Prevalence and characteristics of various types of lichen planus in the Moscow Region

Молочкова, Ю. В.; Молочков, В. А.; Гринева, Н. К.

doi:10.18786/2072-0505-2018-46-1-82-87

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…В общей структуре дерматологических болезней КПЛ составляет от 0,5 до 5%, а среди болезней слизистой оболочки полости рта -32,0%. У мужчин дерматоз чаще регистрируется в молодом возрасте, а у женщин -после 50 лет [7]. При этом у женщин КПЛ встречается чаще, чем у мужчин (в соотношении 1,4:1).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Lichen planus ruber, current therapy: a systematic review

Тлиш

Осмоловская

2021

Kuban. nauсh. med. vestnik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Lichen planus ruber is a common inflammatory disease of skin and mucous membranes with a chronic relapsing course, resistance to conventional therapy, diverse clinical manifestations and capacity of tumourisation. Dermatosis is often comorbid with various underlying gastrointestinal, cardiovascular illnesses and endocrinopathies. Women are more impacted than men (ratio 1.4:1), the disease lasts from 5 to 40 years.Objectives. Assessment of the efficacy and safety of current therapies for lichen planus ruber.Methods. The PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, eLibrary and Scopus databases were mined for randomised controlled studies on treatment of this dermatosis in the period of 2014–2020, and selected impactive publications within 1991–2012 were also included in the review. The following keywords were used: lichen planus [красный плоский лишай], systemic and local drugs [системные и местные препараты], phototherapy [фототерапия], physiotherapeutic methods of treatment [физиотерапевтические методы лечения]. Publications in peer-reviewed journals had priority. Content and descriptive analyses were used as research tools.Results. Therapy for lichen planus ruber is multicomponent including a wide range of techniques, mostly immune-stimulating but often unproved for efficacy and safety. Selected studies are small-sample. The review presents feasible drug-based and physiotherapeutic methods to tackle lichen planus ruber, their application by the disease clinical presentation and prevalence, patient’s personal discomfort, psycho-emotional status and comorbidity. We describe the mechanisms of action, clinical efficacy, application types and noxious side effects in practiced albeit sometimes contentious therapies.Conclusion. Further well-designed research is warranted to aim at enhanced efficacy, safety and long-term remission in therapy for lichen planus ruber.

show abstract

Section: Introductionunclassified

Lichen planus ruber, current therapy: a systematic review

Тлиш

Осмоловская

2021

Kuban. nauсh. med. vestnik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Efficiency of appliance of cranial electrotherapy stimulation and fabomotizole medication as part of combination therapy of patients with lichen ruber planus

Тлиш¹,

Osmolovskaya²

2022

Russian Journal of Skin and Venereal Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Taking into consideration importance of a stress factor in the pathogenesis of lichen ruber planus, it seems reasonable and promising to include safe and effective methods for its correction in the therapy of such patients. AIMS: To evaluate efficiency of the combination therapy in patients with lichen ruber planus with inclusion of cranial electrotherapy stimulation and fabomotizole medication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The object of the study included 65 patients (42 women ― 64.6% and 23 men ― 35.4% at the ages from 18 to 75 (43.815.3 years) with a common typical form of lichen ruber planus. Duration of the disease ranged from 1 to 42 months (13.311.6 months). Two groups were formed by the method of adaptive randomization. In the main group (n=33), patients received chloroquine of 250 mg orally twice a day, topical glucocorticosteroids and additionally cranial electrotherapy stimulation. In the comparison group (n=32), the similar therapy was carried out, but instead of cranial electrotherapy stimulation, fabomotizole of 10 mg was prescribed orally 3 times a day after meals. The course of hospital treatment in both groups was 21 days, the follow-up was 12 weeks. Results of the therapy were assessed on the 7; 14 and 21st days. The examination algorithm included: assessment of clinical manifestations taking into account the Index Lichen Planus; the impact of pruritus on the daily life of patients with the help of the generally accepted Behavioral rating scores questionnaire; study of the psychoemotional state of patients using the Dermatology Life Quality Index, Hamilton Anxiety Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. RESULTS: Before prescription of the therapy in both groups, there were no statistically significant differences (p 0.001) in the studied indices, scales, and questionnaire. After the combination therapy in association with cranial electrotherapy stimulation in patients of the main group, starting from the 7th day of the therapy, significantly more favorable results were achieved in terms of the studied parameters (Index Lichen Planus, Dermatology Life Quality Index, Hamilton Anxiety Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale). As for the effect of pruritus on the daily activities of patients (Behavioral rating scores questionnaire), in both groups there was its equally statistically significant (p 0.001) decrease. Patients of the main group and the comparison group tolerated the treatment well, there were no side effects. CONCLUSIONS: In the main group, using cranial electrotherapy stimulation, normalization of indicators reflecting the activity of the skin pathological process, psychoemotional state and dermatology life quality was statistically significant and took place within a shorter period of time.

