Indian Journal of Dermatology
  Publication of IADVL, WB
  Official organ of AADV
Indexed with Science Citation Index (E) , Web of Science and PubMed
Users online: 5957  
Home About  Editorial Board  Current Issue Archives Online Early Coming Soon Guidelines Subscriptions  e-Alerts    Login  
    Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this page Email this page

Table of Contents 
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 16-17
Recent advances in severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction

Department of Dermatology, Calcutta National Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Date of Web Publication13-Feb-2018

Correspondence Address:
Abhishek De
Department of Dermatology, Calcutta National Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijd.IJD_591_17

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Das S, De A. Recent advances in severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction. Indian J Dermatol 2018;63:16-7

How to cite this URL:
Das S, De A. Recent advances in severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction. Indian J Dermatol [serial online] 2018 [cited 2022 Aug 8];63:16-7. Available from:

   Primum Non Nocere: in Search for Its Origin Top

The so-called Hippocratic injunction to do no harm has been a traditional philosophy in clinical pharmacology and medical education. Many authors believe incorrectly that the author of this aphorism was Hippocrates. Most physicians have a false notion that it was there in the Hippocratic Oath. Recent scholars have established that the Latin expression was not specifically used by the legendary Greek physician Hippocrates, and it was not in the Hippocratic writings collected in the Middle Ages. The origin of the phrase remains debated and different scholars attributed it to different legendary physicians, including Galen, Ambroise Paré, Thomas Inman, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.[1]

   Primum Non Nocere: but How? Top

It is true that every weapon in the physician's armamentarium is double edged. As physicians, we need to understand that we are not immune to harming. We, as today's physicians, also need to allow our patients to know why and how it is never possible to “ first, do no harm.” Every drug, every medical intervention has a potentiality to cause adverse effect, and in the realms of statistics, all that doctors do is basically calculating the risk–benefit ratio. Yet, paradoxically, this noble intention may become the nemesis of many patients and this principle of Primum Non Nocere may be defeated. While cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) are possibly as old as medicine itself, with changing time and advent of newer drugs, the study of CADR is becoming more challenging.[2]

   Definition Top

An ADR has been defined as “a response to a drug that is noxious and unintended and which occurs in doses normally used for the treatment, prophylaxis, or diagnosis of disease, or the modification of physiological function.” The definition excludes poisoning and unintended but beneficial effects.[3] The European Union definition encompasses harm from off-label use, overdose, misuse, abuse, and medication errors. Hence, any harm from a medicine, particularly if serious or unusual, should be reported.[4] Serious, here, means fatal and life-threatening diseases and diseases causing or prolonging a stay in hospital.

However, more often than not, possibility of ADRs is clinically challenging, as there are many other differentials. Roujeau's criteria attempted to simplify defining cutaneous ADRs, (a) other causes for the eruption, such as viral exanthema, should be excluded, (b) a temporal relationship between the drug and onset of rash should exist, (c) improvement should be noted following drug cessation, (d) reactivation upon challenge should be noted, and (e) cutaneous reaction is known to be associated with the drug.[5]

The term, severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR), was proposed for such conditions, as they were (a) severe, (b) unpredictable, and (c) drug induced. SCARs encompass a heterogeneous group of delayed hypersensitivity reactions, which are most frequently caused by drugs.[6] The designation SCAR most commonly includes Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), SJS/TEN overlap, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.[7]

   Epidemiology of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reaction Top

Adverse drug reactions are responsible for up to 7% of hospital admissions.[8] Up to 30–45% of the ADRs are skin related, 2% of which may be severe and may have mortality rate as high as 10–30%.[9] More than 200 drugs have been implicated in the literature that can cause SCARs. Causality of the ADR can be measured using the WHO-UMC causality assessment system, which grades the assessment across a spectrum from “certain” to “unlikely” to “unclassified.”[10]

Advent of newer drug, newer modality of drug delivery, and polypharmacy are throwing newer challenges in the field of CADRs. Continuous learning and careful vigilance can lead to early diagnosis and avoidance of considerable mortality and morbidity.

   Symposium Philosophy Top

SCAR can be a life-threatening disease and one of the important fields in hospital-based dermatology practice. Knowledge has evolved on the immunopathogenesis of SCARs by which drugs activate T cells.In vivo and ex vivo diagnostics are being increasingly employed to aid causality assessment. Knowledge of cross-reactivity between structurally related medications is still rudimentary but may avoid precipitating subsequent severe episodes and minimize unwarranted restriction of therapeutic options. Newer pharmacogenomic discoveries associating severe T-cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity syndromes have created the hope of prevention.

Improved understanding has also led to considerable new hope in the management of SCAR. However, for the treating physicians, this era is particularly challenging to stay in touch with the latest developments. This symposium targets to make a comprehensive compendium of the latest developments in the field of the SCAR.

   References Top

Smith CM. Origin and uses of Primum Non Nocere – Above all, do no harm! J Clin Pharmacol 2005;45:371-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
Lecroy K. The lie of Primum Non Nocere. Am Fam Physician 2001;64:1942.  Back to cited text no. 2
Aronson JK, Ferner RE. Clarification of terminology in drug safety. Drug Saf 2005;28:851-70.  Back to cited text no. 3
European Medicines Agency. Guideline on Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (GVP) – Module VI – Collection, Management and Submission of Reports of Suspected Adverse Reactions to Medicinal Products (Rev 2). Available from: [Last accessed on 2017 Jul 28].  Back to cited text no. 4
Roujeau JC, Stern RS. Severe adverse cutaneous reactions to drugs. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1272-85.  Back to cited text no. 5
Thong BY, Tan TC. Epidemiology and risk factors for drug allergy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2011;71:684-700.  Back to cited text no. 6
Roujeau JC. Clinical heterogeneity of drug hypersensitivity. Toxicology 2005;209:123-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
Gruchalla R. Understanding drug allergies. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000;105:S637-44.  Back to cited text no. 8
Ajayi FO, Sun H, Perry J. Adverse drug reactions: A review of relevant factors. J Clin Pharmacol 2000;40:1093-101.  Back to cited text no. 9
The Use of the WHO-UMC System for Standardized Case Causality Assessment. Available from: [Last accessed on 2017 Dec].  Back to cited text no. 10


Print this article  Email this article
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (208 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

    Primum Non No...
    Primum Non No...
    Epidemiology of ...
   Symposium Philosophy

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded214    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal