ArticleCureus2025
Candesartan-Associated Lichenoid Drug Eruption.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lichenoid drug eruption (LDE) is an uncommon adverse drug reaction, with few published cases implicating the angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan. We report a 67-year-old woman who developed pruritic violaceous papules and plaques on the trunk and extremities two years after initiating candesartan. Skin biopsy confirmed LDE. The eruption gradually resolved over five to six months after candesartan was replaced by amlodipine, with no recurrence observed at the 12-month follow-up. This case underscores the diagnostic challenges associated with LDE: latency may extend over years, clinical and histopathologic features closely mimic idiopathic lichen planus, and confirmatory tests, such as patch testing and drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation testing, often yield low sensitivity. Dermatologists and prescribing physicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for drug-induced lichenoid reactions, even when no recent medication changes are reported, as prompt recognition and withdrawal of the offending agent are essential for achieving durable remission.
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.