population.

Methods:

A case–control study was conducted involving 104 patients (26 with PHT-cADRs confirmed by a dermatologist or allergist and 78 phenytoin-tolerant controls). Patient history (demographics, comorbidities, and co-medications) and laboratory parameters (complete blood count and clinical chemistry indicators) during phenytoin initiation were reviewed. Genetic markers including CYP2C9, HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DRB1 were studied.

Results:

A significant difference in sex was observed among the patients (73.1% female patients in the PHT-cADR group vs. 44.9% in the control group; P = 0.014). Baseline clinical indications differed marginally between the groups; the case group had more neurosurgical patients and fewer patients with epilepsy than the control group. Other non-genetic factors were not significantly associated with PHT-cADRs. For laboratory data, the case group showed significantly lower mean hemoglobin (11.73 g/dL vs. 13.48 g/dL, P = 0.0005) and hematocrit levels (35.94% vs. 40.29%, P = 0.0019) and a higher mean white blood cell count (10.19 × 103/μL vs. 7.75 × 103/μL, P = 0.0083) than the control group. For genetic factors, decreased CYP2C9 function [odds ratio (OR) = 7.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.81–34.49; P = 0.006] and HLA-B*40:06 (OR = 6.26; 95% CI = 1.59–24.69; P = 0.009) were associated with an increased risk of PHT-cADRs. No HLA marker reached a significant level after Bonferroni correction. Multivariate analysis was not performed owing to a high proportion of missing laboratory data.

Conclusion:

HLA-B alleles and CYP2C9 function were associated with PHT-cADRs. As an exploratory observation, our findings suggest that lower hemoglobin levels and higher white blood cell counts are associated with PHT-cADRs. However, the limited sample size, particularly in the case group, may have led to false-positive and -negative results. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and a larger study is required to confirm the contribution of these hematological factors.

1 Introduction

Phenytoin is an anticonvulsant commonly used to treat epilepsy and to prevent perioperative and post-traumatic seizures in patients with traumatic brain injury (). Despite its utility, phenytoin-induced cutaneous adverse reactions (PHT-cADRs) remain a major challenge in clinical settings. The spectrum of PHT-cADRs ranges from relatively mild maculopapular exanthema to potentially fatal conditions, such as drug reactions with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS).

To mitigate these risks, the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium recommends testing for HLA-B*15:02 and CYP2C9 genotypes before prescribing phenytoin (). However, the pharmacogenetics of phenytoin remain unclear. Several studies have reported a negative association between HLA-B*15:02 and PHT-cADRs, along with positive associations with alternative HLA markers, including HLA-A*24:02, HLA-B*40:01, HLA-B*51:01, and HLA-B*56:02 (; ; ; ; ). Among drug-metabolizing enzymes, decreased CYP2C9 function is associated with an increased risk of phenytoin toxicity and PHT-cADRs (; ; ; Yampayon et al., 2017; ; ; ; ; ). However, reports on the successful implementation of phenytoin pharmacogenetic markers are limited (). Additionally, a systematic review in 2024 reported higher phenytoin concentrations among those with CYP2C19 intermediate and poor metabolizer phenotypes than among those with the extensive metabolizer phenotype (). This highlights the complexity of the pharmacogenetic mechanisms underlying the pharmacological effects of phenytoin.

In addition to genetic predisposition, the influence of non-genetic factors on PHT-cADRs is complex. Because phenytoin forms haptens with human serum albumin, it is required to monitor unbound phenytoin levels in patients with hypoalbuminemia and hepatic and renal diseases (). Furthermore, owing to the non-linear pharmacokinetics of phenytoin, other undiscovered variables have been hypothesized to affect free drug levels, making plasma concentration difficult to predict (; Ter Heine et al., 2019). Clinical factors, such as omeprazole co-administration, have been reported as independent risk factors for severe PHT-cADRs (Yampayon et al., 2017). These diverse effects make it difficult to comprehensively understand phenytoin hypersensitivity.

