Introduction: The therapeutic use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has significantly increased since the first mAb was introduced. Despite their therapeutic benefits, mAbs have been accompanied by a rise in adverse effects, affecting various organ systems including the skin. This systematic review consolidates the current literature on the incidence, characteristics, and management of adverse dermatological events (ADEs) post-mAb treatment, focusing on Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), erythema multiforme (EM), and fixed drug eruption (FDE). Methods: A comprehensive PubMed search from 1980 to January 2024 included studies on mAbs causing SJS, TEN, EM, or FDE in humans. Screening was conducted using Covidence, and data were extracted on demographics, mAb details, rash characteristics, and treatment. Results: Of the initial 2002 articles, 29 met the inclusion criteria, highlighting 31 cases of ADEs. The onset of these rashes was delayed, often occurring significantly after starting mAb therapy, with a mean onset time considerably longer than that associated with traditional drugs. Additionally, neither patient sex nor concurrent medication use affected the likelihood of developing these reactions. Conclusion: This review underscores the prolonged timeline for the onset of ADEs from mAbs, distinct from reactions induced by traditional drugs, aligning with the characteristics of progressive immunotherapy-related mucocutaneous eruption. The lack of correlation with patient sex or concurrent medications reaffirms the inherent risk of mAbs. These findings highlight the need for clinicians to monitor and educate patients about the potential for delayed dermatological reactions from mAb treatment to ensure timely management and better outcomes.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are specialized treatments used for conditions such as cancer and autoimmune diseases since their introduction in 1984. While beneficial, mAbs can cause severe skin reactions, known as adverse dermatological events (ADEs). These reactions include Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), erythema multiforme (EM), and fixed drug eruption (FDE). These ADEs are not well documented in the literature. This systematic review aimed to understand these skin reactions caused by mAbs. We analyzed studies published between 1980 and January 2024, focusing on cases where mAbs led to SJS, TEN, EM, or FDE. We identified 29 articles describing 31 cases of ADEs. The reactions often occurred long after starting mAb therapy. Neither the patient’s sex nor the use of other medications seemed to influence the likelihood of these reactions. Our review showed that skin reactions from mAbs appeared later than those from traditional drugs, likely because the longer time mAbs stay in the body. These delayed reactions align with a condition known as progressive immunotherapy-related mucocutaneous eruption. It is crucial for doctors to recognize and manage these delayed reactions differently from true SJS/TEN reactions which are more immediate and severe. In conclusion, doctors should be aware of the potential for delayed skin reactions in patients receiving mAbs. By educating patients and enhancing monitoring, healthcare providers can ensure timely management of these adverse effects, thereby improving patient outcomes while allowing them to benefit from these advanced treatments.

The use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for treatment has become an increasingly important field of medical research. Since the introduction of the first therapeutic mAb, Muromonab-CD3 or OKT3, in 1984, the landscape of mAb development has expanded dramatically. As of 2022, the FDA has approved 110 mAbs for the treatment of various health conditions, with hundreds more currently undergoing clinical trials [1‒3]. With mAbs becoming increasingly prevalent in the treatment of a variety of conditions, research regarding adverse events in the real-world setting is crucial. Adverse reactions to mAbs are varied, impacting single or multiple organ systems, and are often associated with hypersensitivity reactions of types I, II, III, and IV, encompassing conditions such as anaphylaxis, serum sickness, and vasculitis [2, 3].

Despite the broad documentation of adverse events, the adverse dermatological events (ADEs) of mAbs are less thoroughly characterized, particularly Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), fixed drug eruption (FDE), and erythema multiforme (EM). SJS/TEN are rare drug reactions characterized by splitting of the epidermal junction with subsequent development of dusky red/purpuric lesions, blisters, and mucosal sloughing [4]. SJS and TEN can be life-threatening conditions, with a reported mortality rate of around 5% and 15%, respectively [4, 5]. EM is classically present as macules or papules with 3 distinct color zones, referred to as target lesions; when mucosal involvement is present, as occurs in up to 60% of cases, a diagnosis of EM major is rendered [6]. While herpes simplex virus is the most common cause of EM, drugs have also been implicated as a potential trigger [7]. FDE can occur after the ingestion of certain drugs and is present localized to the same areas after repeated drug administration. These lesions can include patches, vesicles, and bullae that are prone to rupture and can involve the mucosa [8]. While EM and FDE are often self-limiting, they can be highly painful and greatly affect the quality of life in recurrent cases. In this review, we synthesize the current literature regarding cutaneous adverse reactions including SJS, TEN, EM, and FDE following mAb administration, highlighting the need for increased understanding of these potential reactions in the context of growing mAb use.

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed for English-language articles published from 1980 to January 2024, focusing on key terms including “monoclonal antibody,” “Stevens-Johnson Syndrome,” “Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis,” “Erythema Multiforme,” and “Fixed Drug Eruption.” The queried articles were uploaded to Covidence for screening by three team members who reviewed titles and abstracts, requiring at least two votes for an article to advance. Full articles were then assessed for data extraction suitability. Duplicates were removed during this process. Inclusion and exclusion criteria, detailed in the next section, guided both screening stages.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Eligible articles had to undergo peer review, involve human subjects, be published between 1980 and 2024, report original and primary data in English, explicitly mention mAb administration, and mention the occurrence of one of the four specified conditions (SJS, TEN, EM, and FDE) following mAb administration to be included in the study. Studies were excluded if they did not explicitly mention mAb use, did not report an association with SJS, TEN, EM, or FDE, did not undergo peer review, were written in a language other than English, or were conducted on animals or in vitro.

