ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Demographics, Overlap, and Latency of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions in an FDA Database.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS-TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and generalized bullous fixed drug eruption (GBFDE), are rare but life-threatening drug hypersensitivity syndromes. Due to their low incidence and diagnostic complexity, large-scale characterization of SCAR is challenging. Objective: To characterize the demographics, causative agents, trends, latency, and phenotypic overlap of SCAR using a large-scale, sanitized pharmacovigilance dataset from FAERS (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System). Design: Cross-sectional study of spontaneous adverse event reports. Cases were drawn from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FDA FAERS) from January 2004 to December 2023 and subjected to sanitization and deduplication. Disproportionality analysis was used to characterize causative agents. Machine learning (random forest classifiers) was used to analyze predictors of drug latency and mortality. Setting: Global pharmacovigilance reports submitted to FAERS. Participants: A total of 56,683 deduplicated SCAR reports were identified, representing 0.33% of reports during the study period. Exposures: Suspected causative drugs, including both small molecules and biologics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included the frequency and distribution of SCAR syndromes, reporting trends over time, latency from drug start to reaction onset, drug-specific disproportionality (PRR, ROR, IC), and co-reporting between SCAR types and related conditions. Results: A total of 56,683 unique SCAR reports were identified, including SJS-TEN (28,871), DRESS (22,444), AGEP (6,183), and GBFDE (150). We identified 237 drugs with significant disproportionality for SCAR overall. Co-reporting between SCARs was significantly enriched (p < 1e-200), suggesting overlapping phenotypes. Latency varied by drug and syndrome (median: GBFDE 3 days, AGEP 4 days, SJS-TEN 12 days, DRESS 20 days). Conclusions and Relevance: SCAR syndromes display distinct but overlapping phenotypes, with variable latency and diverse causative agents. These findings, based on the largest SCAR dataset to date, highlight the need for improved classification frameworks and molecular validation. Large-scale pharmacovigilance, integrated with genomic and histopathologic data, will be critical to improving diagnosis, mechanistic understanding, and clinical management of SCAR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.