In this study, we aimed to conduct a case–control study in a Southern Thai population to simultaneously evaluate the roles of genetic and non-genetic factors in PHT-cADRs. Clinical information for each patient was retrieved from the Hospital Information System. Genotyping of HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DRB1 was performed using polymerase chain reaction–sequence-specific oligonucleotide probing. Genotyping of CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 was performed using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry. Clinical and laboratory data were analyzed, along with genetic studies, to evaluate the interplay between these factors.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Participants

This retrospective case–control study included 104 participants (26 patients with PHT-cADRs and 78 phenytoin-tolerant controls) from the Songklanagarind Hospital. Eligible participants were aged between 18 and 70 years and self-reported to originate from Southern Thailand. Participants were enrolled between October 2024 and May 2025. The clinical diagnoses in the PHT-cADR group included maculopapular rash (n = 21), DRESS (n = 3), and SJS (n = 2).

Patients with PHT-cADRs diagnosed or confirmed by a dermatologist or allergist were included in this study. Cases without previous specialist confirmation were retrospectively reassessed by a dermatologist before enrollment. Causality was assessed using the Naranjo probability scale, and only those with probable or certain scores were included. Hypersensitivity cases in which the culprit drug was unclear (Naranjo probability scale of possible or doubtful) were excluded. The tolerant control group included patients who received phenytoin continuously for at least 90 days without any adverse skin reactions. The age was matched between the groups. Patients diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus infection at the time of phenytoin prescription and those who were pregnant at the time of recruitment were excluded.

2.2 Data retrieval

Clinical and laboratory data on phenytoin initiation were retrieved and reviewed using the Hospital Information System. The collected clinical data included demographics, first date of phenytoin prescription, last date of phenytoin prescription, starting dose of phenytoin, comorbidities, and co-medication(s). Ethnicity was determined based on self-reported data recorded in the Hospital Information System. The collected baseline laboratory data (before starting phenytoin) included complete blood counts (white blood cell [WBC] count, red blood cell [RBC] count, hemoglobin level, hematocrit level, and platelet count) and clinical chemistry parameters (albumin, total protein, aspartate aminotransferase [AST], alanine aminotransferase [ALT], alkaline phosphatase, blood urea nitrogen [BUN], and creatinine levels). Anemia status was interpreted based on the sex-specific cutoff of the hemoglobin level (12.5 g/dL for female patients and 13.5 g/dL for male patients). The study protocol was approved by the local Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University (REC 67-328-5-1), and the Central Research Ethics Committee of Thailand (CREC011/67BR-BIO2).

2.3 Genetic testing

Genotyping of CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 was performed at the Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory of Songklanagarind Hospital using MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry (MassARRAY; Agena Bioscience, CA, United States). This assay targeted common variants in the Thai population, including CYP2C9*2 (rs1799853), CYP2C9*3 (rs1057910), CYP2C19*2 (rs4244285), CYP2C19*3 (rs4986893), and CYP2C19*17 (rs 12248560). Genotyping of HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DRB1 was performed at the Pharmacogenetic Laboratory, Ramathibodi Hospital, using Lifecodes HLA SSO typing kits and analyzed using the Luminex® IS100 system (Austin, TX, United States).

2.4 Statistical analysis

Statistical associations between clinical factors, laboratory parameters, genetic markers, and PHT-cADRs were evaluated using the chi-square test, Mann–Whitney U test, or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Allele and genotype frequencies of the case and control groups were compared to determine odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and P-values. To account for multiple comparisons in the HLA marker analysis, corrected P-values (Pc) were calculated using the Bonferroni correction. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

3 Results

3.1 Baseline characteristics

The demographics and characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. The case group had a significantly higher proportion of female participants than the control group (P = 0.014). The mean ages of the case and control groups were 48.5 and 48.7 years, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of body weight, body height, body mass index, ethnicity, phenytoin indication, comorbidity, or co-medication (Table 1). For laboratory parameters, missing data were less than 50% in both groups for all hematological parameters (hemoglobin, hematocrit, WBC count, platelet count, and RBC count), BUN, and creatinine, but not for the liver function profile (alkaline phosphatase, AST, ALT, total protein, albumin, total bilirubin, and direct bilirubin) (Table 1). A comparison of the baseline laboratory profiles showed significantly lower hemoglobin and hematocrit levels and a higher WBC count in the case group than in the control group (Table 1). No significant difference was observed in the RBC counts between the groups. The WBC count was significantly higher in the case group than in the control group. Among the clinical chemistry parameters, only alkaline phosphatase levels were significantly different between the groups, being higher in the tolerant group than in the case group.

TABLE 1

CharacteristicsCase group (n = 26)Tolerant group (n = 78)P-value
Age (mean, SD)48.5 (16.5)48.7 (18.7)0.968a
Body weight (mean, SD)57.5 (11.8)61.5 (15.4)0.258a
Body height (mean, SD)158.5 (6.8)162.1 (8.2)0.051a
Body mass index (mean, SD)22.9 (4.9)23.2 (4.5)0.807a
Sex (n, %)0.014b
  Female19 (73.1%)35 (44.9%)
  Male7 (26.9%)43 (55.1%)
Ethnicity (n, %)0.463c
  Thai Buddhist23 (88.5%)63 (80.8%)
  Thai Muslim2 (7.7%)12 (15.4%)
  Thai Chinese1 (3.8%)3 (3.8%)
Phenytoin indication (n, %)
  Epilepsy12 (46.2%)57 (73.1%)0.054c
  Neurosurgery12 (46.2%)16 (20.5%)
  Traumatic brain injury1 (3.8%)4 (5.1%)
  Trigeminal neuralgia1 (3.8%)1 (1.3%)
Latency period (mean, SD)-13.4 (8.3)-
Smoking (n, %)2 (7.69%)8 (10.26%)1.000b
Alcohol consumption (n, %)3 (11.54%)5 (6.41%)0.409b
Comorbidity (n,%)
  Obesity7 (28.0%)23 (29.5%)1.000b
  Cancer3 (11.5%)16 (20.5%)0.390b
  Hypertension5 (19.23%)12 (15.38%)0.540b
  Diabetes mellitus type II5 (19.23%)6 (7.69%)0.124b
  Stroke3 (11.54%)13 (16.67%)0.652b
  Dyslipidemia4 (15.38%)17 (21.79%)0.582b
  Systemic lupus erythematosus1 (3.9%)2 (2.6%)1.000b
Comedication (n, %)
  Omeprazole (n, %)5 (19.2%)9 (11.5%)0.332b
  Antibiotic (n, %)3 (11.5%)6 (7.7%)0.687b
  Other anticonvulsant (n, %)13 (50.0%)47 (60.3%)0.371b
  NSAIDs (n, %)1 (3.9%)4 (5.1%)1.000b
  Simvastatin (n, %)3 (11.5%)9 (11.5%)1.000b
  Metformin (n, %)2 (7.7%)3 (3.9%)0.597b
  Losartan (n, %)1 (3.9%)4 (5.1%)1.000b
  Amlodipine (n, %)1 (3.9%)2 (2.6%)1.000b
  Atorvastatin (n, %)0 (0.0%)9 (11.5%)0.108b
  Enalapril (n, %)0 (0.0%)3 (3.9%)0.571b
  Clopidogrel (n, %)0 (0.0%)3 (3.9%)0.571b
Hematologic parameters
  Hemoglobin (g/dL)
   Tested (%)22 (84.6%)50 (64.1%)0.0542b
Mean (SD)11.73 (1.76)13.40 (2.07)0.0005a
  Hematocrit (%)
   Tested (%)22 (84.6%)50 (64.1%)0.0542b
   Mean (SD)35.94 (5.20)40.29 (5.72)0.0019a
  White blood cell (WBC) count (×103/μL)
   Tested (%)22 (84.6%)50 (64.1%)0.0542b
   Mean (SD)10.19 (3.92)7.75 (2.21)0.0083a
  Platelet count (×103/μL)
   Tested22 (84.6%)48 (61.5%)0.0322b
   Mean (SD)257.4 (102.0)260.5 (84.9)0.6172a
  Red blood cell (RBC) count (×106/μL)
   Tested22 (84.6%)47 (60.3%)0.0303b
   Mean (SD)4.56 (0.93)4.56 (0.76)0.6155a
  Anemic*
   Yes15 (68.2%)18 (36.0%)0.0199b
   No7 (31.8%)32 (64.0%)
Clinical Chemistry
  Creatinine (mg/dL)
   Tested (%)21 (80.8%)46 (59.0%)
   Mean (SD)1.07 (1.19)1.38 (2.34)0.2315a
  Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) (mg/dL)
   Tested (%)19 (73.1%)40 (51.3%)
   Mean (SD)14.39 (8.49)15.44 (14.67)0.7827a
Liver function test
  Alkaline phosphatase (U/L)
   Tested (%)14 (53.8%)33 (42.3%)
   Mean (SD)77.21 (50.83)98.64 (58.40)0.0384a
  Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (U/L)
   Tested (%)14 (53.8%)36 (46.2%)
   Mean (SD)307.07 (1018.5) **24.72 (10.41)0.7049a
  Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (U/L)
   Tested (%)14 (53.8%)36 (46.2%)
   Mean (SD)84.36 (155.09)**27.75 (14.31)0.3811a
  Total protein (g/L)
   Tested (%)14 (53.8%)30 (38.5%)
   Mean (SD)7.06 (0.81)7.52 (0.73)0.0793a
  Albumin (g/L)
   Tested (%)16 (61.5%)37 (47.4%)
   Mean (SD)4.1 (0.55)4.3 (0.53)0.1926a
  Total bilirubin (mg/dL)
   Tested (%)14 (53.8%)30 (38.5%)
   Mean (SD)0.80 (1.70)0.40 (0.26)0.8997a
Direct bilirubin (mg/dL)
   Tested (%)14 (53.8%)29 (37.2%)
   Mean (SD)0.50 (1.29)0.16 (0.08)0.9482a

