Interventions for treating oral lichen planus

Disease scoring systems for oral lichen planus; a critical appraisal

The aim of the present study has been to critically review 22 disease scoring systems (DSSs) on oral lichen planus (OLP) that have been reported in the literature during the past decades. Although the presently available DSSs may all have some merit, particularly for research purposes, the diversity of both the objective and subjective parameters used in these systems and the lack of acceptance of one of these systems for uniform use, there is a need for an international, authorized consensus meeting on this subject. Because of the natural course of OLP characterized by remissions and exacerbations and also due to the varying distribution pattern and the varying clinical types, e.g. reticular and erosive, the relevance of a DSS based on morphologic parameters is somewhat questionable. Instead, one may consider to only look for a quality of life scoring system adapted for use in OLP patients.

Diseases of the mouth

Oral pathologic abnormality is common and can be potentially serious. There are many diseases of the mouth that medical personnel must be able to diagnose and initiate management. The most prevalent lesions can be categorized as infectious, inflammatory, and common benign and malignant lesions. This article discusses prevalence, cause, diagnosis, and management of lesions such as stomatitis, candidiasis, caries, oral cancers, and bony tori.

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.

Clinical evaluation of the efficiency of low-level laser therapy for oral lichen planus: a prospective case series

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is an inflammatory disease that can be painful, mainly in the atrophic and erosive forms. Numerous drugs have been used with dissimilar results, but most treatments are empirical. However, to date, the most commonly employed and useful agents for the treatment of OLP are topical corticosteroids. The study objective was to detail the clinical effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the management of OLP unresponsive to standard topical therapy. The authors studied a prospective cohort of 30 patients affected by OLP, who received biostimulation with a 980-nm gallium-aluminum-arsenide (GaAIAs) diode laser (DM980, distributed by DMT S.r.l., Via Nobel 33, 20035, Lissone, Italy). Outcome variables, statistically evaluated, were: the size of lesions; visual analogue score of pain and stability of the therapeutic results in the follow-up period. Eighty-two lesions were treated. We reported significant reduction in clinical scores of the treated lesions and in reported pain. No detailed complications or therapy side effects were observed during the study. As previously reported by our group with a preliminary report, this study suggests that LLLT could be a possible treatment choice for patients with unresponsive symptomatic OLP, also reducing the possible invasiveness correlated with other therapies.

Urban legends series: lichen planus

Oral Diseases (2012) Lichen planus (LP) is a common disorder affecting the oral cavity (OLP) and skin. Despite intensive research, LP/OLP etiology and treatment remain controversial. We investigated four controversial topics: (i) Is hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection associated with LP and involved in its pathogenesis? (ii) Should all patients with LP be screened for HCV? (iii) Should patients with OLP have all their amalgam restorations removed? (iv) Are there any new treatments for OLP? Results from extensive literature searches suggested that: (i) Robust evidence from three meta-analyses indicate that HCV is associated with LP and might be involved in OLP pathogenesis (ii) It would be prudent to screen patients with LP/OLP at significant risk with an ELISA for HCV antibodies using country-specific screening strategies (iii) There is no evidence that either OLP or oral lichenoid lesions patients would routinely benefit from having all their amalgam restorations replaced. Weak evidence from potentially very biased, small, non-randomized, unblinded studies suggests that a small fraction of patients may benefit from targeted amalgam replacement. (iv) There is weak evidence that, among new OLP treatments, topical pimecrolimus, aloe vera, and oral curcuminoids may be useful. The development of specific formulations for oral delivery of topical medications is a promising field.

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.