Topical tacrolimus orabase versus topical clobetasol propionate orabase in the treatment of symptomatic oral lichen planus: a pilot randomized study.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
F M M Schroeder, E S Pedraça, V M Palma, V C Carrard, M A T Martins, F L D M Maito, D Q M Lisbôa, Fernanda Visioli
{"title":"Topical tacrolimus orabase versus topical clobetasol propionate orabase in the treatment of symptomatic oral lichen planus: a pilot randomized study.","authors":"F M M Schroeder, E S Pedraça, V M Palma, V C Carrard, M A T Martins, F L D M Maito, D Q M Lisbôa, Fernanda Visioli","doi":"10.1007/s00784-024-05943-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This pilot study aimed to compare the efficacy of 0.1% tacrolimus and 0.05% clobetasol propionate in orabase for treating symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Pilot, randomized, and controlled study conducted on 21 patients with symptomatic OLP, selected according to the clinical and histopathological criteria of Cheng et al. 2016. Twelve patients received 0.1% tacrolimus, and nine received 0.05% clobetasol, both in orabase for 30 days with a two-month follow-up. The patients were examined for scores of signs (ODSS), symptoms (VAS), quality of life (OHIP-14), anxiety (Beck Anxiety Scale), and treatment satisfaction (Hedonic Scale).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both treatments were effective in reducing ODSS, VAS, and Beck Anxiety Scale scores and performed well on the hedonic scale, yet without statistical difference between them. However, at the 1-month follow-up, patients in group Clobetasol showed a greater percentage reduction in ODSS score compared to baseline by 50% (p = 0.02) and significantly lower average values (p = 0.03) than those in group Tacrolimus. Longitudinal intragroup analysis revealed significant improvements over time in both groups for ODSS, and only in the tacrolimus group for OHIP-14 and Beck scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both tested protocols were effective over a three-month follow-up. However, due to the lower cost of clobetasol propionate it can be considered the first-choice option. Tacrolimus in orabase formulation may be a promising alternative for refractory lesions that do not respond to topical steroids.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Managing symptomatic OLP is challenging. Comparisons between tacrolimus and clobetasol propionate in orabase formulations have not yet been thoroughly explored.</p>","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05943-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This pilot study aimed to compare the efficacy of 0.1% tacrolimus and 0.05% clobetasol propionate in orabase for treating symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP).

Materials and methods: Pilot, randomized, and controlled study conducted on 21 patients with symptomatic OLP, selected according to the clinical and histopathological criteria of Cheng et al. 2016. Twelve patients received 0.1% tacrolimus, and nine received 0.05% clobetasol, both in orabase for 30 days with a two-month follow-up. The patients were examined for scores of signs (ODSS), symptoms (VAS), quality of life (OHIP-14), anxiety (Beck Anxiety Scale), and treatment satisfaction (Hedonic Scale).

Results: Both treatments were effective in reducing ODSS, VAS, and Beck Anxiety Scale scores and performed well on the hedonic scale, yet without statistical difference between them. However, at the 1-month follow-up, patients in group Clobetasol showed a greater percentage reduction in ODSS score compared to baseline by 50% (p = 0.02) and significantly lower average values (p = 0.03) than those in group Tacrolimus. Longitudinal intragroup analysis revealed significant improvements over time in both groups for ODSS, and only in the tacrolimus group for OHIP-14 and Beck scores.

Conclusions: Both tested protocols were effective over a three-month follow-up. However, due to the lower cost of clobetasol propionate it can be considered the first-choice option. Tacrolimus in orabase formulation may be a promising alternative for refractory lesions that do not respond to topical steroids.

Clinical relevance: Managing symptomatic OLP is challenging. Comparisons between tacrolimus and clobetasol propionate in orabase formulations have not yet been thoroughly explored.

外用他克莫司奥拉帕斯与外用氯倍他索丙酸酯奥拉帕斯治疗症状性口腔扁平苔藓:一项试验性随机研究。
研究目的本试验研究旨在比较0.1%他克莫司和0.05%氯倍他索丙酸酯在奥拉帕斯中治疗症状性口腔扁平苔藓(OLP)的疗效:根据Cheng等人2016年的临床和组织病理学标准,对21例有症状的OLP患者进行了试验性、随机对照研究。12名患者接受0.1%他克莫司治疗,9名患者接受0.05%氯倍他索治疗,两种药物均在奥拉帕斯中使用30天,随访两个月。对患者的体征(ODSS)、症状(VAS)、生活质量(OHIP-14)、焦虑(贝克焦虑量表)和治疗满意度(Hedonic量表)进行了评分:结果:两种疗法都能有效降低 ODSS、VAS 和贝克焦虑量表的评分,在享乐量表上的表现也很好,但两者之间没有统计学差异。然而,在 1 个月的随访中,氯倍他索组患者的 ODSS 评分与基线相比降低了 50%(p = 0.02),平均值也明显低于他克莫司组(p = 0.03)。组内纵向分析显示,随着时间的推移,两组患者的ODSS评分均有显著改善,只有他克莫司组患者的OHIP-14和Beck评分有显著改善:结论:在三个月的随访中,两种测试方案都很有效。结论:两种测试方案在三个月的随访中均有效,但由于氯倍他索丙酸盐的成本较低,可将其作为首选方案。对于外用类固醇类药物无效的难治性皮损,奥拉帕斯制剂中的他克莫司可能是一种很有前途的替代疗法:临床意义:治疗无症状的OLP具有挑战性。对他克莫司和氯倍他索丙酸酯奥拉帕斯制剂的比较尚未进行深入探讨。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Oral Investigations
Clinical Oral Investigations 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
484
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信