Characteristics of participants.

NSAIDs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; SD, standard deviation; U/L, units per liter.

*Hb lower than sex-specific cut-off (female: 12.5 g/dL, male: 13.5 g/dL), ** data containing an outlier.

a

Mann–Whitney U test,

b

Fisher’s exact test.

c

Chi-square test.

3.2 Genetic association

Genetic analyses of CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 using MassARRAY genotyping were performed on 103 samples (25 cases and 78 controls) (Table 2). Decreased CYP2C9 function and the CYP2C9*1/*3 genotype were associated with an increased risk of PHT-cADRs (P = 0.006 and P = 0.015, respectively). The proportions of patients with decreased CYP2C9 function were 24.0% (6/25) and 3.8% (3/78) in the case and control groups, respectively. In addition, the CYP2C19*1/*3 genotype was more frequent in the case group than in the tolerant group (3/25 vs. 1/78; P = 0.018). However, decreased CYP2C19 function was not associated with an increased risk of developing PHT-cADRs (Table 2).

TABLE 2

CharacteristicsCase group (n = 25)Tolerant group (n = 78)Odds ratio (95% CI)P-value
CYP2C9 function
 Decreased function6 (24.0%)3 (3.8%)7.89 (1.81–34.49)0.006
 Normal function19 (76.0%)75 (96.2%)
CYP2C19 function
 Decreased function16 (64.0%)37 (47.4%)1.97 (0.78–4.99)0.153
 Normal or increased function9 (36.0%)41 (52.6%)
CYP2C9 genotype
*1/*1 (NM)19 (76.0%)75 (96.2%)-
*1/*2 (IM, AS = 1.5)1 (4.0%)0 (0.0%)11.62 (0.46–296.33)0.138
*1/*3 (IM, AS = 1.0)5 (20.0%)3 (3.8%)6.58 (1.44–30.00)0.015
CYP2C19 genotype
*1/*1 (NM)6 (24.0%)37 (47.4%)-
*1/*2 (IM)11 (44.0%)27 (34.6%)2.51 (0.83–7.64)0.104
*1/*3 (IM)3 (12.0%)1 (1.3%)18.50 (1.64–208.47)0.018
*2/*2 (PM)1 (4.0%)6 (7.7%)1.03 (0.10–10.11)0.981
*2/*3 (PM)0 (0.0%)2 (2.6%)1.15 (0.05–26.89)0.929
*2/*17 (IM)1 (4.0%)1 (1.3%)6.17 (0.34–112.41)0.219
*1/*17 (RM)3 (12.0%)4 (5.1%)4.63 (0.82–26.03)0.082
CYP2C19 allele
*2 carrier13 (52.0%)36 (46.2%)1.26 (0.51–3.12)0.611
*3 carrier3 (12.0%)3 (3.8%)6.17 (1.00–37.98)0.049
*17 carrier4 (16.0%)5 (6.4%)2.78 (0.68–11.29)0.153

Comparison of CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 between the groups.

