Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42038738›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Exposure-Associated Physiologic Reactions (EAPR): A Novel Clinical Framework for Multisystem Adverse Responses.

Akhtar Purvez, Ana Mir, Mudhasir Bashir

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Akhtar PurvezClinical Research, Momentum Medical Research, Charlottesville, USA.
Ana MirClinical Sciences, Momentum Medical Research, Charlottesville, USA.
Mudhasir BashirPsychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exposure-associated physiologic reactions (EAPR) represent unexpected physiologic responses to medications, food additives, environmental exposures, and immunologic stimuli that are increasingly encountered in modern clinical practice. While most exposures are well-tolerated, a subset of individuals develops disproportionate, multisystem responses that do not conform to traditional models of hypersensitivity, toxicity, or pharmacologic effect. These reactions are frequently misattributed to primary disease processes due to their atypical and transient nature, leading to diagnostic uncertainty and unnecessary investigation. Emerging clinical observations suggest that such responses may represent a broader and previously underrecognized phenomenon. This review proposes the concept of EAPR as a unifying clinical framework describing non-classical, often non-IgE-mediated responses to pharmacologic, dietary, environmental, and immunologic exposures. Drawing upon case-based evidence involving cardiovascular, renal, neurologic, ophthalmologic, and autonomic manifestations, this article integrates diverse observations into a cohesive mechanistic and diagnostic model. Recognition of EAPR may improve diagnostic accuracy, reduce unnecessary investigations, and enhance pharmacovigilance by integrating fragmented clinical observations into a coherent and clinically actionable framework. This framework is intended as a conceptual and hypothesis-generating model and requires further validation through systematic investigation.

Indexed as

adverse drug reactionsautonomic dysregulationdrug-induced arrhythmiaeaprenvironmental exposuresexposure-associated physiologic reactionsmast cell activationmultisystem adverse reactionsnon-ige hypersensitivityprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID42038738
PMCPMC13110093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.