show abstract

A Modern View on the Etiology and Pathogenesis of Lichen Planus and Lichenoid Lesions of the Oral Mucosa

Guryevskaya

Usmanova

Hismatullina

et al. 2021

Actual Problems in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subject. The review which has been carried out allows us to consider the issues of etiopathogenesis of lichen planus and lichenoid lesions of the oral mucosa adapted to the modern classification. The analysis of clinical features must be carried out with an emphasis on differential diagnosis. The aim is to conduct a systematic analysis of modern native and foreign literature sources to determine some features of the etiology and pathogenesis of lichen planus and lichenoid reactions of the oral mucosa, depending on risk factors. Methodology. The search for research papers on the etiology and pathogenesis of this dermatosis was carried out using the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, elibrary.ru, Scopus in the period from 2010 to 2021, and the review includes selected significant publications for the period from 2015 to 2021. The following keywords were used: lichen planus, oral lichenoid lesions, prevalence, clinical symptoms, clinical forms, risk factors. Special attention was paid to articles published in peer-reviewed scientific publications. Research methods used in the analysis process: content and descriptive-analytical analysis. As a result of an electronic search, 74 publications were found. The conducted research has a wide geography: Austria, Australia, Belarus, Great Britain, India, Spain, Italy, Iran, Yemen, China, Korea, Russia, Romania, USA, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Thailand, Tehran, Croatia, Scotland, Philadelphia, Japan. Results. Among all the pathological processes that were diagnosed on the oral mucosa, lichen planus occurs on average from 35 to 70% of cases, while only isolated or oral forms are diagnosed on average from 50 to 75% of cases of examinations, the frequency of simultaneous lesions of the mucous membranes and skin is 23-28.6%. The pathogenesis of the studied pathology has significant differences depending on the diagnosed form of lichen planus, or manifestations of lichenoid lesions. Conclusions. In a comprehensive examination of these patients, it is very important to analyze not only the clinical features of oral forms of lichen planus, but also to evaluate the topographic location of morphological elements, their symmetry, and size. These data together allow for a differentiated approach in making an accurate diagnosis. The diagnostic process of oral forms of lichen planus and lichenoid lesions also includes the identification of general somatic diseases, the assessment of local risk factors, and the identification of the relative frequency and intensity of their clinical forms. The main diagnostic feature that allows you to distinguish lichenoid lesions from lichen planus is the fact that the elimination of the factor that provoked the symptoms leads to the disappearance of the damage.

show abstract

Prevalence and characteristics of various types of lichen planus in the Moscow Region

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Lichen planus ruber, current therapy: a systematic review

Lichen planus ruber, current therapy: a systematic review

Efficiency of appliance of cranial electrotherapy stimulation and fabomotizole medication as part of combination therapy of patients with lichen ruber planus

A Modern View on the Etiology and Pathogenesis of Lichen Planus and Lichenoid Lesions of the Oral Mucosa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About