AS, activity score; NM, normal metabolizer; IM, intermediate metabolizer; PM, poor metabolizer; RM, rapid metabolizer

Genetic analyses of HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DRB1 were performed via Luminex genotyping of 98 samples of adequate quality (including 23 cases and 75 controls). The genotyping results are summarized in Table 3. A total of 85 different alleles were identified (20 HLA-A, 41 HLA-B, and 24 HLA-DRB1). Only HLA-B*40:06 was significantly associated with an increased risk of PHT-cADRs (P = 0.009, OR = 6.26, 95% CI = 1.59–24.69). HLA-DRB1*12:02 was associated with a decreased risk of PHT-cADRs (P = 0.049, OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.05–1.00). No Pc value reached a significance of 0.05 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (number of tested hypotheses = 85). In addition, due to the high proportion of missing data on laboratory parameters, a multivariate analysis, including genetic and non-genetic factors, was not performed.

TABLE 3

HLA statusCarrier frequencyP-valueOdds ratio (95% CI)
Case group (n = 23)Tolerant group (n = 75)
HLA-A*01:012 (8.7%)5 (6.7%)0.7421.33 (0.24–7.38)
HLA-A*02:015 (21.7%)12 (16.0%)0.5261.46 (0.45–4.69)
HLA-A*02:034 (17.4%)11 (14.7%)0.7511.22 (0.3496–4.2912
HLA-A*02:063 (13.0%)2 (2.7%)0.0735.48 (0.86–35.04)
HLA-A*02:110 (0.0%)4 (5.3%)0.4730.34 (0.02–6.52)
HLA-A*03:010 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-A*03:022 (8.7%)0 (0.0%)0.06817.56 (0.81–379.75)
HLA-A*11:019 (39.1%)35 (46.7%)0.5260.73 (0.28–1.90)
HLA-A*24:022 (8.7%)14 (18.7%)0.2700.42 (0.09–1.98)
HLA-A*24:031 (4.3%)1 (1.3%)0.3983.36 (0.20–56.01)
HLA-A*24:073 (13.0%)11 (14.7%)0.8460.87 (0.22–3.44)
HLA-A*24:101 (4.3%)5 (6.7%)0.6870.64 (0.07–5.74)
HLA-A*26:011 (4.3%)3 (4.0%)0.9411.09 (0.11–11.02)
HLA-A*29:01/020 (0.0%)3 (4.0%)0.5920.44 (0.02–8.85)
HLA-A*30:012 (8.7%)1 (1.3%)0.1187.05 (0.61–81.58)
HLA-A*31:010 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-A*32:010 (0.0%)3 (4.0%)0.5920.44 (0.02–8.85)
HLA-A*33:01/036 (26.1%)25 (33.3%)0.5150.71 (0.25–2.01)
HLA-A*34:01/050 (0.0%)2 (2.7%)0.7650.63 (0.03–13.50)
HLA-A*68:010 (0.0%)2 (2.7%)0.7650.63 (0.03–13.50)
HLA-B*07:02/100 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*07:05/060 (0.0%)6 (8.0%)0.3190.23 (0.01–4.19)
HLA-B*13:013 (13.0%)12 (16.0%)0.7310.79 (0.20–3.07)
HLA-B*13:022 (8.7%)1 (1.3%)0.1187.05 (0.61–81.58)
HLA-B*15:021 (4.3%)14 (18.7%)0.1280.20 (0.03–1.60)
HLA-B*15:071 (4.3%)0 (0.0%)0.16210.07 (0.40–255.8)
HLA-B*15:110 (0.0%)2 (2.7%)0.7650.63 (0.03–13.50)
HLA-B*15:131 (4.3%)4 (5.3%)0.8510.81 (0.09–7.60)
HLA-B*15:170 (0.0%)2 (2.7%)0.7650.63 (0.03–13.50)
HLA-B*15:180 (0.0%)2 (2.7%)0.7650.63 (0.03–13.50)
HLA-B*15:210 (0.0%)3 (4.0%)0.5920.44 (0.02–8.85)
HLA-B*15:250 (0.0%)4 (5.3%)0.4730.34 (0.02–6.52)
HLA-B*15:270 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*18:012 (8.7%)5 (6.7%)0.7421.33 (0.24–7.38)
HLA-B*18:021 (4.3%)4 (5.3%)0.8510.81 (0.09–7.60)