Data Collection

Following the screening process, eligible studies were extracted using a standardized collection sheet, with the data extraction divided equally among four team members. Data extraction included author information, year of publication, study design, number of cases, and demographic details (age, sex). It also included the underlying diseases, specifics of mAb treatment (antibody used, dosage, concurrent medications, time until rash onset), and rash characteristics (type, mucosal involvement, body area affected, treatment, and response). Other complications or notable findings were documented when present. These findings were systematically organized and are present in Tables 1-3 to facilitate analysis and interpretation.

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flow diagram detailing the article selection process.

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flow diagram detailing the article selection process.

Close modal
Table 1.

Patient demographics

ADETotal patientsMaleFemaleMean ageMean male ageMean female age
SJS/TEN 18 10 59.4 57.5 61.8 
EM 55.2 66.5 47.7 
FDE 54.0 40.0 61.0 
Total 26 13 13 58.0 57.5 58.4 
ADETotal patientsMaleFemaleMean ageMean male ageMean female age
SJS/TEN 18 10 59.4 57.5 61.8 
EM 55.2 66.5 47.7 
FDE 54.0 40.0 61.0 
Total 26 13 13 58.0 57.5 58.4 
Table 2.

Summary of mAb treatments and associated ADE

CitationStudy designAge/sexDxmAbUnderlying illnessTime to onset after start of TxtMucosal involvement% BSATxtRash response
Ahdout et al. [9Case study 67 M EM Adalimumab Chronic plaque psoriasis 11 days Yes NR D/C mAb, ValACV, PRED Complete resolution 
Badavanis et al. [10Case study 41 F EM Golimumab Ulcerative colitis 18 months No NR Cont. mAb, topical corticosteroids Improvement 
Edwards et al. [11Case study 39 F EM Infliximab Crohn’s disease 1 month Yes NR D/C mAb, DEX rinse, PRED, azathioprine Complete resolution 
Dika et al. [12PCS NR EM Ipilimumab Metastatic melanoma NR No NR MP, oral cetirizine NR 
Sundaresan et al. [13Case study 63 F EM Nivolumab Primary stage IIIC melanoma 4 weeks Yes NR D/C mAb; however, patient hospitalized 1 week later. Improved on broad therapy of IV MP, ACV, vancomycin, oral steroids, minocycline, ValACV Improvement 
Conforti et al. [14Case study 66 M EM Secukinumab Ankylosing spondylitis 1 month Yes NR D/C mAb, MP Improvement 
Bhadresha et al. [15Case study 74 F FDE Adalimumab Psoriasis 12 days No NR D/C mAb, betamethasone Complete resolution 
Li et al. [16Case study 40 M FDE Adalimumab Ankylosing spondylitis 4 h No NR D/C mAb Complete resolution 
Kearns et al. [17Case study 48 F FDE Atezolizumab Metastatic breast cancer NR No NR Cont. mAb, PRED, MP, diphenhydramine, famotidine Improvement 
Salama et al. [18Case study 29 M SJS Adalimumab Crohn’s disease 15 days Yes NR Doxycycline, hydrocortisone, PRED Improvement 
Dika et al. [12PCS NR SJS Ipilimumab Metastatic Melanoma NR Yes NR D/C mAb, MP, systemic antibiotics, lidocaine NR 
Ishida et al. [19Case study 71 F SJS Mogamulizumab Acute-type ATL 75 days Yes NR Cont. mAb, stopped prophylactic drugs, oral prednisolone, MP Improvement 
Salati et al. [20Case study 59 F SJS Nivolumab Stage IV squamous NSCLC 5 weeks Yes <10% MP Complete resolution 
Shah et al. [21Case study 63 M SJS Nivolumab Stage IV SCC of the uvula and soft palate 7 days Yes 8% Supportive care Complete resolution 
Goldinger et al. [22Phase I clinical trial 77 NR SJS Pembrolizumab Advanced melanoma NR Yes NR D/C mAb NR 
Sandhu et al. [23Case study 75 F SJS Pembrolizumab Stage IV NSCLC with metastasis to the brain 14 days Yes <10% D/C mAb, IVIG, MP, PRED Improvement 
Saw et al. [24Case study 50 F SJS Pembrolizumab Metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma 140 days Yes 4–5% D/C mAb, prednisolone, CsA, DEX eye drops Complete resolution 
Saw et al. [24Case study 53 M SJS Pembrolizumab Metastatic sarcomatoid RCC 77 days Yes 3% CsA, DEX/levofloxacin eye drops Complete resolution 
Lowndes et al. [25Case study 33 M SJS Rituximab Follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma 26 days Yes NR D/C mAb, ACV, FCZ, antiseptic cream, potassium permanganate, prednisolone, CsA None, death from possible obstruction inferior vena cava 
Rupp et al. [26Phase I clinical trial 67 NR TEN Bivatuzumab mertansine SCC of the esophagus 2 weeks No NR NR None, death due to TEN 
Tijink et al. [27Dose-escalation study 67 NR TEN Bivatuzumab mertansine SCC of the head, neck, or esophagus 8 days No NR None None, death from TEN 
Ott et al. [28Phase I/II clinical trial 80 M TEN Glembatumumab vedotin Stage III or IV cutaneous or ocular melanoma 10 days No NR NR None, death from multi-organ failure 
Borg et al. [29Case study 50 M TEN Pembrolizumab Metastatic NSCLC 6 weeks Yes NR D/C mAb, IVIG, aqueous cream, CsA Complete resolution 
Cai et al. [30Case study 63 M TEN Pembrolizumab Metastatic lung adenocarcinoma (NSCLC) 3 days Yes >80% D/C mAb, MP, CsA, necrotic debridement Improvement 
Griffin et al. [31Case study 54 M TEN Nivolumab Follicular lymphoma 22 days No 90% Cont. mAb, D/C co-trimoxazole, allopurinol, FCZ None, death from multi-organ failure 
Nayar et al. [32Case study 64 F TEN Nivolumab Ipilimumab metastatic melanoma 8 weeks No NR D/C mAb, PRED, CsA Improvement; death due to sepsis 
Yang et al. [33Case study 82 M TEN Sintilimab Metastatic thymic SCC 8 weeks No NR D/C mAb, MP, PRED Complete resolution. Death due to pneumonia 
Zhang et al. [34Case study 70 F TEN Sintilimab Advanced gastric malignancy 10 days No 70% D/C mAb, MP, IVIG, adalimumab Complete resolution 
Zhao et al. [35Case study 72 F TEN Sintilimab Metastatic gallbladder carcinoma 2 weeks Yes 70% D/C mAb, horizontal laminar airflow, nystatin, glucocorticoids Improvement 
Pierre et al. [36Case study 33 F SJS-TEN overlap Pembrolizumab Metastatic SCC cervical cancer 4 weeks Yes 15% D/C mAb and meropenem, CsA, PRED Improvement 
Jiang et al. [37Case study 68 M SJS-TEN overlap Sintilimab Right lung adenocarcinoma (NSCLC) with liver and mediastinal lymph node metastasis NR No NR D/C mAb, antagonist gamma globulin Complete resolution 
CitationStudy designAge/sexDxmAbUnderlying illnessTime to onset after start of TxtMucosal involvement% BSATxtRash response
Ahdout et al. [9Case study 67 M EM Adalimumab Chronic plaque psoriasis 11 days Yes NR D/C mAb, ValACV, PRED Complete resolution 
Badavanis et al. [10Case study 41 F EM Golimumab Ulcerative colitis 18 months No NR Cont. mAb, topical corticosteroids Improvement 
Edwards et al. [11Case study 39 F EM Infliximab Crohn’s disease 1 month Yes NR D/C mAb, DEX rinse, PRED, azathioprine Complete resolution 
Dika et al. [12PCS NR EM Ipilimumab Metastatic melanoma NR No NR MP, oral cetirizine NR 
Sundaresan et al. [13Case study 63 F EM Nivolumab Primary stage IIIC melanoma 4 weeks Yes NR D/C mAb; however, patient hospitalized 1 week later. Improved on broad therapy of IV MP, ACV, vancomycin, oral steroids, minocycline, ValACV Improvement 
Conforti et al. [14Case study 66 M EM Secukinumab Ankylosing spondylitis 1 month Yes NR D/C mAb, MP Improvement 
Bhadresha et al. [15Case study 74 F FDE Adalimumab Psoriasis 12 days No NR D/C mAb, betamethasone Complete resolution 
Li et al. [16Case study 40 M FDE Adalimumab Ankylosing spondylitis 4 h No NR D/C mAb Complete resolution 
Kearns et al. [17Case study 48 F FDE Atezolizumab Metastatic breast cancer NR No NR Cont. mAb, PRED, MP, diphenhydramine, famotidine Improvement 
Salama et al. [18Case study 29 M SJS Adalimumab Crohn’s disease 15 days Yes NR Doxycycline, hydrocortisone, PRED Improvement 
Dika et al. [12PCS NR SJS Ipilimumab Metastatic Melanoma NR Yes NR D/C mAb, MP, systemic antibiotics, lidocaine NR 
Ishida et al. [19Case study 71 F SJS Mogamulizumab Acute-type ATL 75 days Yes NR Cont. mAb, stopped prophylactic drugs, oral prednisolone, MP Improvement 
Salati et al. [20Case study 59 F SJS Nivolumab Stage IV squamous NSCLC 5 weeks Yes <10% MP Complete resolution 
Shah et al. [21Case study 63 M SJS Nivolumab Stage IV SCC of the uvula and soft palate 7 days Yes 8% Supportive care Complete resolution 
Goldinger et al. [22Phase I clinical trial 77 NR SJS Pembrolizumab Advanced melanoma NR Yes NR D/C mAb NR 
Sandhu et al. [23Case study 75 F SJS Pembrolizumab Stage IV NSCLC with metastasis to the brain 14 days Yes <10% D/C mAb, IVIG, MP, PRED Improvement 
Saw et al. [24Case study 50 F SJS Pembrolizumab Metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma 140 days Yes 4–5% D/C mAb, prednisolone, CsA, DEX eye drops Complete resolution 
Saw et al. [24Case study 53 M SJS Pembrolizumab Metastatic sarcomatoid RCC 77 days Yes 3% CsA, DEX/levofloxacin eye drops Complete resolution 
Lowndes et al. [25Case study 33 M SJS Rituximab Follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma 26 days Yes NR D/C mAb, ACV, FCZ, antiseptic cream, potassium permanganate, prednisolone, CsA None, death from possible obstruction inferior vena cava 
Rupp et al. [26Phase I clinical trial 67 NR TEN Bivatuzumab mertansine SCC of the esophagus 2 weeks No NR NR None, death due to TEN 
Tijink et al. [27Dose-escalation study 67 NR TEN Bivatuzumab mertansine SCC of the head, neck, or esophagus 8 days No NR None None, death from TEN 
Ott et al. [28Phase I/II clinical trial 80 M TEN Glembatumumab vedotin Stage III or IV cutaneous or ocular melanoma 10 days No NR NR None, death from multi-organ failure 
Borg et al. [29Case study 50 M TEN Pembrolizumab Metastatic NSCLC 6 weeks Yes NR D/C mAb, IVIG, aqueous cream, CsA Complete resolution 
Cai et al. [30Case study 63 M TEN Pembrolizumab Metastatic lung adenocarcinoma (NSCLC) 3 days Yes >80% D/C mAb, MP, CsA, necrotic debridement Improvement 
Griffin et al. [31Case study 54 M TEN Nivolumab Follicular lymphoma 22 days No 90% Cont. mAb, D/C co-trimoxazole, allopurinol, FCZ None, death from multi-organ failure 
Nayar et al. [32Case study 64 F TEN Nivolumab Ipilimumab metastatic melanoma 8 weeks No NR D/C mAb, PRED, CsA Improvement; death due to sepsis 
Yang et al. [33Case study 82 M TEN Sintilimab Metastatic thymic SCC 8 weeks No NR D/C mAb, MP, PRED Complete resolution. Death due to pneumonia 
Zhang et al. [34Case study 70 F TEN Sintilimab Advanced gastric malignancy 10 days No 70% D/C mAb, MP, IVIG, adalimumab Complete resolution 
Zhao et al. [35Case study 72 F TEN Sintilimab Metastatic gallbladder carcinoma 2 weeks Yes 70% D/C mAb, horizontal laminar airflow, nystatin, glucocorticoids Improvement 
Pierre et al. [36Case study 33 F SJS-TEN overlap Pembrolizumab Metastatic SCC cervical cancer 4 weeks Yes 15% D/C mAb and meropenem, CsA, PRED Improvement 
Jiang et al. [37Case study 68 M SJS-TEN overlap Sintilimab Right lung adenocarcinoma (NSCLC) with liver and mediastinal lymph node metastasis NR No NR D/C mAb, antagonist gamma globulin Complete resolution 

ACV, acyclovir; Cont. mAb, continued mAb; CsA, cyclosporine; D/C mAb, discontinued monoclonal antibody; DEX, dexamethasone; Dx, diagnosis; EM, erythema multiforme; FCZ, fluconazole; FDE, fixed drug eruption; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin; MP, methylprednisolone; NR, not reported; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; PCS, prospective cohort study; PRED, prednisone; RCC, renal cell carcinoma; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; SJS, Stevens-Johnson syndrome; TEN, toxic epidermal necrolysis; Txt, treatment; ValACV, valacyclovir.

Table 3.

Mean and median onset times for ADEs by mAb

mAbConditionMean time to onset, daysMedian time to onset, days
Adalimumab EM 11.0 11.0 
Adalimumab FDE 6.1 6.1 
Bivatuzumab mertansine TEN 11.0 11.0 
Glembatumumab vedotin TEN 10.0 10.0 
Golimumab EM 547.2 547.2 
Infliximab EM 30.4 30.4 
Mogamulizumab SJS 75.0 75.0 
Nivolumab EM 28.0 28.0 
Nivolumab TEN 39.0 39.0 
Nivolumab SJS 35.0 35.0 
Pembrolizumab SJS 77.0 77.0 
Pembrolizumab TEN 22.5 22.5 
Pembrolizumab SJS-TEN overlap 28.0 28.0 
Rituximab SJS 26.0 26.0 
Secukinumab EM 30.4 30.4 
Sintilimab SJS-TEN overlap N/A N/A 
Sintilimab TEN 26.7 14.0 
mAbConditionMean time to onset, daysMedian time to onset, days
Adalimumab EM 11.0 11.0 
Adalimumab FDE 6.1 6.1 
Bivatuzumab mertansine TEN 11.0 11.0 
Glembatumumab vedotin TEN 10.0 10.0 
Golimumab EM 547.2 547.2 
Infliximab EM 30.4 30.4 
Mogamulizumab SJS 75.0 75.0 
Nivolumab EM 28.0 28.0 
Nivolumab TEN 39.0 39.0 
Nivolumab SJS 35.0 35.0 
Pembrolizumab SJS 77.0 77.0 
Pembrolizumab TEN 22.5 22.5 
Pembrolizumab SJS-TEN overlap 28.0 28.0 
Rituximab SJS 26.0 26.0 
Secukinumab EM 30.4 30.4 
Sintilimab SJS-TEN overlap N/A N/A 
Sintilimab TEN 26.7 14.0 

Additionally, the review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for the design and reporting of this systematic review (see PRISMA Checklist in the online suppl. material; for all online suppl. material, see https://doi.org/10.1159/000545623). Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports by four reviewers, with the included studies divided equally among them (see online suppl. Table for risk of bias assessments).

The initial search on PubMed yielded 2,002 results, with Covidence identifying two duplicates, leaving 2,000 studies for title and abstract screening. Of these, 1,942 were excluded based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 58 underwent full-text review. This review led to the exclusion of 29 studies due to various reasons: not being peer-reviewed [1], wrong study design [7], absence of an mAb-related rash [6], and lack of mention of an mAb or rash [15]. Consequently, 29 articles met the criteria for data extraction. This selection process is depicted in Figure 1, with the extracted data presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3.

Among the 31 cases analyzed, 5 lacked patient sex data, and five omitted the time to onset of the rash. Melanoma was the most frequently treated disease [6 cases], followed by squamous cell carcinoma [5] and non-small cell lung carcinoma [5]. Systemic steroids were the most common medication used to treat these ADEs, having been utilized in 21 cases. Complete resolution or disappearance of the rash was reported in 12 cases, with significant improvement in another 11. Seven deaths were reported, all in patients with SJS or TEN due to varying etiologies; however, only two deaths were directly attributed to ADEs as a result of TEN.

Sixteen patients out of 31 cases were not on any other medications during mAb administration. For the remaining 15 patients on other concurrent medications, the most common were aspirin, antibiotics, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, antiepileptic drugs, and diabetes medications. All of these patients were taking their respective concurrent medications prior to the initiation of mAb treatment. Thirteen different mAbs were used, with pembrolizumab (7) and nivolumab (5) being the most prevalent. The oral mucosa was the most frequently affected mucosa, occurring in 16 of the 18 reported cases of mucosal involvement.

In this study, the term “SJS/TEN” encompasses the entire spectrum of SJS, TEN, and SJS-TEN overlap conditions. We determined the mean and median onset times for SJS/TEN rashes following anti-PD1 (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and sintilimab) therapy to be 38.77 days and 28 days, respectively. Specific to the most common agent used among the PD-1 inhibitors, pembrolizumab’s mean and median time to onset of SJS/TEN was found to be 50.7 days and 35 days, respectively. Lastly, risk of bias, as assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports, showed that all included studies were rated as having low risk of bias, except for two studies by Dika et al. [12] and Rupp et al. [26], which were rated as having moderate risk.

In our study, we examined the ADEs associated with mAb administration, which is becoming a central tenet of cancer therapy. We found that anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitors, particularly pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and sintilimab, were the class of mAbs most frequently linked with causing severe dermatological reactions such as SJS/TEN and EM. Among these, pembrolizumab emerged as the mAb most commonly associated with ADEs, specifically SJS/TEN. However, high causality cannot be established from this study alone given the greater use of pembrolizumab as compared with other immunotherapies for the treatment of a variety of different types of cancer. However, this finding mirrors past reviews done on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) which reported ICIs being significantly associated with increased risk of SJS/TEN in patients [38].

SJS/TEN typically occurs within days to weeks after starting a new medication. One of the fastest reported onsets of action was observed in a 6-year retrospective study, which noted a mean time to onset of 4.1 days following anticonvulsant administration [39]. Similarly, another study reported that reactions began within just a few days of starting acetaminophen [40]. While anti-PD1 therapies are linked to acute and severe cases of true SJS/TEN, they are more commonly associated with causing SJS/TEN-like reactions of gradual onset and milder symptoms. To better understand and differentiate these potentially less severe cases, the concept of progressive immunotherapy-related mucocutaneous eruption (PIRME) has been proposed to classify these dermatologic reactions, which are distinctive from true SJS/TEN in their time to onset, appearance, mucosal involvement severity, and potential treatment [41]. Our study supports this, as the SJS/TEN reactions caused by anti-PD1 ICIs were typically subacute, with a slower onset of appearance (mean and median onset time of 38.77 days and 28 days, respectively) and no reported fatalities.

Among the three anti-PD1 mAbs studied, pembrolizumab exhibited the longest mean onset time for SJS/TEN at 50.7 days, with a median of 35 days. This prolonged timeframe likely reflects the gradual onset characteristic of PIRME and could be due to the extended half-life of these mAbs compared to other common causative agents. For example, pembrolizumab has a half-life of 27 days, whereas lamotrigine and acetaminophen have half-lives of approximately 24.1–35 h and 5.4 h, respectively [42‒44]. Similarly, the delayed onset of SJS/TEN was observed with non-PD1 inhibitors such as mogamulizumab and rituximab, which have half-lives of 16–18 days and 22 days, respectively [45, 46]. For each drug, the mean and median onset times were equal: 75 days for mogamulizumab and 26 days for rituximab. With prolonged half-lives, steady-state drug concentration is achieved much later than what would be expected with common causative agents. For example, rituximab takes 6–8 weeks to reach steady-state concentration when infused weekly [47]. The delay in SJS/TEN reactions may be attributed to the time required to achieve elevated serum drug concentrations sufficient to trigger these reactions, and similarly the long half-life of mAbs likely extends the duration of the reaction, necessitating longer courses of treatment such as corticosteroids to achieve full resolution.

Additionally, EM reactions, which typically occur about 3 days after drug ingestion, can be markedly delayed when induced by mAbs [48]. For example, our review found that the mean time to onset of EM was 18 months for the one reported case due to golimumab, 1 month for both infliximab and secukinumb, and 11 days for adalimumab. Taken together, our findings suggest that different classes of mAbs have the potential for delayed onset and atypical presentation of ADEs. This deviation is significant because it challenges the conventional diagnostic and management strategies that clinicians may employ based on their experiences with more immediate drug reactions. As such, this necessitates that clinicians maintain a vigilant and prolonged approach to patient monitoring, ensuring that adverse events, whether acute or subacute, are promptly identified and managed, even well after mAb therapy has begun.

