Vulvo-vaginal lichen planus: A focussed review for the clinician

The Barriers and Perceived Benefits to Vulvar Self-examination in the Management of Vulvar Lichen Sclerosus

OBJECTIVES

It is common practice to advise people with vulvar lichen sclerosus to perform vulvar self-examination (VSE) to optimize topical therapy and detect changes that may represent active disease, scarring, and/or squamous cell carcinoma development. The aim of this study was to better understand people's willingness and potential barriers to performing VSE.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

A cross-sectional survey was undertaken of all patients with vulvar LS presenting to a tertiary referral vulvar dermatology clinic in Australia, from June 2022 to January 2023. Patients who did not speak and read English were excluded. Ethics approval was obtained.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight (66%) of 118 eligible patients completed the survey. Fifty-three (68%) of patients had examined their vulva at least once. Forty-one (49%) had been recommended VSE by a medical practitioner. All those recommended VSE had performed VSE at least once. In contrast, only 10 (27%) of the 37 patients not recommended VSE by a health professional had ever performed VSE. Seventy-nine percent of all patients reported that they were very likely or likely to perform VSE if it was recommended.Patients with higher education level and tampon use were more likely to perform VSE. Self-reported back problems were associated with being less likely to perform VSE.

CONCLUSIONS

More widespread VSE may result in earlier detection of the complications of vulvar lichen sclerosus. Most women would perform VSE if recommended by a health care provider; however, currently only half are receiving this advice. Further research should be performed to determine whether VSE affects clinical outcomes.

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.

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.

Identifying predictors of systemic immunosuppressive treatment of vulvovaginal lichen planus: A retrospective cohort study of 122 women

BACKGROUND

Between 20% and 40% of women with vulvovaginal lichen planus (VLP) fail to respond to first-line ultra-potent topical corticosteroid treatment and require systemic immunosuppression to control disease. No data exist regarding risk factors for patients with severe VLP requiring systemic immunosuppression. We aimed to identify clinical features that predict women with VLP who are at risk of severe, recalcitrant disease requiring eventual escalation to systemic treatment.

METHODS

A chart review was performed on a cohort of 122 adult women with VLP followed prospectively for 15 years by the same clinician in a private dermatology practice in Australia between 1 January 2004 and 1 October 2021. Uni- and multivariable binary logistical regression analyses were performed to identify clinical features distinguishing women eventually requiring systemic treatment of VLP against those whose VLP was controlled with topical corticosteroids alone.

RESULTS

The mean age at diagnosis of VLP was 61 years, with 35 women (28.7%) requiring systemic treatment of VLP. A multivariable regression model utilising 'Age at Diagnosis' (adjusted OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-0.99), 'Non-Caucasian Ethnicity' (adjusted OR = 10.3, 95% CI 2.27-73.9) and 'Vulvar Pruritus' (adjusted OR = 2.69, 95% CI 1.11-6.86) demonstrated moderate predictive capacity, with specificity and sensitivity for predicting whether a patient will require systemic treatment for VLP of 95.3% and 40.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings may indicate women with VLP who are younger, of non-Caucasian ethnicity, and presenting with vulval pruritus are the highest risk of severe disease requiring systemic immunosuppressive treatment and may benefit most from earlier initiation of systemic treatment.

Successful treatment of vulvovaginal lichen planus with tildrakizumab: A case series of 24 patients

Vulvovaginal lichen planus (VLP) is a chronic inflammatory dermatosis affecting the genital skin and mucosa that can have a profound negative impact on patient quality of life. Up to 43% of women with VLP require systemic immunosuppression to achieve disease remission, and some individuals prove to be highly treatment resistant. We present a case series of 24 women with severe VLP who successfully achieved remission using off-label treatment with the interleukin-23 (IL-23) monoclonal antibody blocker tildrakizumab, and highlight tildrakizumab as a treatment for women with recalcitrant VLP who have failed more conservative treatments.

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.