HLA-B*27:03/050 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*27:040 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*27:04/060 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*27:060 (0.0%)2 (2.7%)0.7650.63 (0.03–13.50)
HLA-B*35:011 (4.3%)4 (5.3%)0.8510.81 (0.09–7.60)
HLA-B*35:031 (4.3%)3 (4.0%)0.9411.09 (0.11–11.02)
HLA-B*35:053 (13.0%)4 (5.3%)0.2242.66 (0.55–12.89)
HLA-B*35:080 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*37:012 (8.7%)2 (2.7%)0.2273.48 (0.45–26.18)
HLA-B*38:021 (4.3%)2 (2.7%)0.6811.66 (0.14–19.2)
HLA-B*40:014 (17.4%)12 (16.0%)0.8751.11 (0.32–3.83)
HLA-B*40:020 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*40:066 (26.1%)4 (5.3%)0.0096.26 (1.59–24.69)
HLA-B*44:020 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*44:032 (8.7%)15 (20.0%)0.2240.38 (0.08–1.81)
HLA-B*46:015 (21.7%)6 (8.0%)0.0793.19 (0.87–11.67)
HLA-B*48:010 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*49:010 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*51:011 (4.3%)4 (5.3%)0.8510.81 (0.09–7.60)
HLA-B*51:060 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*52:012 (8.7%)4 (5.3%)0.5601.69 (0.29–9.88)
HLA-B*54:011 (4.3%)0 (0.0%)0.16210.07 (0.40–255.8)
HLA-B*55:010 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)--
HLA-B*55:021 (4.3%)1 (1.3%)0.3983.36 (0.20–56.01)
HLA-B*56:010 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-B*56:020 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)--
HLA-B*57:011 (4.3%)2 (2.7%)0.6851.66 (0.14–19.18)
HLA-B*58:013 (13.0%)11 (14.7%)0.8460.87 (0.22–3.44)
HLA-DRB1*01:010 (0.0%)2 (2.7%)0.7650.63 (0.03–13.50)
HLA-DRB1*03:012 (8.7%)8 (10.7%)0.7850.80 (0.16–4.05)
HLA-DRB1*04:011 (4.3%)0 (0.0%)0.16210.07 (0.40–255.8)
HLA-DRB1*04:031 (4.3%)2 (2.7%)0.6851.66 (0.14–19.18)
HLA-DRB1*04:040 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-DRB1*04:051 (4.3%)2 (2.7%)0.6851.66 (0.14–19.18)
HLA-DRB1*04:060 (0.0%)3 (4.0%)0.5920.44 (0.02–8.85)
HLA-DRB1*07:015 (21.7%)20 (26.7%)0.6360.76 (0.25–2.33)
HLA-DRB1*08:033 (13.0%)4 (5.3%)0.2242.66 (0.55–12.89)
HLA-DRB1*09:014 (17.4%)10 (13.3%)0.6281.37 (0.39–4.86)
HLA-DRB1*10:013 (13.0%)4 (5.3%)0.2242.66 (0.55–12.89)
HLA-DRB1*11:011 (4.3%)3 (4.0%)0.9411.09 (0.11–11.02)
HLA-DRB1*11:061 (4.3%)1 (1.3%)0.3983.36 (0.20–56.01)
HLA-DRB1*12:010 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-DRB1*12:022 (8.7%)23 (30.7%)0.0490.22 (0.05–1.00)
HLA-DRB1*13:010 (0.0%)4 (5.3%)0.4730.34 (0.02–6.52)
HLA-DRB1*13:022 (8.7%)6 (30.7%)0.9151.10 (0.21–5.84)
HLA-DRB1*13:122 (8.7%)1 (1.3%)0.1187.05 (0.61–81.58)
HLA-DRB1*14:013 (13.0%)5 (6.7%)0.3372.10 (0.46–9.56)
HLA-DRB1*14:042 (8.7%)6 (8.0%)0.9151.10 (0.21–5.84)
HLA-DRB1*14:100 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)0.9731.06 (0.04–26.82)
HLA-DRB1*15:015 (21.7%)19 (25.3%)0.7260.82 (0.27–2.51)
HLA-DRB1*15:024 (17.4%)11 (14.7%)0.7511.22 (0.35–4.29)
HLA-DRB1*16:022 (8.7%)12 (16.0%)0.3890.50 (0.10–2.42)

HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DRB1 carrier frequency of cases and tolerant controls.

4 Discussion

Our study provides an exploratory analysis of the complex relationship between genetic and non-genetic factors that contribute to the development of PHT-cADRs. We identified a significant association between the HLA-B marker, decreased CYP2C9 function, and the risk of developing PHT-cADRs, which is consistent with the results of several previous studies (; ; ; Yampayon et al., 2017; ; ; ; ; ). We identified a patient with the CYP2C9*1/*2 genotype, which has not been previously documented in a PHT-cADR cohort from the Thai population.

HLA-B*40:06 increased the risk of PHT-cADRs, similar to the observation in a previous study in which the closely related marker, HLA-B*40:01, was positively associated with PHT-cADRs (). However, despite sharing the field-1 nomenclature, these alleles belong to different serotype subfamilies. HLA-B*40:01 is the split antigen serotype B60, whereas HLA-B*40:06 is the split antigen serotype B61. HLA associations are often observed at a relatively higher frequency in populations. The frequency of HLA-B60 (HLA-B*40:01) in the Central Thai population is significantly higher than that in the Southern Thai population; in contrast, the frequency of HLA-B*40:06 is reportedly higher in the Southern than in the Central Thai population (; ). As this study exclusively included participants from Southern Thailand, which has a unique genetic admixture of HLA genotypes and haplotypes, this regional divergence could significantly interfere with the importance of pharmacogenetic markers in these populations ().

We observed no significant association with other previously reported markers that are relatively common, namely, HLA-A*24:02, HLA-B*15:02, HLA-B*51:01, HLA-B*55:01, and HLA-B*56:02 (; ; ; ). Because the frequencies of these markers were minimal, their associations may have been undetectable owing to the limited statistical power of the study. From a biological perspective, this suggests that conventional allele-level association studies may not fully capture the complex mechanisms underlying cADRs. Alternative approaches to allele definition may be required to gain better insights. For example, the concept of shared peptide-binding specificity among HLA molecules sheds light on the mechanisms underlying hypersensitivity reactions induced by cotrimoxazole and nevirapine (; ). Furthermore, the association with the HLA-B75 serotype expands our understanding of HLA-B*15:02-associated carbamazepine-induced cADR in Asian populations (; Yuliwulandari et al., 2017; ; ; ).

As a major and novel finding of this study, positive associations were identified between PHT-cADRs and lower hemoglobin levels and elevated WBC counts. Patients in the case group had significantly lower hemoglobin and hematocrit levels than those in the control group. As the mechanism behind this novel finding is crucial, we hypothesized that this may indicate an unknown role of hemoglobin adducts in the non-linear pharmacokinetics of phenytoin, in addition to the traditional understanding of drug–albumin binding (). Phenytoin is well known for its high binding affinity to serum albumin and its ability to be distributed into RBCs (; ). Although hypoalbuminemia is recognized to increase the free fraction of phenytoin and the risk of toxicity (), little is known about the ability of the drug to form adducts with hemoglobin. As a proposed explanation for the association with lower hemoglobin levels, it is possible that phenytoin (due to its hydrophobic structure) moves into RBCs and binds to intracorpuscular hemoglobin. When the hemoglobin level is low, the capacity for drug–hemoglobin binding decreases, leading to an increase in unbound phenytoin levels and an increased risk of adverse reactions. However, the possibility that the low hemoglobin level identified in this study is a surrogate for hypoalbuminemia cannot be excluded. Therefore, further extensive investigations of the potential interactions between phenytoin and hemoglobin are required. Additional confirmatory pharmacokinetic investigations are essential for a deeper understanding, particularly in patients with thalassemia or hemoglobinopathy, who constitute up to 40% of our population (; ) and in whom shortened RBC lifespans may alter drug-adduct clearance.