Anti-TNF-alpha inhibitors were identified as the second most common class of mAbs leading to ADEs. Notably, adalimumab emerged as the mAb that most commonly caused FDE in our review (2 out of 3 cases), in one case with a delayed onset of reaction (12 days after initiation of drug) as would normally be expected with FDE. Although the exact cause of FDE is not fully understood, it is thought to be associated with the activation of CD8+ T cells and extended ICAM-1 expression in resident keratinocytes, which prompts the release of many immunological mediators [49]. Our findings suggest TNF-alpha blockage could be a key factor in this process.

The study also demonstrates that the patient’s sex may not influence the likelihood of developing an ADE. In the 26 cases where patient sex was reported, there was an equal distribution of ADEs between male and female patients (13 each). Additionally, we explored the potential impact of concurrent medication use on the prevalence of ADEs associated with mAbs. Interestingly, our findings demonstrated that nearly half the patients who developed a reaction were solely on mAb therapy (16 patients). Furthermore, patients were already on concurrent medications before starting mAb therapy, making it unlikely that these concomitant drugs were the primary cause of the observed ADEs and suggesting that the ADEs were due to the inherent risk from mAb treatment rather than other medications. Although most case reports included in this study did not specify the exact timing or duration of concurrent medication use, this temporal distinction reinforces the association between mAbs and the reported ADEs.

The study’s limitations stem from its reliance on retrospective data and variability in reporting standards, highlighting the need for prospective studies to validate and expand our findings. Future studies should aim to investigate the potential for genetic or biomarker predictors of susceptibility, anti-PD1 relationship to PIRME, and evaluate the effectiveness of different management strategies in real-world settings.

In conclusion, the clinical significance of our research extends into the realms of patient care optimization and healthcare policy, informing guidelines for the monitoring and management of the growing number of patients on mAb therapy. Clinicians must be aware that the risk of serious ADEs can persist well beyond the initial phases of mAb treatment. A more nuanced approach to patient care must be adopted, incorporating longer follow-up periods and tailored surveillance strategies to detect and manage these delayed reactions effectively. Educating patients on early symptoms and encouraging photographic documentation of lesions may aid in tracking disease progression and guiding clinical decisions. Additionally, patients should be counseled that discontinuation of the offending mAb may not lead to immediate resolution. For those with a history of severe reactions such as SJS/TEN, a medical alert bracelet may also be advisable to prevent unintentional reexposure. This approach not only ensures the safety and well-being of patients but also enhances the therapeutic potential of mAb treatments by managing their risks more effectively.

A statement of ethics is not applicable because the study is based exclusively on published literature.

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

This study was not supported by any sponsor or funder.

K.K.: formulation of project, data collection, data extraction, primary writing of journal, and editing. I.A. and A.B.: data collection, data extraction, secondary writing of journal, and editing. J.K. and I.R.: data collection, data extraction, and critical revision and editing. S.W.: formulation of project, secondary writing of journal, and critical revision and editing.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from articles indexed in PubMed. While many of the referenced articles are publicly accessible, some may require a subscription or purchase to access the full text. The articles can be found through PubMed at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. This systematic review was not registered.

1.
Lu
R-M
,
Hwang
Y-C
,
Liu
I-J
,
Lee
C-C
,
Tsai
H-Z
,
Li
H-J
, et al
.
Development of therapeutic antibodies for the treatment of diseases
.
J Biomed Sci
.
2020
;
27
(
1
):
1
.
2.
Baldo
BA
.
Immune- and non-immune-mediated adverse effects of monoclonal antibody therapy: a survey of 110 approved antibodies
.
Antibodies
.
2022
;
11
(
1
):
17
.
3.
Pintea
I
,
Petricau
C
,
Dumitrascu
D
,
Muntean
A
,
Branisteanu
D
,
Branisteanu
D
, et al
.
Hypersensitivity reactions to monoclonal antibodies: classification and treatment approach (Review)
.
Exp Ther Med
.
2021
;
22
(
3
):
949
.
4.
Hasegawa
A
,
Abe
R
.
Recent advances in managing and understanding Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis
.
F1000Res
.
2020
;
9
:
F1000 Faculty Rev-612
.
5.
Chang
H-C
,
Wang
T-J
,
Lin
M-H
,
Chen
T-J
.
A review of the systemic treatment of stevens–johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis
.
Biomedicines
.
2022
;
10
(
9
):
2105
.
6.
Trayes
KP
,
Love
G
,
Studdiford
JS
.
Erythema multiforme: recognition and management
.
Am Fam Physician
.
2019
;
100
(
2
):
82
8
.
7.
Hashemi
DA
,
Carlos
C
,
Rosenbach
M
.
Herpes-associated erythema multiforme
.
JAMA Dermatol
.
2019
;
155
(
1
):
108
.
8.
Anderson
HJ
,
Lee
JB
.
A review of fixed drug eruption with a special focus on generalized bullous fixed drug eruption
.
Medicina
.
2021
;
57
(
9
):
925
.
9.
Ahdout
J
,
Haley
JC
,
Chiu
MW
.
Erythema multiforme during anti–tumor necrosis factor treatment for plaque psoriasis
.
J Am Acad Dermatol
.
2010
;
62
(
5
):
874
9
.
10.
Badavanis
G
,
Pasmatzi
E
,
Kapranos
N
,
Monastirli
A
,
Tsambaos
D
.
Golimumab-associated persistent erythema multiforme in a patient with ulcerative colitis in full remission
.
Dermatol Online J
.
2018
;
24
(
6
):
13030
qt4qr908k5
.
11.
Edwards
D
,
Boritz
E
,
Cowen
EW
,
Brown
RS
.
Erythema multiforme major following treatment with infliximab
.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol
.
2013
;
115
(
2
):
e36
40
.
12.
Dika
E
,
Ravaioli
GM
,
Fanti
PA
,
Piraccini
BM
,
Lambertini
M
,
Chessa
MA
, et al
.
Cutaneous adverse effects during ipilimumab treatment for metastatic melanoma: a prospective study
.
Eur J Dermatol
.
2017
;
27
(
3
):
266
70
.
13.
Sundaresan
S
,
Nguyen
KT
,
Nelson
KC
,
Ivan
D
,
Patel
AB
.
Erythema multiforme major in a patient with metastatic melanoma treated with nivolumab
.
Dermatol Online J
.
2017
;
23
(
9
).
14.
Conforti
C
,
Currado
D
,
Vezzoni
R
,
Corneli
P
,
Bussani
R
,
Navarini
L
, et al
.
Erythema multiforme induced by secukinumab: clinical, dermoscopic, and histological features
.
J Clin Rheumatol
.
2021
;
27
(
5
):
e177
8
.
15.
Bhadresha
S
,
Hughes
AJ
,
McMahon
L
,
Reeken
S
,
Natkunarajah
N
.
Fixed drug eruption secondary to adalimumab
.
Clin Exp Dermatol
.
2021
;
46
(
2
):
366
8
.
16.
Li
PH
,
Watts
TJ
,
Chung
H-Y
,
Lau
C-S
.
Fixed drug eruption to biologics and role of lesional patch testing
.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract
.
2019
;
7
(
7
):
2398
9
.
17.
Kearns
D
,
Gardner
JT
,
Kerstetter
J
,
Furukawa
B
.
Fixed drug eruption from atezolizumab
.
DOJ
.
2022
;
28
(
1
).
18.
Salama
M
,
Lawrance
IC
.
Stevens-Johnson syndrome complicating adalimumab therapy in Crohn’s disease
.
WJG
.
2009
;
15
(
35
):
4449
52
.
19.
Ishida
T
,
Ito
A
,
Sato
F
,
Kusumoto
S
,
Iida
S
,
Inagaki
H
, et al
.
Stevens–Johnson S yndrome associated with mogamulizumab treatment of adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma
.
Cancer Sci
.
2013
;
104
(
5
):
647
50
.
20.
Salati
M
,
Pifferi
M
,
Baldessari
C
,
Bertolini
F
,
Tomasello
C
,
Cascinu
S
, et al
.
Stevens–Johnson syndrome during nivolumab treatment of NSCLC
.
Ann Oncol
.
2018
;
29
(
1
):
283
4
.
21.
Shah
KM
,
Rancour
EA
,
Al-Omari
A
,
Rahnama-Moghadam
S
.
Striking enhancement at the site of radiation for nivolumab-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome
.
Dermatol Online J
.
2018
;
24
(
6
).
22.
Goldinger
SM
,
Stieger
P
,
Meier
B
,
Micaletto
S
,
Contassot
E
,
French
LE
, et al
.
Cytotoxic cutaneous adverse drug reactions during anti-PD-1 therapy
.
Clin Cancer Res
.
2016
;
22
(
16
):
4023
9
.
23.
Sandhu
M
,
Kc
B
,
Bhandari
J
,
Gambhir
HS
,
Farah
R
.
Pembrolizumab-associated stevens-johnson syndrome in a patient with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a case report
.
Cureus
.
2023
;
15
(
7
):
e41439
.
24.
Saw
S
,
Lee
HY
,
Ng
QS
.
Pembrolizumab-induced Stevens–Johnson syndrome in non-melanoma patients
.
Eur J Cancer
.
2017
;
81
:
237
9
.
25.
Lowndes
S
,
Darby
A
,
Mead
G
,
Lister
A
.
Stevens–Johnson syndrome after treatment with rituximab
.
Ann Oncol
.
2002
;
13
(
12
):
1948
50
.
26.
Rupp
U
,
Schoendorf-Holland
E
,
Eichbaum
M
,
Schuetz
F
,
Lauschner
I
,
Schmidt
P
, et al
.
Safety and pharmacokinetics of bivatuzumab mertansine in patients with CD44v6-positive metastatic breast cancer: final results of a phase I study
.
Anticancer Drugs
.
2007
;
18
(
4
):
477
85
.
27.
Tijink
BM
,
Buter
J
,
De Bree
R
,
Giaccone
G
,
Lang
MS
,
Staab
A
, et al
.
A phase I dose escalation study with anti-CD44v6 bivatuzumab mertansine in patients with incurable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck or esophagus
.
Clin Cancer Res
.
2006
;
12
(
20 Pt 1
):
6064
72
.
28.
Ott
PA
,
Hamid
O
,
Pavlick
AC
,
Kluger
H
,
Kim
KB
,
Boasberg
PD
, et al
.
Phase I/II study of the antibody-drug conjugate glembatumumab vedotin in patients with advanced melanoma
.
J Clin Orthod
.
2014
;
32
(
32
):
3659
66
.
29.
Borg
L
,
Buhagiar
M
,
La Ferla
E
,
Pisani
D
,
Said
J
,
Boffa
MJ
.
Pembrolizumab-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis
.
Case Rep Oncol
.
2022
;
15
(
3
):
887
93
.
30.
Cai
ZR
,
Lecours
J
,
Adam
J-P
,
Marcil
I
,
Blais
N
,
Dallaire
M
, et al
.
Toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with pembrolizumab
.
J Oncol Pharm Pract
.
2020
;
26
(
5
):
1259
65
.
31.
Griffin
LL
,
Cove-Smith
L
,
Alachkar
H
,
Radford
JA
,
Brooke
R
,
Linton
KM
.
Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) associated with the use of nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) for lymphoma
.
JAAD Case Rep
.
2018
;
4
(
3
):
229
31
.
32.
Nayar
N
,
Briscoe
K
,
Fernandez Penas
P
.
Toxic epidermal necrolysis–like reaction with severe satellite cell necrosis associated with nivolumab in a patient with ipilimumab refractory metastatic melanoma
.
J Immunother
.
2016
;
39
(
3
):
149
52
.
33.
Yang
H
,
Ma
Q
,
Sun
Y
,
Zhang
K
,
Xing
Y
,
Li
H
.
Case Report: toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with sintilimab in a patient with relapsed thymic carcinoma
.
Front Oncol
.
2022
;
12
:
1065137
.
34.
Zhang
L
,
Wu
Z
.
Adalimumab for sintilimab-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis in a patient with metastatic gastric malignancy: a case report and literature review
.
CCID
.
2023
;
16
:
457
61
.
35.
Zhao
Y
,
Cao
Y
,
Wang
X
,
Qian
T
.
Treatment of PD-1 inhibitor-associated toxic epidermal necrolysis: a case report and brief review
.
OTT
.
2022
;
15
:
345
51
.
36.
Pierre
AB
,
Jernigan
AM
,
Castellano
T
.
SJS/TEN immune-related dermatologic reaction secondary to immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab in skin of color
.
Gynecol Oncol Rep
.
2023
;
50
:
101290
.
37.
Jiang
Z
,
Chen
X
,
Sun
Z
,
Shen
X
,
Huang
Y
,
Liu
J
.
Toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens - johnson syndrome following sintilimab administration in a non-small cell lung cancer patient: a case report
.
JIR
.
2023
;
16
:
5061
7
.
38.
Zhu
J
,
Chen
G
,
He
Z
,
Zheng
Y
,
Gao
S
,
Li
J
, et al
.
Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a safety analysis of clinical trials and FDA pharmacovigilance database
.
eClinicalMedicine
.
2021
;
37
:
100951
.
39.
Khoo
AKM
,
Foo
CL
.
Toxic epidermal necrolysis in a burns centre: a 6-year review
.
Burns
.
1996
;
22
(
4
):
275
8
.
40.
Kim
E-J
,
Lim
H
,
Park
SY
,
Kim
S
,
Yoon
S-Y
,
Bae
Y-J
, et al
.
Rapid onset of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis after ingestion of acetaminophen
.
Asia Pac Allergy
.
2014
;
4
(
1
):
68
72
.
41.
Molina
GE
,
Yu
Z
,
Foreman
RK
,
Reynolds
KL
,
Chen
ST
.
Generalized bullous mucocutaneous eruption mimicking Stevens-Johnson syndrome in the setting of immune checkpoint inhibition: a multicenter case series
.
J Am Acad Dermatol
.
2020
;
83
(
5
):
1475
7
.
42.
Longoria
TC
,
Tewari
KS
.
Evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and metabolism of pembrolizumab in the treatment of melanoma
.
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol
.
2016
;
12
(
10
):
1247
53
.
43.
Garnett
WR
.
Lamotrigine: pharmacokinetics
.
J Child Neurol
.
1997
;
12
(
Suppl 1
):
S10
5
.
44.
Schiødt
FV
,
Ott
P
,
Christensen
E
,
Bondesen
S
.
The value of plasma acetaminophen half-life in antidote-treated acetaminophen overdosage
.
Clin Pharmacol Ther
.
2002
;
71
(
4
):
221
5
.
45.
Li
J
,
Levi
M
,
Charoin
J-E
,
Frey
N
,
Kheoh
T
,
Ren
S
, et al
.
Rituximab exhibits a long half-life based on a population pharmacokinetic analysis in non-hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) patients
.
Blood
.
2007
;
110
(
11
):
2371
.
46.
Dai
J
,
Almazan
TH
,
Hong
EK
,
Khodadoust
MS
,
Arai
S
,
Weng
W-K
, et al
.
Potential association of anti-CCR4 antibody mogamulizumab and graft-vs-host disease in patients with mycosis fungoides and sézary syndrome
.
JAMA Dermatol
.
2018
;
154
(
6
):
728
30
.
47.
Regazzi
MB
,
Iacona
I
,
Avanzini
MA
,
Arcaini
L
,
Merlini
G
,
Perfetti
V
, et al
.
Pharmacokinetic behavior of rituximab: a study of different schedules of administration for heterogeneous clinical settings
.
Ther Drug Monit
.
2005
;
27
(
6
):
785
92
.
48.
Rawson
K
,
Rani
R
,
Susan
S
,
Roy
G
,
Gupta
N
.
Drug induced erythema multiforme: reporting 2 cases
.
J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol
.
2018
;
30
(
3
):
306
.
49.
Lee
A-Y
.
Fixed drug eruptions: incidence, recognition, and avoidance
.
Am J Clin Dermatol
.
2000
;
1
(
5
):
277
85
.