Systemic non-steroidal immunomodulators for oral lichen planus treatment-a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of systemic nonsteroidal immunomodulators (SNSI) for oral lichen planus (OLP) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021243524). Consulted databases were Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria was as follows: clinical trials, case series, prospective, and retrospective studies conducted with participants presenting OLP of any sex and age. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were selected, assessing 9 different SNSI: methotrexate, dapsone, levamisole, hydroxychloroquine, thalidomide, metronidazole, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and colchicine. Methotrexate and dapsone were the drugs with the best evidence among the options included, regarding number and quality of studies. Methotrexate resulted in significant improvement in the clinical condition and remission of symptoms, ranging between 63 and 93% of cases. Dapsone presented a similar effect to the use of topical corticosteroids and tacrolimus CONCLUSION: Among SNSI therapeutic options, methotrexate, and dapsone showed promising efficacy and safety. However, large-scale randomized clinical trials are still needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SNSI have been used in the treatment of recalcitrant OLP; however, so far, it is not clear which are the best options. This scoping review highlights the potential use of methotrexate and dapsone.

Efficacy of topical non-steroidal immunomodulators in the treatment of oral lichen planus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal immunomodulators (TNSIs) for oral lichen planus (OLP) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search strategy designed for this purpose retrieved 1156 references. After analysis of titles and abstracts, 75 studies were selected for full-text analysis. Only randomized controlled clinical trials were selected, resulting in 28 studies included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed similar benefits in clinical response and symptom resolution between tacrolimus 0.1% and pimecrolimus 1% in comparison to topical steroids (TS). Pimecrolimus showed superior efficacy of clinical response but not for symptom resolution compared to placebo. Tacrolimus and pimecrolimus showed better performance preventing symptom relapse, while pimecrolimus also prevented clinical relapse better than TS. Cyclosporine was superior to placebo; however, TS showed better efficacy of clinical response. Thalidomide and retinoid were assessed in only one trial each, and both showed similar efficacy to TS. Rapamycin also presented similar clinical response to TS; however, the later showed greater reduction of symptoms. Mycophenolate mofetil 2% mucoadhesive was no better than placebo. No serious adverse effects have been reported. Cyclosporine showed a higher frequency and variety of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are safe and effective alternatives for OLP treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: TS are usually the first choice for OLP treatment. Because some oral lesions may have a low response to treatment with TS, more topical therapeutic options, such as TNSIs, should be considered before systemic steroids are used.