The limitations of this study include potential confounding factors, a limited sample size, and a high proportion of missing data. First, most participants in the case group were neurosurgery patients compared to those in the tolerant group. These patients included those with brain tumors or intracranial hemorrhages, who may have had a poorer baseline status than patients with epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, or trigeminal neuralgia. This disparity could confound the lower hemoglobin level due to poorer overall health status or the increased WBC count due to a stress response. However, the relationship between WBC level and susceptibility to drug allergy could be substantial as inflammatory cytokines (specifically tumor necrotic factor-α) could increase the inclination to drug hypersensitivity reactions by overcoming the tolerance of drug-specific autoimmunity (). Second, as a conventional case–control genetic study, this study included a relatively small sample size compared to previous genome-wide association studies. Therefore, the possibility of false-negative and -positive associations with rare genetic markers cannot be excluded. Although a Bonferroni correction was applied, none of the HLA associations remained significant after correction. Accordingly, studies with larger sample sizes are needed to verify our findings. Third, this study had a high proportion of missing data, particularly for laboratory parameters. The baseline clinical chemistry profile was missing for more than half of patients in the tolerant groups, which limited the reliability of the multivariate analysis. There was also a lack of plasma phenytoin-level data (for therapeutic drug monitoring) for all participants. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the independent contributions of genetic and clinical variables. Further validation is required to confirm these findings in different populations. There is also a lack of prospective studies on the pharmacogenetic implementation of phenytoin administration (), and thus further clinical studies on the pharmacogenetic prediction and prevention of PHT-cADRs are necessary.

In conclusion, this study highlights the interplay between genetic and non-genetic factors in the development of PHT-cADRs in a Southern Thai population. The susceptibility to PHT-cADRs is influenced by genetic and non-genetic factors. The association between hematologic parameters and PHT-cADRs constitutes an exploratory observation toward a better understanding of the pharmacokinetics of phenytoin. Therefore, further studies are warranted to refine these predictive models and enhance phenytoin safety.

Statements

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University and the Central Research Ethics Committee of Thailand. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

CS-A: Methodology, Formal Analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Visualization, Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation. AS: Writing – review and editing, Validation, Investigation. SuS: Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing, Investigation. SP: Investigation, Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing. AH: Writing – review and editing, Methodology, Investigation. WR: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Writing – review and editing, Software. PI: Writing – review and editing, Investigation. AK: Writing – review and editing, Investigation. TT: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. PR: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. TC: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. SiS: Writing – review and editing, Investigation. CS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – review and editing. KJ: Supervision, Data curation, Visualization, Project administration, Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Software, Conceptualization, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing, Resources.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This study was funded by the Health Systems Research Institute (HSRI; grant code 66-128).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the staff at the Molecular Diagnostics Unit, Department of Pathology, Prince of Songkla University, for their support in the study. The authors thank Wanwisa Maneechay, Jiraphan Manee, and Najmee Hayeesalae for their contributions to this study.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author CS declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI was used for proofreading, detecting grammatical error, and improve writing quality.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abbreviations

PHT-cADRs, phenytoin-induced cutaneous adverse reactions; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; DRESS, drug reactions with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms; SJS, Stevens – Johnson syndrome; MALDI-TOF, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight; WBC, white blood cell; RBC, red blood cell; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; BUN, blood urea nitrogen, Pc, corrected P-values.

References

Summary

Keywords

drug allergy, drug eruptions, pharmacogenetics, pharmacological biomarkers, precision medicine

Citation

Seree-aphinan C, Sangiemchoey A, Setthawatcharawanich S, Pattharachayakul S, Hnoonual A, Ruanglertboon W, Intapiboon P, Kaewborisutsakul A, Thamcharoenvipas T, Rachatawiriyakul P, Chongsuvivatwong T, Sittipong S, Sukasem C and Jaruthamsophon K (2026) Association of decreased CYP2C9 function, HLA-B*40:06, and hemoglobin levels with phenytoin-induced cutaneous adverse reactions in a Southern Thai population. Front. Pharmacol. 17:1827880. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2026.1827880

Received

11 March 2026

Revised

30 May 2026

Accepted

03 June 2026

Published

13 July 2026

Volume

17 - 2026

Edited by

Evangelia Eirini Tsermpini, Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford Research Park, United States

Reviewed by

Winnugroho Wiratman, University of Indonesia, Indonesia

Juan Luis Chavez Pacheco, National Institute of Pediatrics, Mexico

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Kanoot Jaruthamsophon, ,

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics