KH 1060 for the treatment of lichen planus: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study

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.

Treatments for Cutaneous Lichen Planus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous lichen planus (CLP) is an inflammatory dermatosis. Its chronic relapsing course and frequently spontaneous regression hamper the assessment of treatment effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of available treatment modalities for CLP.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov registry.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the current literature. All randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized case-control studies, and cohort studies with more than one treatment arm were included. The primary outcomes were complete response and time to complete response. The secondary outcomes were partial response, relapse, time to relapse, reduction of itch, the adverse event rate, and withdrawal due to adverse events.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 11 were randomized controlled trials. Most trials had a small sample size. In the rare studies in which variants other than generalized or classic lichen planus were included, they could not be analyzed separately. Body-of-evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Acitretin, sulfasalazine, and griseofulvin were associated with increased overall response rates in comparison with placebo. Narrow-band ultraviolet B radiation (NBUVB) was more effective than 6 weeks' low-dose prednisolone in achieving a complete response, and prednisolone was more effective than enoxaparin. Hydroxychloroquine was more effective than griseofulvin in achieving an overall response. Betamethasone valerate 0.1% ointment had comparable efficacy to calcipotriol ointment. Methotrexate was effective, with a nonsignificant difference in the complete response rate in comparison with oral betamethasone. In nonrandomized controlled trials, oral psoralen plus ultraviolet A photochemotherapy (PUVA) had comparable efficacy to a PUVA bath and NBUVB. Psoralen plus sunlight exposure (PUVASOL) and betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% cream were effective relative to a short course of oral metronidazole.

CONCLUSIONS

Several effective treatment options are available for CLP. Further well-designed studies are warranted to investigate the efficacy of topical glucocorticoids-the current first-line therapy-as well as other treatment modalities, and the treatment of different variants of CLP.

Cutaneous lichen planus: A systematic review of treatments

Various treatment modalities are available for cutaneous lichen planus. Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment Database were searched for all the systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials related to cutaneous lichen planus. Two systematic reviews and nine relevant randomized controlled trials were identified. Acitretin, griseofulvin, hydroxychloroquine and narrow band ultraviolet B are demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of cutaneous lichen planus. Sulfasalazine is effective, but has an unfavorable safety profile. KH1060, a vitamin D analogue, is not beneficial in the management of cutaneous lichen planus. Evidence from large scale randomized trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy for many other treatment modalities used to treat cutaneous lichen planus is simply not available.

Off-label uses of topical vitamin D in dermatology: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Topical vitamin D is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of psoriasis but is also used off-label in the treatment of a variety of cutaneous diseases despite a lack of evidence-based guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to provide evidence-based clinical guidelines for the off-label use of topical vitamin D in the treatment of dermatologic disease.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted via the MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases for off-label uses of topical vitamin D analogues in the treatment of dermatologic disease other than psoriasis. The data were synthesized, and evidence-based recommendations were rendered according to the highest level of evidence available.

RESULTS

A total of 165 articles met the inclusion criteria. A moderate to strong recommendation was given for the use of topical vitamin D in combination with corticosteroids and phototherapy in vitiligo and as monotherapy for various ichthyoses, morphea, pityriasis alba, prurigo nodularis, and polymorphous light eruption. There is evidence showing that topical vitamin D is ineffective in the treatment of actinic keratosis, seborrheic keratosis, lichen planus, seborrheic dermatitis, alopecia areata, chemotherapy-induced alopecia, and hypertrophic scars.

CONCLUSION

Topical vitamin D analogues have an important role in the off-label treatment of dermatologic disease, but higher quality studies are still required.

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.