Effectiveness of narrowband UVB phototherapy and psoralen plus UVA photochemotherapy in the treatment of generalized lichen planus: Results from a large retrospective analysis and an update of the literature.
effectiveness
lichen planus
photochemotherapy
phototherapy
safety
Journal
Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine
ISSN: 1600-0781
Titre abrégé: Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9013641
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
revised:
18
06
2021
received:
21
03
2021
accepted:
10
07
2021
pubmed:
6
8
2021
medline:
24
3
2022
entrez:
5
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different phototherapeutic modalities in the treatment of cutaneous lichen planus (LP). We retrospectively analyzed the chart data of 53 patients with generalized LP who had been subjected to narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) or photochemotherapy (PUVA) between January 1997 and April 2020. Of these, 30 patients had received NB-UVB, 18 patients oral PUVA and 5 patients bath PUVA. Fifty patients completed a full treatment course. The percentage of patients with a complete (>90% clearing) or good (51%-90% clearing) response was similar for NB-UVB versus PUVA (86.2% vs. 90.5%; P = 1.00). The number of exposures required for obtaining a complete or good response was also comparable for both treatment groups (NB-UVB: 28.9 ± 12.3 vs. PUVA: 25.4 ± 10.1; P = .209). Adverse events, in particular gastrointestinal upsets, were recorded in 26.1% of patients treated with oral PUVA while none were observed with NB-UVB. The therapeutic outcome and the number of treatments required for achieving a complete or good response were comparable for NB-UVB and PUVA; however, PUVA therapy was associated with a substantially higher rate of moderate adverse events.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different phototherapeutic modalities in the treatment of cutaneous lichen planus (LP).
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed the chart data of 53 patients with generalized LP who had been subjected to narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) or photochemotherapy (PUVA) between January 1997 and April 2020. Of these, 30 patients had received NB-UVB, 18 patients oral PUVA and 5 patients bath PUVA.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifty patients completed a full treatment course. The percentage of patients with a complete (>90% clearing) or good (51%-90% clearing) response was similar for NB-UVB versus PUVA (86.2% vs. 90.5%; P = 1.00). The number of exposures required for obtaining a complete or good response was also comparable for both treatment groups (NB-UVB: 28.9 ± 12.3 vs. PUVA: 25.4 ± 10.1; P = .209). Adverse events, in particular gastrointestinal upsets, were recorded in 26.1% of patients treated with oral PUVA while none were observed with NB-UVB.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The therapeutic outcome and the number of treatments required for achieving a complete or good response were comparable for NB-UVB and PUVA; however, PUVA therapy was associated with a substantially higher rate of moderate adverse events.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34351641
doi: 10.1111/phpp.12723
pmc: PMC9291473
doi:
Substances chimiques
Photosensitizing Agents
0
Ficusin
KTZ7ZCN2EX
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104-111Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
J Dermatol. 2000 Sep;27(9):576-82
pubmed: 11052233
Hautarzt. 1997 May;48(5):323-7
pubmed: 9303906
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2007 Apr-Jun;23(2-3):68-72
pubmed: 17523927
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2016 Feb;17(1):11-22
pubmed: 26507510
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2007 Feb;23(1):15-9
pubmed: 17254030
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2008 Apr;24(2):83-6
pubmed: 18353088
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2013 Apr;11(4):309-19
pubmed: 23320493
Pediatr Dermatol. 2005 Jul-Aug;22(4):295-8
pubmed: 16060862
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Nov;79(5):807-818
pubmed: 30318137
Int J Dermatol. 2012 Sep;51(9):1107-15
pubmed: 22909369
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2018 Sep;16(9):1120-1129
pubmed: 30179320
Dermatol Monatsschr. 1986;172(3):133-44
pubmed: 3699210
J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Dec;19(12):3389-3392
pubmed: 32530076
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017 May;31(5):880-886
pubmed: 27696572
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2010 Jul-Aug;76(4):366-72
pubmed: 20657116
Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2005 Jan;132(1):17-20
pubmed: 15746601
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Nov;79(5):789-804
pubmed: 30318136
ScientificWorldJournal. 2014 Jan 30;2014:742826
pubmed: 24672362
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Oct;33(10):1847-1862
pubmed: 31265737
Arch Dermatol. 1995 Oct;131(10):1210-1
pubmed: 7574847
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2003 Oct;19(5):265-7
pubmed: 14535898
Arch Dermatol. 2007 May;143(5):578-84
pubmed: 17519217
J Res Med Sci. 2011 Dec;16(12):1578-82
pubmed: 22973366
Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2016 Sep;35(3):190-3
pubmed: 26340597
Front Med (Lausanne). 2018 Jul 02;5:184
pubmed: 30013973
Clin Exp Dermatol. 1981 Mar;6(2):133-8
pubmed: 7261467
Br J Dermatol. 1978 Jul;99(1):77-88
pubmed: 678468
Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh). 1985;120:53-5
pubmed: 3869416
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jul;34(7):1403-1414
pubmed: 32678513
Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed). 2019 Jul - Aug;110(6):490-493
pubmed: 30987737
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2022 Mar;38(2):104-111
pubmed: 34351641
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2013 Oct;11(10):981-91
pubmed: 23981330
Photodermatol. 1987 Oct;4(5):265-8
pubmed: 3697349
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2015 Dec;16(6):501-31
pubmed: 26369540
Coll Antropol. 2011 Sep;35 Suppl 2:147-51
pubmed: 22220423
Eur J Dermatol. 2010 Nov-Dec;20(6):724-30
pubmed: 20959273
Int J Dermatol. 2002 May;41(5):282-3
pubmed: 12100704
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009 May;23(5):589-90
pubmed: 18771445
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984 Jun;10(6):958-61
pubmed: 6736339
Am Fam Physician. 2011 Jul 1;84(1):53-60
pubmed: 21766756