Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites.

Abstract

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