Betamethasone valerate aerosol in the treatment of oral lichen planus

Oral lichen planus: comparative efficacy and treatment costs-a systematic review

Objective

To compare the reported efficacy and costs of available interventions used for the management of oral lichen planus (OLP).

Materials and methods

A systematic literature search was performed from database inception until March 2021 in MEDLINE via PubMed and the Cochrane library following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing an active intervention with placebo or different active interventions for OLP management were considered.

Results

Seventy (70) RCTs were included. The majority of evidence suggested efficacy of topical steroids (dexamethasone, clobetasol, fluocinonide, triamcinolone), topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus, pimecrolimus, cyclosporine), topical retinoids, intra-lesional triamcinolone, aloe-vera gel, photodynamic therapy, and low-level laser therapies for OLP management. Based on the estimated cost per month and evidence for efficacy and side-effects, topical steroids (fluocinonide > dexamethasone > clobetasol > triamcinolone) appear to be more cost-effective than topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus > pimecrolimus > cyclosporine) followed by intra-lesional triamcinolone.

Conclusion

Of common treatment regimens for OLP, topical steroids appear to be the most economical and efficacious option followed by topical calcineurin inhibitors. Large-scale multi-modality, prospective trials in which head-to-head comparisons interventions are compared are required to definitely assess the cost-effectiveness of OLP treatments.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-022-02168-4.

Efficacy of topical administration for oral lichen planus: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of topical administration for oral lichen planus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic database search (1st January 1946 to 1st May 2020) for randomised controlled trials identified 34 studies involving eight interventions (clobetasol, betamethasone, triamcinolone, dexamethasone, fluocinolone, tacrolimus, pimecrolimus, and cyclosporine); these studies were subjected to network meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons [efficacy indicators: clinical response rate, symptom-reducing effect (visual analogue scale score), sign-reducing effect (Thongprasom-scale score) and relapse; safety indicator: adverse event occurrence].

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, tacrolimus had the best clinical response rate (odds ratio (OR), 57.78 [95% CI 3.15-1060.52]; P-score, 0.8654) and cyclosporine had the worst (OR, 3.61[95% CI 0.20-66.62]; P-score, 0.2236); tacrolimus had the best symptom-reducing effect (standardised mean difference (SMD), 1.06 [95% CI 0.41-1.71]; P-score, 0.9323) and fluocinolone had the worst (SMD, -0.54 [95% CI -1.44-0.36]; P-score, 0.0157); dexamethasone had the best sign-reducing effect (SMD, 3.60 [95% CI 1.74-5.45]; P-score, 0.8306) and clobetasol had the worst (SMD, 2.63 [95% CI 1.66-3.61]; P-score, 0.2581); and pimecrolimus performed best (OR, 0.04 [95% CI 0.00-0.64]; P-score, 0.9227) and clobetasol performed the worst [OR, 0.60; 95% CI 0.15-2.45; P-score, 0.2545] in reducing relapse. Regarding safety, dexamethasone was the safest compared with placebo [OR, 0.37; 95% CI 0.05-2.57; P-score, 0.9337), whereas fluocinolone ranked low for safety [OR, 9.48; 95% CI 1.50- 60.03; P-score, 0.1189].

CONCLUSIONS

The relative ranking of topical administration varies according to the different indicators. Based on the joint consideration of clinical response rate and adverse event occurrence, dexamethasone, triamcinolone and betamethasone are recommended for better efficacy and safety. The optimal treatment for oral lichen patients varies under different conditions.

Treatment trends in oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions (Review)

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory disease, associated with altered cell-mediated immunological function. It has long-term evolution, repeated exacerbations, sometimes painful and resistant to treatment, even all of these, OLP significantly affects patient's life quality. Not least, OLP is accompanied by an increased risk of malignant transformation. A wide spectrum of therapeutic options is available, but none are curative. In this review, 58 structured studies on the clinical symptomatology and treatment strategy of OLP were analyzed. The literature research was performed according to the criteria of the PRISMA system. This study summarizes current knowledge regarding management of OLP and oral lichenoid lesions, discusses the challenges of choosing an adequate treatment and, in attempt to improve the quality of patient life, trying to describe a therapeutic algorithm that takes into consideration the clinical features of the disease. Current OLP therapy aims at eliminating all mucosal-related lesions, reduce symptomatology and decrease the risk of oral cancer and include corticosteroids, immunomodulatory agents, retinoids, ultraviolet irradiation and/or laser therapy.

Interventions for treating oral lichen planus: corticosteroid therapies

BACKGROUND

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a relatively common chronic T cell-mediated disease, which can cause significant pain, particularly in its erosive or ulcerative forms. As pain is the indication for treatment of OLP, pain resolution is the primary outcome for this review. This review is an update of a version last published in 2011, but focuses on the evidence for corticosteroid treatment only. A second review considering non-corticosteroid treatments is in progress.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and safety of corticosteroids, in any formulation, for treating people with symptoms of oral lichen planus.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 25 February 2019: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of any local or systemic corticosteroid treatment compared with a placebo, a calcineurin inhibitor, another corticosteroid, any other local or systemic (or both) drug, or the same corticosteroid plus an adjunctive treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently scanned the titles and abstracts of all reports identified, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data from included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we expressed the estimates of effects of an intervention as risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. The statistical unit of analysis was the participant. We conducted meta-analyses only with studies of similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 studies (1474 participants) in this review. We assessed seven studies at low risk of bias overall, 11 at unclear and the remaining 17 studies at high risk of bias. We present results for our main outcomes, pain and clinical resolution measured at the end of the treatment course (between one week and six months), and adverse effects. The limited evidence available for comparisons between different corticosteroids, and corticosteroids versus alternative or adjunctive treatments is presented in the full review. Corticosteroids versus placebo Three studies evaluated the effectiveness and safety of topical corticosteroids in an adhesive base compared to placebo. We were able to combine two studies in meta-analyses, one evaluating clobetasol propionate and the other flucinonide. We found low-certainty evidence that pain may be more likely to be resolved when using a topical corticosteroid rather than a placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.36; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%). The results for clinical effect of treatment and adverse effects were inconclusive (clinical resolution: RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 47.58; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence; adverse effects RR 1.48, 95% 0.48 to 4.56; 3 studies, 88 participants, I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids versus calcineurin inhibitors Three studies compared topical clobetasol propionate versus topical tacrolimus. We found very low-certainty evidence regarding any difference between tacrolimus and clobetasol for the outcomes pain resolution (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88; 2 studies, 100 participants; I² = 80%), clinical resolution (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99; 2 studies, 52 participants; I² = 95%) and adverse effects (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.83; 2 studies, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence) . One study (39 participants) compared topical clobetasol and ciclosporin, and provided only very low-certainty evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution with clobetasol (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.93), pain resolution (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.76 to 5.86) and adverse effects (RR 6.32, 95% CI 0.84 to 47.69). Two studies (60 participants) that compared triamcinolone and tacrolimus found uncertain evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.35; very low-certainty evidence) and that there may be a lower rate of adverse effects in the triamcinolone group (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report on pain resolution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroids have been first line for the treatment of OLP. This review found that these drugs, delivered topically as adhesive gels or similar preparations, may be more effective than placebo for reducing the pain of symptomatic OLP; however, with the small number of studies and participants, our confidence in the reliability of this finding is low. The results for clinical response were inconclusive, and we are uncertain about adverse effects. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that calcineurin inhibitors, specifically tacrolimus, may be more effective at resolving pain than corticosteroids, although there is some uncertainty about adverse effects and clinical response to tacrolimus showed conflicting results.

Topical tacrolimus, triamcinolone acetonide, and placebo in oral lichen planus: a pilot randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To carry out a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the effectiveness of topical tacrolimus (TAC), triamcinolone acetonide (TRI), and placebo (PLA) in symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A clinical score (CS, range 0-130) was developed to measure the clinical signs and symptoms of OLP. Twenty-seven OLP patients with a CS of ≥20 were randomly allocated to receive 0.1% TAC ointment (n = 11), 0.1% TRI paste (n = 7), or Orabase^® paste as PLA (n = 9) for 3 weeks. If the CS dropped ≥20% (interpreted as response), the patients continued the same medication for another 3 weeks. If the CS dropped <20% or increased (non-response), the patients were switched to TAC for 6 weeks. A 6-month follow-up period ensued. The primary outcome variable was the change in CS from baseline to week 3. In primary outcome analysis, CS values between the treatment arms were compared.

RESULTS

Tacrolimus and TRI were more effective (P = 0.012 and 0.031, respectively) than PLA in reducing the CS at week 3. No difference in the efficacy was noted between TAC and TRI (P = 0.997).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot RCT provides evidence for the effectiveness of TAC and TRI over PLA in the management of OLP.

Mucosal lichen planus: an evidence-based treatment update

BACKGROUND

Mucosal lichen planus (MLP) is a chronic mucosal disorder that often poses a therapeutic challenge to dermatologists, dentists, and gynecologists. To relieve patients' pain and discomfort, improve their quality of life, and achieve clinical improvement, various therapeutic approaches can be considered for this disease. Based on the current literature it is difficult to define any particular treatment as the main therapeutic modality.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review the current literature for the effectiveness of available treatment modalities for MLP.

METHODS

All of the randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of MLP were collected by searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Meta-analysis was performed, if possible.

RESULTS

Topical betamethasone valerate, clobetasol-17-propionate, and fluocinonide are effective in the treatment of oral lichen planus (OLP) when compared with placebo. Calcineurin inhibitors and topical retinoids are also beneficial treatment options.

LIMITATIONS

The review does not include therapies with a lower level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Topical corticosteroids are the mainstay of therapy for OLP. High-quality evidence is lacking for the treatment of lichen planus.

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites

BACKGROUND

Erosive lichen planus (ELP) affecting mucosal surfaces is a chronic autoimmune disease of unknown aetiology. It is often more painful and debilitating than the non-erosive types of lichen planus. Treatment is difficult and aimed at palliation rather than cure. Several topical and systemic agents have been used with varying results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions in the treatment of erosive lichen planus affecting the oral, anogenital, and oesophageal regions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to September 2009: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched reference lists of articles and online trials registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of any topical or systemic interventions for ELP affecting either the mouth, genital region, or both areas, in participants of any age, gender, or race.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measures were as follows:(a) Pain reduction using a visual analogue scale rated by participants; (b) Physician Global Assessment; and (c) Participant global self-assessment.Changes in scores at the end of therapy compared with baseline were analysed.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 15 RCTs were identified, giving a total of 473 participants with ELP. All studies involved oral ELP only. Six of the 15 studies included participants with non-erosive lichen planus. In these studies, only the erosive subgroup was included for intended subgroup analysis. We were unable to pool data from any of the nine studies with only ELP participants or any of the six studies with the ELP subgroup, due to small numbers and the heterogeneity of the interventions, design methods, and outcome variables between studies. One small study involving 50 participants found that 0.025% clobetasol propionate administered as liquid microspheres significantly reduced pain compared to ointment (Mean difference (MD) -18.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -28.57 to -8.03), but outcome data was only available in 45 participants. However, in another study, a significant difference in pain was seen in the small subgroup of 11 ELP participants, favouring ciclosporin solution over 0.1% triamcinolone acetonide in orabase (MD -1.40, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.94). Aloe vera gel was 6 times more likely to result in at least a 50% improvement in pain symptoms compared to placebo in a study involving 45 ELP participants (Risk ratio (RR) 6.16, 95% CI 2.35 to 16.13). In a study involving 20 ELP participants, 1% pimecrolimus cream was 7 times more likely to result in a strong improvement as rated by the Physician Global Assessment when compared to vehicle cream (RR 7.00, 95% CI 1.04 to 46.95).There is no overwhelming evidence for the efficacy of a single treatment, including topical steroids, which are the widely accepted first-line therapy for ELP. Several side-effects were reported, but none were serious. With topical corticosteroids, the main side-effects were oral candidiasis and dyspepsia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that there is only weak evidence for the effectiveness of any of the treatments for oral ELP, whilst no evidence was found for genital ELP. More RCTs on a larger scale are needed in the oral and genital ELP populations. We suggest that future studies should have standardised outcome variables that are clinically important to affected individuals. We recommend the measurement of a clinical severity score and a participant-rated symptom score using agreed and validated severity scoring tools. We also recommend the development of a validated combined severity scoring tool for both oral and genital populations.

Interventions for treating oral lichen planus

BACKGROUND

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a common chronic autoimmune disease associated with cell-mediated immunological dysfunction. Symptomatic OLP is painful and complete healing is rare.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of any form of therapy for symptomatic OLP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 26 January 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 26 January 2011) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 26 January 2011). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of therapy for symptomatic OLP which compared treatment with a placebo or between treatments or no intervention were considered in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The titles and abstracts of all reports identified were scanned independently by two review authors. All studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias and data were extracted. For dichotomous outcomes, the estimates of effects of an intervention were expressed as risk ratios (RR) together with 95% confidence intervals. For continuous outcomes, mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals were used to summarise the data for each group. The statistical unit was the patient. Meta-analyses were done only with studies of similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

28 trials were included in this review. Pain is the primary outcome of this review because it is the indication for treatment of OLP, and therefore this review indicates as effective, only those treatments which significantly reduce pain. Although topical steroids are considered first line treatment for symptomatic OLP, we identified no RCTs that compared steroids with placebo. There is no evidence from the three trials of pimecrolimus that this treatment is better than placebo in reducing pain from OLP. There is weak evidence from two trials, at unclear and high risk of bias respectively, that aloe vera may be associated with a reduction in pain compared to placebo, but it was not possible to pool the pain data from these trials. There is weak and unreliable evidence from two small trials, at high risk of bias, that cyclosporin may reduce pain and clinical signs of OLP, but meta-analysis of these trials was not possible.There were five trials that compared steroids with calcineurin inhibitors, each evaluating a different pair of interventions. There is no evidence from these trials that there is a difference between treatment with steroids compared to calcineurin inhibitors with regard to reducing pain associated with OLP. From six trials there is no evidence that any specific steroid therapy is more or less effective at reducing pain compared to another type or dose of steroid.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although topical steroids are considered to be first line treatment, we identified no RCTs that compared steroids with placebo in patients with symptomatic OLP. From the trials in this review there is no evidence that one steroid is any more effective than another. There is weak evidence that aloe vera may reduce the pain of OLP and improve the clinical signs of disease compared to placebo. There is weak and unreliable evidence that cyclosporin may reduce pain and clinical signs of OLP. There is no evidence that other calcineurin inhibitors reduce pain compared to either steroids or placebo. From the 28 trials included in this systematic review, the wide range of interventions compared means there is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of any specific treatment as being superior.

Therapeutic Management of Oral Lichen Planus: A Review for the Clinicians

Lichen planus is a chronic, noninfectious, inflammatory disease of skin and mucous membrane. Intraorally the buccal mucosa, tongue and gingiva are the sites commonly involved. It affects women more often than men in a ratio 3:2. It has well-recognized clinical signs and symptoms, the symptoms may range from none, through mild discomfort to severe burning sensation. In comparison with cutaneous form, the oral lesions are more resistant to therapy and are less likely to undergo spontaneous remission.

Treatment is administered mainly to resolve symptoms and discomfort. Choice of treatment may vary from patient to patient depending on the severity of the lesion and systemic condition of the patient. A variety of agents have been employed to treat oral lichen planus, but corticosteroid remains the mainstay of treatment. However, in the recent past, newer drugs like Tacrolimus have shown promising results. In view of fact that there is a risk of malignant transformation of atrophic and erosive forms of oral lichen planus, the patients need to be actively treated and kept on long-term follow-up. This article highlights various agents used in treatment of oral lichen planus, their mechanism of action, dosage and untoward effects.

Pimecrolimus 1% cream for oral erosive lichen planus: a 6-week randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study with a 6-week open-label extension to assess efficacy and safety

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of topical pimecrolimus 1% cream in the treatment of oral erosive lichen planus.

DESIGN

A 6-week randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase followed by a 6-week open-label phase.

SETTING

Outpatients of the Department of Dermatology, University of Utah.

PATIENTS

Twenty-one patients with oral erosive lichen planus were randomized and treated with either pimecrolimus 1% cream or vehicle cream.

INTERVENTION

Pimecrolimus 1% cream, or its vehicle, were applied twice daily for 6 weeks to each side of the mouth with a 2×2 inch gauze pad folded in half and placed directly on the erosive lesion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy was based on clinical evaluation of Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) of the overall severity of the disease, erythema, measurement of the size of any target erosion in millimetres, and assessment of spontaneous pain. Blood levels of pimecrolimus were monitored in all subjects on day 0 and repeated on day 7.

RESULTS

Pimecrolimus 1% cream was superior to vehicle cream in reducing mean IGA, pain, and erosion size. For the vehicle group that entered the open-label phase, pimecrolimus 1% cream improved the mean IGA, pain, erosion size, and erythema. Pimecrolimus levels were detected in nine out of 10 of the pimecrolimus-treated subjects. These levels were consistently low. The pimecrolimus cream was well-tolerated. No clinically relevant, drug-related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Pimecrolimus 1% cream was superior to vehicle in reducing pain, erythema, decreasing erosion size, and improving overall severity of disease when compared with vehicle treatment.

Oral lichen planus: clinical features, etiology, treatment and management; a review of literature

Lichen planus is a chronic inflammatory mucocutaneous disease. Mucosal lesions are classified into six clinical forms and there is malignant potential for two forms of OLP; therefore, follow-up should be considered. There are many un-established etiological factors for OLP and some different treatment modalities are based on etiology. The aims of current OLP therapy are to eliminate mucosal erythema and ulceration, alleviate symptoms and reduce the risk of oral cancer. We have used review papers, case reports, cohort studies, and case-and-control studies published from 1985 to 2010 to prepare this review of literature.

Oral lichen planus and lichenoid reactions: etiopathogenesis, diagnosis, management and malignant transformation

Lichen planus, a chronic autoimmune, mucocutaneous disease affects the oral mucosa (oral lichen planus or OLP) besides the skin, genital mucosa, scalp and nails. An immune mediated pathogenesis is recognized in lichen planus although the exact etiology is unknown. The disease most commonly affects middle-aged females. Oral lichenoid reactions (OLR) which are considered variants of OLP, may be regarded as a disease by itself or as an exacerbation of an existing OLP, by the presence of medication (lichenoid drug reactions) or dental materials (contact hypersensitivity). OLP usually presents as white striations (Wickham's striae), white papules, white plaque, erythema, erosions or blisters. Diagnosis of OLP is established either by clinical examination only or by clinical examination with histopathologic confirmation. Direct immunofluorescence examination is only used as an adjunct to the above method of diagnosis and to rule out specific autoimmune diseases such as pemphigus and pemphigoid. Histopathologic features of OLP and OLR are similar with suggestions of certain discriminatory features by some authors. Topical corticosteroids are the treatment of choice for OLP although several other medications have been studied including retinoids, tacrolimus, cyclosporine and photodynamic therapy. Certain OLP undergo malignant transformation and the exact incidence and mechanisms are still controversial. In this paper, etiopathogenesis, diagnosis, management and malignant transformation of OLP and OLR have been reviewed.

Oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions: diagnostic and therapeutic considerations

Several therapeutic agents have been investigated for the treatment of oral lichen planus (OLP). Among these are corticosteroids, retinoids, cyclosporine, and phototherapy, in addition to other treatment modalities. A systematic review of clinical trials showed that particularly topical corticosteroids are often effective in the management of symptomatic OLP lichen planus. Systemic corticosteroids should be only considered for severe widespread OLP and for lichen planus involving other mucocutaneous sites. Because of the ongoing controversy in the literature about the possible premalignant character of OLP, periodic follow-up is recommended. There is a spectrum of oral lichen planus-like ("lichenoid") lesions that may confuse the differential diagnosis. These include lichenoid contact lesions, lichenoid drug reactions and lichenoid lesions of graft-versus-host disease. In regard to the approach to oral lichenoid contact lesions the value of patch testing remains controversial. Confirmation of the diagnosis of an oral lichenoid drug reaction may be difficult, since empiric withdrawal of the suspected drug and/or its substitution by an alternative agent may be complicated. Oral lichenoid lesions of graft-versus-host disease (OLL-GVHD) are recognized to have an association with malignancy. Local therapy for these lesions rests in topical agents, predominantly corticosteroids.

Current controversies in oral lichen planus: report of an international consensus meeting. Part 2. Clinical management and malignant transformation

Despite recent advances in understanding the immunopathogenesis of oral lichen planus (LP), the initial triggers of lesion formation and the essential pathogenic pathways are unknown. It is therefore not surprising that the clinical management of oral LP poses considerable difficulties to the dermatologist and the oral physician. A consensus meeting was held in France in March 2003 to discuss the most controversial aspects of oral LP. Part 1 of the meeting report focused on (1) the relationship between oral LP and viral infection, with special emphasis on hepatitis C virus (HCV), and (2) oral LP pathogenesis, in particular the immune mechanisms resulting in lymphocyte infiltration and keratinocyte apoptosis. Part 2 focuses on patient management and therapeutic approaches and includes discussion on malignant transformation of oral LP.

A systematic review of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of treatments used in oral lichen planus

BACKGROUND

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is one of the commoner conditions seen in oral medicine clinics. Current treatments are palliative rather than curative. Numerous treatments have been tried but many have not been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness and safety of any therapy compared with placebo for the treatment of symptomatic OLP.

METHODS

A systematic review of 11 RCTs, totalling 223 patients was done. The main outcome measures used were improvement of signs (erythema, reticulation, ulceration) and symptoms (pain, discomfort) usually after 8 weeks of therapy.

RESULTS

Eleven interventions were grouped into four therapeutic classes (topical ciclosporins, topical or systemic retinoids, topical steroids and phototherapy) for comparison. No therapy was replicated exactly. Trials recording the same outcomes in each therapeutic class were pooled. The largest number of pooled trials was four. Small odds ratios with very wide confidence intervals indicating statistically significant but imprecisely known treatment benefits were seen in all but one trial. Only systemic agents were associated with treatment toxicities; all other side-effects were mild and mainly local.

CONCLUSIONS

The results are tempered by the small study sizes, lack of replication, lack of standardized outcome measures and the very high likelihood of publication bias. Therefore this review provides only circumstantial evidence for the superiority of the assessed interventions over placebo for the palliation of symptomatic OLP. There is a need for larger placebo-controlled RCTs with carefully selected and standardized outcome measures.

The effectiveness of 1% pimecrolimus cream in the treatment of oral erosive lichen planus

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, relative safety, and tolerability of 1% pimecrolimus cream in the treatment of oral erosive lichen planus (OELP).

METHODS

Twenty patients with OELP were randomized into equal groups; group 1 applied 1% pimecrolimus cream twice daily to their oral lesions for 4 weeks, whereas group 2 applied a placebo cream. Photographs of the lesions were taken and analyzed for areas of ulceration, erythema, and reticulation. Discomfort scores were also assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS). Blood samples were taken at baseline and at study completion; a complete blood count with differential and comprehensive metabolic panel was ordered. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used.

RESULTS

The experimental group showed a decrease in ulceration (alpha = 0.068) and erythema (alpha = 0.005) at the mid-point with continued reduction of erythema at the final (alpha = 0.075) time measurement. The control group demonstrated an increase in reticulation at the mid-point (alpha = 0.017) and final (alpha = 0.007) time measurement. The VAS scores for the experimental group decreased during the study (alpha = 0.022). Blood levels were within the normal range.

CONCLUSIONS

The OELP lesion size in the 1% pimecrolimus group decreased and the pimecrolimus cream was found to significantly reduce the patient's pain scores. Further study of 1% pimecrolimus as therapy for OELP is warranted since it was shown to be effective, relatively safe, and well tolerated by patients within the limits of this short-term study.

Fluticasone propionate spray and betamethasone sodium phosphate mouthrinse: a randomized crossover study for the treatment of symptomatic oral lichen planus

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP) has been palliated with a wide spectrum of topical and systemic therapies. Although the majority of management strategies include corticosteroids, few have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the acceptability and efficacy of topical fluticasone propionate spray (FP) and betamethasone sodium phosphate mouthrinse (BSP) upon the signs and symptoms of OLP, assessing patient quality of life changes as a consequence of these therapies.

METHODS

We implemented a randomized, crossover study in which each drug was administered for a period of 6 weeks with an intervening washout period of 2 weeks at an outpatient oral medicine unit in London, United Kingdom. We treated 48 patients with biopsy-proven symptomatic OLP, and 44 patients (92%) completed the study. The dosage was 50 microg two dose unit sprays and BSP 500 microg, each 4 times daily. Symptomatic improvement was evaluated by means of a visual analogue scale (VAS), the McGill pain score, the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), and Oral Health Quality of Life (OHQoL) questionnaires. The total surface area of the lesions, including all white, erythematous, and ulcerative lesions was measured at each visit. The efficacy, ease of application, and adverse effects associated with each medication were recorded.

RESULTS

Both FP and BSP mouthwash caused both a statistically significant reduction in painful symptoms as measured by the VAS and improvement in quality of life as measured by the OHIP and OHoQL indices. There was no significant difference between the two corticosteroids in their efficacy in reducing painful symptoms (measured by the VAS) or in their effect on patient quality of life. Both FP and BSP significantly reduced the surface area of oral lesions. However, FP was statistically significantly better than BSP in reducing lesion surface area. There was no statistically significant difference between the patient-assessed effects of the 2 therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

FP and BSP are both effective in the short-term clinical management of symptomatic OLP. FP is more acceptable to patients than BSP because of the convenience of the spray form.

Management of oral lichen planus

Lichen planus is a relatively common disorder of the stratified squamous epithelia. Most dental and medical practitioners see patients with lichen planus, but not all are recognized as having the disease. Patients with lichen planus may have concomitant involvement of the disease in multiple sites. Oral lichen planus lesions usually have a distinctive clinical morphology and characteristic distribution, but oral lichen planus may also present a confusing array of patterns and forms, and other disorders may clinically mimic oral lichen planus. The etiopathogenesis of lichen planus appears to be complex, with interactions between genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Much has now been clarified about the etiopathogenic mechanisms involved and interesting new associations, such as with liver disease, have emerged. The management of lichen planus is still not totally satisfactory in all cases and there is as yet no definitive treatment that results in long term remission, but there have been advances in the control of the condition. Amongst the many treatments available, high potency topical corticosteroids remain the most reliably effective, though topical cyclosporine, topical tacrolimus, or systemic corticosteroids may be indicated in patients whose condition is unresponsive to topical corticosteroids.

The management of oral lichen planus

Oral lichen planus is a relatively common inflammatory disease affecting between 0.5% and 2.2% of the population in epidemiological studies. In contrast with cutaneous lichen planus (LP), in which the clinical course is often mild and resolves within 2 years, mucosal LP tends to follow a more chronic course often punctuated by acute exacerbations. Furthermore, although distinct clinical subtypes such as reticular, atrophic, hypertrophic and erosive forms are well recognized, more than one clinical phenotype may be seen at a time. The rare association with oral neoplasia should always be considered and high-risk patients must be kept under close observation. Thus the management of this disorder will vary widely both between patients, and for individual patients, with fluctuations in disease activity. Here we discuss the therapeutic options available and review the evidence for their use.

Interventions for treating oral lichen planus

BACKGROUND

Oral lichen planus is a chronic autoimmune disease of unknown aetiology that affects the inner surface of the mouth. The symptomatic forms are painful,tend to worsen with age and with remissions being rare. Current treatment is palliative and not curative, many topical and systemic agents have been tried with little hard evidence for efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of any form of palliative therapy against placebo for the treatment of symptomatic oral lichen planus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases, handsearching of conference proceedings and specific journals, researchers in the field, drug manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any placebo-controlled trial of palliative therapy for symptomatic oral lichen planus, using a randomised or quasi-randomised design that measured changes in symptoms and/or clinical signs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Change in symptoms (pain, discomfort) and clinical signs (visual impression, lesion measurements) at the end of therapy. Odds ratio of improvement vs no improvement for each trial outcome and pooling where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of nine RCTs were identified. The nine interventions were grouped into four separate classes (cyclosporines, retinoids, steroids and phototherapy) for comparison. No therapy was replicated exactly, the closest replication involved two trials using high and low dose cyclosporine mouthwash. Only trials recording the same outcomes in each therapeutic class were pooled. The largest number of pooled trials was three. Large odds ratios with very wide confidence intervals indicating a statistically significant treatment benefit were seen in all trials. However this has to be tempered by considerations of the small study sizes, the lack of replication, the difficulty in measuring outcome changes and the very high likelihood of publication bias. Only systemic agents were associated with treatment toxicities, all other side-effects were mild and mainly limited to local mucosal reactions.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The review provides only weak evidence for the superiority of the assessed interventions over placebo for palliation of symptomatic OLP. The results highlight the need for larger placebo-controlled RCTs with more carefully selected and standardised outcome measures before between-treatment comparisons can be properly interpreted.

Clinical management of oral lichen planus

Oral lichen planus is a relatively common chronic disease of the mucous membranes which may have more transient cutaneous manifestations. It has a number of well-recognized clinical signs and a wide range of symptoms from none through mild discomfort to severe debilitating intra-oral erosions and ulceration. It often does not respond to treatment and, in a small proportion of cases, undergoes malignant transformation to squamous cell carcinoma. Although there is an array of treatments, they are palliative rather than curative. Corticosteroids in various forms remain the mainstay of treatment but newer immunomodulatory agents have an increasing role. In this paper, we review current thinking about the management of oral lichen planus and summarize a recent European consensus protocol.

The management of oral lichen planus

OBJECTIVE

To review the current literature regarding the medical treatment of oral lichen planus (OLP).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed on-line Medline data searches were carried out for the years 1966-1998 to identify reports on therapy of OLP.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Single case reports or open trials were included if they covered new therapeutic approaches or suggested significant modifications of known treatment modalities. Review papers were limited to those dealing with the topic.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Every paper was critically examined. Because of the great heterogeneity of the response criteria, many data could not be directly compared. Stronger weight was given to therapies that have proven to be effective under placebo-controlled research protocols. Attention was also drawn to potential and effective adverse effects of every drug used.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the various medications advocated for the treatment of OLP, several lack conclusive findings from adequately controlled trials. Mainly high-potency topical corticosteroids in an adhesive medium appear at present the safest and most efficacious. Adjuvant agents as antimycotics may be useful in topical steroid treatment. Systemic corticosteroids may be occasionally indicated for severe recalcitrant erosive OLP or for diffuse mucocutaneous involvement. Topical cyclosporine should be considered in steroid-unresponsive cases considering that its efficacy in OLP could be related to a systemic effect and its high cost. Classical PUVA therapy seems to have too many side effects; topical application of psoralen is promising but still experimental. Topically and systemically delivered retinoids combined with topical corticosteroids could improve the efficacy of these agents whereas complete remission is difficult to achieve with retinoids alone and they frequently cause adverse effects. Finally, there are only few data concerning the long-term effect of the medical treatments upon the course of OLP and we do not know if therapy influences the malignant evolution of OLP.

Topical corticosteroids in association with miconazole and chlorhexidine in the long-term management of atrophic-erosive oral lichen planus: a placebo-controlled and comparative study between clobetasol and fluocinonide

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of a combination of topical corticosteroids with topical antimycotic drugs in the therapy of atrophic-erosive forms of oral lichen planus (OLP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study population consisted of 60 patients with OLP subdivided into three groups matched for sex and age. The first group (25 patients) and the second group (24 patients) received respectively 0.05% clobetasol propionate ointment or 0.05% fluocinonide ointment in an adhesive medium (4% hydroxyethyl cellulose gel) plus in each case antimycotic treatment consisting of miconazole gel and 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwashes. The third group (11 patients), placebo group, received only hydroxyethyl cellulose gel and antimycotic treatment as above. All the treatment regimens were carried out for 6 months. Each patient was examined every 2 months during the 6-month period of active treatment and for a further 6 months of follow-up. Objective and subjective clinical progress was scored and compared between the three groups. Plasma cortisol levels were monitored in half the patients using the topical corticosteroids.

RESULTS

All patients treated with clobetasol and 90% of the patients treated with fluocinonide witnessed some improvement, whereas in the placebo group only 20% of patients improved (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.00029, respectively. However, when considering complete responses, only clobetasol gave significantly better results than placebo. Clobetasol resolved 75% of the lesions whereas fluocinonide was effective in 25% of cases and placebo in none. Clobetasol achieved better results statistically than did fluocinonide (P = 0.00442) and placebo (P = 0.00049) whereas there was no statistical difference among fluocinonide and placebo (P = 0.140). Similar results were obtained for symptoms. Both drugs were shown to be effective in the treatment of erosive lesions, but clobetasol was considerably more efficacious than fluocinonide in the atrophic areas (75% vs 25% of total response, respectively) (P = 0.00442). None of the treated patients contracted oropharyngeal candidiasis. After 6 months of follow-up, 65% of the clobetasol-treated group and 55% of the fluocinonide group were stable. Estimation of plasma cortisol levels showed no significant systemic adverse effects of clobetasol or fluocinonide.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that a very potent topical corticosteroid such as clobetasol may control OLP in most cases, with no significant adrenal suppression or adverse effects. Moreover, a concomitant antimycotic treatment with miconazole gel and chlorhexidine mouthwashes is a useful and safe prophylaxis against oropharyngeal candidiasis.

Update on oral lichen planus: etiopathogenesis and management

Lichen planus (LP) is a relatively common disorder of the stratified squamous epithelia, which is, in many ways, an enigma. This paper is the consensus outcome of a workshop held in Switzerland in 1995, involving a selection of clinicians and scientists with an interest in the condition and its management. The oral (OLP) eruptions usually have a distinct clinical morphology and characteristic distribution, but OLP may also present a confusing array of patterns and forms, and other disorders may clinically simulate OLP. Lesions may affect other mucosae and/or skin. Lichen planus is probably of multifactorial origin, sometimes induced by drugs or dental materials, often idiopathic, and with an immunopathogenesis involving T-cells in particular. The etiopathogenesis appears to be complex, with interactions between and among genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors, but much has now been clarified about the mechanisms involved, and interesting new associations, such as with liver disease, have emerged. The management of lichen planus is still not totally satisfactory, and there is as yet no definitive treatment, but there have been advances in the control of the condition. There is no curative treatment available; immunomodulation, however, can control the condition. Based on the observed increased risk of malignant development, OLP patients should be offered regular follow-up examination from two to four times annually and asked to report any changes in their lesions and/or symptoms. Follow-up may be particularly important in patients with atrophic/ulcerative/erosive affections of the tongue, the gingiva, or the buccal mucosa. Much more research is required into the genetic and environmental aspects of lichen planus, into the premalignant potential, and into the possible associations with chronic liver, and other disorders. More clinical studies are required into the possible efficacy of immunomodulatory drugs such as pentoxifylline and thalidomide.

The therapy of oral lichen planus

Oral lichen planus is a chronic mucocutaneous disease that is relatively common. Although many patients are asymptomatic and require no therapy, those who exhibit atrophic and erosive lesions are often a challenge to treat. All therapies are palliative, and none is effective universally. Currently employed treatment modalities include corticosteroids administered topically, intralesionally, or systemically. Alternative therapies include topical and systemic retinoids, griseofulvin, Cyclosporine, and surgery. Other medical treatments and experimental modalities, including mouth PUVA, have been reported to be effective. Controversy concerning the efficacy of all these treatments suggests that oral lichen planus is a heterogeneous disorder. Eliminating lichenoid drug eruptions, candidiasis, trauma, contact mucositis, and emotional stress may play a role in the management of these patients. This article is a review of the many treatments and measures that have been employed in the management of patients with oral lichen planus.

