Male genital lichen planus: A retrospective study of 89 cases

Lichen Planus: What is New in Diagnosis and Treatment?

Lichen planus (LP), an idiopathic, multifaceted chronic inflammatory disease with a heterogeneous clinical presentation, affects approximately 0.5-1% of the population. The various clinical manifestations of LP fall into three broad categories, namely cutaneous, appendageal, and mucosal, with further subclassification depending on the morphology and distribution patterns of individual lesions. There is mounting evidence that LP has systemic associations, including autoimmune conditions, glucose intolerance, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disorders. Cutaneous hypertrophic and mucosal forms of LP are at a heightened risk for malignant transformation. Familiarity with these potential associations in conjunction with long-term follow-up and regular screening could lead to a timely diagnosis and management of concomitant conditions. In addition, the frequent quality of life (QoL) impairment in LP underscores the need for a comprehensive approach including psychological evaluation and support. Several treatment strategies have been attempted, though most of them have not been adopted in clinical practice because of suboptimal benefit-to-risk ratios or lack of evidence. More recent studies toward pathogenesis-driven treatments have identified Janus kinase inhibitors such as tofacitinib, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors such as apremilast, and biologics targeting the interleukin-23/interleukin-17 pathway as novel therapeutic options, resulting in a dramatic change of the treatment landscape of LP. This contemporary review focuses on the diagnosis and management of LP, and places emphasis on more recently described targeted treatment options.

Bidirectional Association between Lichen Planus and Hepatitis C-An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic, inflammatory mucocutaneous disorder associated with systemic diseases such as hepatitis C (HCV). The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between LP and HCV bidirectionally through a systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive search of studies published was performed in the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Out of 18,491 articles, 192 studies were included. The global prevalence of HCV positive (HCV+) in LP patients registered from 143 studies was 9.42% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.27-11.58%], and from these, 84 studies showed HCV+ 4-fold more frequent in LP than a control group (OR, 4.48; 95% CI, 3.48-5.77). The global prevalence of LP in patients HCV+ recorded from 49 studies was 7.05% (95% CI, 4.85-9.26%), and from these, 15 registered a 3-fold more LP in HCV (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.14-6.24). HCV+ in LP patients showed great geographic variability (OR, 2.7 to 8.57), and the predominantly cutaneous location was higher (OR, 5.95) than the oral location (OR, 3.49). LP in HCV+ patients was more frequent in the Eastern Mediterranean (OR, 5.51; 95% CI, 1.40-15.57). There is a higher prevalence of HCV+ in LP and vice versa than in the control group, especially in certain geographical areas that should be taken into consideration when doing screening in countries with an upper prevalence of HCV among the general population.

Lichen Planus Activity and Damage Index (LiPADI)–Creation of the Questionnaire

Introduction: Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic autoimmune disease that affects skin, oral and genital mucosa, and other sites. Basic difficulties in assessment of LP are multitude of disease forms and diverse locations of lesions. Moreover, there is lack of objective and consolidated tool for assessment of disease severity and LP progression. Objective: The aim of the study was to develop a valid evaluation tool of LP severity, which will enable disease assessment in a repetitive way. Materials and methods: A combined tool called Lichen Planus Activity and Damage Index (LiPADI) was developed to assess the severity of LP skin, mucosal, and nail lesions as well as hair loss/scaring alopecia to provide an integrative scoring for LP activity and damage caused by the disease. Skin lesions were assessed in nine locations: scalp, face, chest, abdomen, back and buttocks, arms, hands, legs, and feet. The assessment of lesion activity included erythema, hypertrophy, and scaling, while the damage was reflected by the assessment of hyperpigmentation and scaring/atrophy. In addition, mucosal lesions, nail abnormalities, hair loss, and scarring alopecia were evaluated as well. LiPADI scoring was compared with quality of life assessed with the Dermatology Life Quality Index, EQ-5D calculator, pain and pruritus intensity assessed with the Numerical Rating Scale as well as with the patient and physician global assessment. Results: Our results show that LiPADI well reflects the LP patient’s clinical condition. The obtained results were in line with other indicators assessed. In addition, it was possible to evaluate patients with various forms and locations of LP, what indicates its versatility. Conclusions: LiPADI seems to be a useful tool for measurement the severity of the LP and its progress over time, which could help to monitor the effectiveness of the patients’ treatment.