I've been on Lamictal and Seroquel for about two years (I started both at the same time). Due to a complicated situation, I wound up running out of Seroquel for several days. I was wondering if the Seroquel could have somehow stopped me from getting a rash. The rash is on the opposite side of my kneecaps, from just about my butt to a few inches or so past the bend of my knee, on both of my legs, and showed up either while I was out of Seroquel or a couple of days after. For all I know, it could be from something else, but the timing makes me think otherwise. Does anyone know if there's a proven or hypothesized reason as to why that would happen? I am TERRIFIED that it's a rash from Lamictal, especially because a rash from that can be fatal. Also because of a complicated situation, I'm not sure when I'll be able to get to the doctor's.:[ I was also wondering if there's any way to differentiate between a rash from something else and a rash from Lamictal.
In conclusion, I want to know: if Seroquel could have somehow stopped me from getting a rash from Lamictal and running out of it could have led to a rash?; is there any proof that Seroquel could prevent a rash from Lamictal?; and how does one differentiate between a rash caused by Lamictal and one caused by something else?