Lichen planus

Lichen planus, a papulosquamous disease, in its classical presentation is characterized by pruritic violaceous papules most commonly on the extremities of middle-aged adults. It may or may not be accompanied by oral and genital mucous membrane involvement. Its course is generally self-limited for a period of several months to years, but it may last indefinitely. There are many clinical variants described, ranging from lichenoid drug eruptions to association with other diseases such as diabetes mellitus, autoimmune disease, and the graft-versus-host reaction. The relationship of these, if any, to classical lichen planus is questionable. Multiple therapeutic options exist including corticosteroids, retinoids, griseofulvin, PUVA, and cyclosporine.

Oral lichen planus. A review

Lichen planus is a mucocutaneous disease of unknown etiology which, according to current knowledge, may represent a cell-mediated immunological response to induced antigenic changes in the skin and mucosa. Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a disease of adulthood and as one of the most prevalent diseases affecting the oral mucosa it has been the subject of intensive research during recent years. Ultrastructural and immunohistochemical studies particularly dealing with the subepithelial inflammatory cell infiltrate and its relations to epithelial pathology, the basal cell region and the intraepithelial antigen presenting Langerhans' cells, have contributed vastly to our knowledge of the pathogenesis of OLP. However, the treatment of OLP still remains largely symptomatic because many as yet unknown factors, active in the disease process, still remain to be elucidated.

Diagnosing and managing oral lichen planus

Lichen planus is a chronic and recurrent inflammatory disease characterized by unpredictable exacerbations and remissions. It affects the skin and/or mucous membrane in nearly 2 percent of the adult population. The symptoms are transient, but clinical evidence of oral disease is more persistent.

Oral lichen planus: the clinical, historical, and therapeutic features of 100 cases

Lichen planus is a chronic inflammatory epidermal and mucosal disease, the cause of which is poorly understood. We reviewed the clinical and historic features of 100 patients referred to our clinic for diagnosis and management of lichen planus. The age, gender, chief complaint, duration of the chief complaint, medical history, medications, and clinical findings were recorded. Past therapeutic modalities were reviewed. Of therapeutic significance, 25 patients with oral lichen planus had a secondary oral candidiasis. Management of symptomatic lichen planus with topical and systemic steroid is discussed. The pharmacology of topical and systemic steroid usage and the rationale for treatment are discussed.

Absorption of a topical steroid and evaluation of adrenal suppression in patients with erosive lichen planus

This study was designed to investigate the absorption of a topical steroid applied to the gingiva and buccal mucosa of patients with erosive lichen planus and to healthy control patients. In addition, adrenal suppression was assessed by measurements of serum and urine cortisol levels. Ten patients with erosive lichen planus and eight control patients provided urine and blood samples at baseline, day 3, and day 21. After establishment of baseline laboratory values, patients were instructed to apply 500 mg of a 0.05% fluocinonide gel to the gingiva and buccal mucosa three times a day for 3 weeks. Measurements of cortisol levels revealed no significant changes in either the disease or the control group. Although procedures were developed to detect fluocinonide, none of the patients showed evidence of the steroid during the study. It was concluded that the topical application of a fluocinonide gel to the gingiva and buccal mucosa over a 3-week period in patients with erosive lichen planus produced no adrenal suppression.

Effect of dental plaque control on gingival lichen planus

Eleven patients, all women, aged 43 to 76 years, with atrophic or ulcerative lichen planus lesions of gingiva were included in this preliminary study. After initial examination, the patients received an intensive individual hygiene treatment. The patients continued using the most appropriate, atraumatic method resulting in the best possible oral hygiene over a 1 year period during which they were seen for follow-up examinations at 3-month intervals. The mean plaque scores decreased after the initial treatment followed by an increase. The mean scores for severity of subjective symptoms and for type and extension of lesions initially decreased with the plaque scores and remained lower throughout the study. It is concluded that in some cases both subjective and objective improvement of atrophic and ulcerative gingival lichen planus may be obtained by means of intensive oral hygiene procedures although such procedures do not remove the basic cause of lichen planus. However, further studies are needed to examine the role of dental plaque control in patients with oral lichen planus.

Lichen planus: review and update on pathogenesis

Lichen planus (LP) is a common oral disorder which may represent the manifestation of a mucosal reaction to a variety of aetiological factors. Of the many immunological changes described in LP several may be epiphenomena although a cell-mediated immune response to unidentified antigens or antigenic changes clearly is involved. Associations with drugs or systemic disorders are well-defined in some patients but may, in others, be aleatoric. Finally, the prognosis of oral LP not only differs from that of cutaneous LP but there is little doubt that in a few instances LP is a premalignant condition.

Oral pemphigoid

Forty-six patients were seen over a four-year period because of oral blistering. Of these 26 were thought to have pemphigoid affecting the oral mucosa. The clinical features in these patients are compared with the commonly accepted descriptions and some differences noted. The nomenclature is reviewed and the term 'intermittent mucosal pemphigoid' is suggested to describe a clinical variant in which lesions are few and widely separated in time and which heal without scar formation. The relationship between oral pemphigoid and oral 'blood blisters' is discussed.

Childhood lichen planus--a question of therapy

Diffuse lichen planus, a rare disorder in children, was observed in an 8-year-old boy. Effective therapy in this disease remains a problem and currently relies predominantly on the use of the corticosteroids. The complications attendant with corticosteroid administration in children are discussed and a review of alternate modes of therapy for lichen planus is presented.