These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Topical clobetasol in the treatment of atrophic-erosive oral lichen planus: a randomized controlled trial to compare two preparations with different concentrations.
    Author: Carbone M, Arduino PG, Carrozzo M, Caiazzo G, Broccoletti R, Conrotto D, Bezzo C, Gandolfo S.
    Journal: J Oral Pathol Med; 2009 Feb; 38(2):227-33. PubMed ID: 19141065.
    Abstract:
    Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory disease that can be painful, mainly in the atrophic and erosive forms. Numerous drugs have been used with dissimilar results, but most treatments are empirical and do not have adequate control groups or correct study designs. However, to date, the most commonly employed and useful agents for the treatment of LP are topical corticosteroids. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has been designed to compare the efficacy and safety of two different formulations of clobetasol, a very potent topical steroid, in the topical management of OLP and to evaluate which gives the longest remission from signs and symptoms. Thirty-five consecutive patients were divided into two groups: the first received clobetasol propionate 0.025% and the second was given clobetasol propionate 0.05%. Both drugs were placed in 4% hydroxyethyl cellulose bioadhesive gel. Anti-mycotic prophylaxis was also added. After the end of therapy, patients received a 2-month follow-up. In all, 14 of the 15 clobetasol 0.025% patients (93%) and 13 of the 15 clobetasol 0.05% patients (87%), had symptoms improvement after 2 months of therapy (P = 0.001 in both groups). Also, 13 of the 15 clobetasol 0.025% patients (87%) and 11 of the 15 clobetasol 0.05% patients (73%) had clinical improvement after 2 months of therapy (P < 0.05 in both groups). No statistical differences were found in comparing the two different formulations. A larger concentration of the active molecules cannot further improve the therapeutic findings or optimize the obtained results in a significant manner.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]