Help for Future Research: Lessons Learned in Trial Design, Recruitment, and Delivery From the "hELP" Study

The efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib compared to methotrexate, in patients with vulvar lichen planus who have failed topical therapy with potent corticosteroids: a study protocol for a single-centre double-blinded randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Vulvar lichen planus (VLP) is a chronic vulvar dermatosis that is difficult to treat and can severely impair quality of life in the absence of adequate treatment. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to direct therapy for VLP. This randomised controlled trial will be the first double-blinded study comparing systemic treatments in VLP and aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of deucravacitinib compared to methotrexate, in patients with VLP who have failed treatment with potent topical corticosteroids.

METHODS

A total of 116 women aged ≥ 18 years with moderate to severe VLP (Genital Erosive Lichen Planus (GELP) score ≥ 5) will be recruited. All participants will initially be treated with Diprosone® OV daily, and their outcome will be assessed using the GELP score. At 8 weeks' follow-up, responders (GELP < 5) will be continued on Diprosone® OV. Non-responders (GELP ≥ 5) will be randomised 1:1 in a blinded fashion to receive (i) methotrexate 10 mg weekly + placebo tablet twice daily + folic acid 5 mg weekly or (ii) deucravacitinib 6 mg twice daily + placebo tablet weekly + folic acid 5 mg weekly. The primary endpoint is the difference in the mean change of GELP scores from baseline to week 32 between deucravacitinib and methotrexate groups.

DISCUSSION

High-quality evidence guiding the management of women with VLP is lacking. Once completed, this will be the first double-blinded RCT to compare systemic treatments in VLP. The results of this study will provide valuable, high-quality data to guide second-line therapy options for VLP that is recalcitrant to potent topical corticosteroids.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000682640. Registered on 26 June 2023.

Celebrating 20 years of the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network: Part 1 – developing and delivering high quality independent clinical trials

The UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network (UK DCTN) was formed in 2002 with the aim of developing and supporting high‐quality independent national clinical trials that address prioritized research questions for people with skin disease. Its philosophy is to democratize UK dermatological clinical research and to tackle important clinical questions that industry has no incentive to answer. The network also plays a key role in training and capacity development. Its membership of over 1000 individuals includes dermatology consultants, trainees, dermatology nurses, general practitioners, methodologists and patients. Its organizational structures are lean and include a co‐ordinating team based at the Centre of Evidence‐Based Dermatology in Nottingham, and an executive with independent members to ensure probity and business progression. A prioritization panel and steering group enable a pipeline of projects to be prioritized and refined for external funding from independent sources. The UK DCTN has supported and completed 12 national clinical trials, attracting investment of over £15 million into UK clinical dermatology research. Trials have covered a range of interventions from drugs such as doxycycline (BLISTER), silk clothing for eczema (CLOTHES) and surgical interventions for hidradenitis suppurativa (THESEUS). Trial results are published in prestigious journals and have global impact. Genuine partnership with patients and carers has been a strong feature of the network since its inception. The UK DCTN is proud of its first 20 years of collaborative work, and aims to remain at the forefront of independent dermatological health technology assessment, as well as expanding into areas including diagnostics, artificial intelligence, efficient studies and innovative designs.

Apremilast for genital erosive lichen planus in women (the AP-GELP Study): study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial

Background

Genital erosive lichen planus (GELP) is a genital subtype of lichen planus, a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease of unknown aetiology. In women, GELP is characterised by painful vulvo-vaginal mucosal erosions and scarring, often resulting in poor sexual health and reduced quality of life. Treatment options are limited and often with little effect. Apremilast, a phosphodiesterase 4-inhibitor, has been shown to have a positive effect on psoriasis and other inflammatory skin diseases. We aim to investigate the effect and safety of peroral apremilast in women with GELP in a randomised placebo-controlled double-blinded clinical trial.

Methods

We will recruit 42 adult women with characteristic clinical and/or histological features of moderate-to-severe GELP from a specialised vulva clinic in Oslo, Norway. The patients will be randomised 1:1 to either apremilast 30 mg BID (with an initial dose titration on days 1–6) or a placebo for 24 weeks. The concomitant use of topical corticosteroids will be allowed. The primary end point will be the mean GELP score, a clinical scoring system, at week 24 in the apremilast-treated patients versus the placebo-treated patients. The secondary end points will include the mean GELP score improvement from weeks 0 to 24, patient-reported use of topical steroids, the pain score on a visual analogue scale and the number of patients with GELP score improvements at weeks 16 and 24. The Physician Global Assessment , Patient Global Assessment and selected quality of life and sexual function assessments will be recorded at weeks 0, 16 and 24. The exploratory endpoints include description of immunohistochemical changes before and after apremilast therapy, assessed in vulvar or vaginal biopsies at weeks 0 and 24. Regular follow-ups for possible adverse events will be conducted.

Discussion

The study design is based on experience from studies on apremilast in other inflammatory skin diseases using equivalent apremilast doses for approved indications. The trial may provide evidence for the use of apremilast in women with this burdensome genital dermatosis.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT0365666. Registered on 4 September 2018.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05428-w.

Clinicopathologic Diagnostic Criteria for Vulvar Lichen Planus

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to describe the clinical and histopathologic features required for a clinicopathologic diagnosis of vulvar lichen planus (LP), which is divided into 3 types: erosive, classic, and hypertrophic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The International Society of the Study of Vulvovaginal Diseases tasked the Difficult Pathologic Diagnoses committee with development of a consensus document for the clinicopathologic diagnosis of vulvar LP, lichen sclerosus, and differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia. The LP subgroup reviewed the literature and formulated diagnostic criteria, then approved by the International Society of the Study of Vulvovaginal Diseases membership.

RESULTS

The clinicopathologic diagnosis of erosive LP incorporates 5 criteria: (a) a well-demarcated, glazed red macule or patch at labia minora, vestibule, and/or vagina, (b) disease affects hairless skin, mucocutaneous junction, and/or nonkeratinized squamous epithelium, (c) evidence of basal layer damage, categorized as degenerative or regenerative, (d) a closely applied band-like lymphocytic infiltrate, and (e) absent subepithelial sclerosis. The clinicopathologic diagnoses of classic and hypertrophic LP each require a characteristic clinical appearance accompanied by hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, acanthosis, basal layer degeneration, a closely applied lymphocytic infiltrate, and absent dermal sclerosis, with hypertrophic LP showing marked epithelial abnormality compared with classic LP.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicopathological correlation yields the most reliable diagnosis of vulvar LP. Disease appearance overlaps with other physiologic, dermatologic, infectious, and neoplastic entities; a low threshold for biopsy at all morphologically distinct areas is recommended. Use of the histopathologic criteria described in this document may reduce the nondiagnostic biopsy rate for clinically diagnosed LP.