Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text


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 of erosive lichen planus is difficult and aimed at palliation rather than cure. Several topical and systemic agents have been used with varying results. Another Cochrane review has already assessed interventions for lichen planus affecting the mouth. 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: Fifteen RCTs were included, giving a total of 473 participants with ELP (study sizes ranged between 8-94). All studies involved oral sites only. Six studies included participants with non-erosive lichen planus but 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 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 (high risk of performance bias for blinding of participants, low/unclear risk of bias overall). 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) (high risk of performance and detection bias due to likely lack of blinding, low/unclear risk of bias overall). 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) (low risk of bias overall). No significant difference was seen in Physician Global Assessment in these three studies. In a small single 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) (low risk of bias overall). In a study involving a small subgroup of 8 ELP participants, a significant difference was seen for an improvement in the severity of the disease as rated by the Physician Global Assessment, in favour of the ciclosporin group when compared to the vehicle (MD -1.40, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.94) (unclear risk of selection bias for allocation concealment, overall risk of bias low). No statistically significant benefits were shown for topical tacrolimus or fluticasone spray in two separate studies of 29 and 44 participants respectively. 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.




Cheng, S., Kirtschig, G., Cooper, S., Thornhill, M., Leonardi-Bee, J., & Murphy, R. (2012, February 15). Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free