{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025938566552901023, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00477815699658703, 'mean_word_length': 5.458149779735683, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Treatment of cutaneous lichen planus (part 2): a review of systemic therapies

Abstract Background: Although numerous medications are available for the treatment of cutaneous lichen planus (CLP), recurrence is common and there is a lack of evidence of efficacy of many treatment options. Part 1 reviewed consolidated evidence from topical therapies and phototherapy. In Part 2, all systemic treatments are assessed. Methods: All English studies, regardless of design, investigating the outcome of systemic treatment for CLP, until January 2018, were included. While there were only a few well-designed randomized control trials (RCTs), evidence was extrapolated and graded from open trials, case series as well as case reports. Results: Mini pulse therapy with corticosteroids should be considered over moderate daily dosing with retinoids being an alternative option. Low-dose methotrexate is considered effective and safe provided it is regularly monitored. Azathioprine, cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil require larger more defined RCTs in resistant CLP. Low-molecular-weight heparins may be considered in patients with no response to first-line treatment. Biologics are potentially promising but there is a need for RCTs with a considerable duration to determine their long-term safety profiles. Evidence with various other drugs were reported. Conclusion: Clinicians may have a broader perspective on the efficacy of treatments across all study profiles.