Efficacy of Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors in Lichen Planus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Topical calcineurin inhibitors have been studied in many skin disorders, including lichen planus. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate published reports of the use of topical calcineurin inhibitors in lichen planus. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Ovid/Cochrane, and Embase using the keywords "tacrolimus," "pimecrolimus," "topical calcineurin inhibitors," and "lichen planus. " RESULTS: We examined 5 double-blind studies, 1 investigator-blinded study, 10 open prospective studies, 6 retrospective studies, and 28 case reports evaluating tacrolimus or pimecrolimus for oral, vulvovaginal, and cutaneous lichen planus. CONCLUSIONS: Strong evidence (double-blind and open studies) supports the use of topical tacrolimus ointment in oral lichen planus, with efficacy at least equal to topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% ointment. Treatment of oral lichen planus with topical tacrolimus ointment can result in demonstrable blood tacrolimus levels, but without clinically significant adverse events. Strong evidence (double-blind and open studies) supports the use of topical pimecrolimus 1% cream in oral lichen planus, with efficacy equal to that of topical triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% paste. For vulvovaginal lichen planus, pimecrolimus was superior to placebo in one double-blind study, and tacrolimus was effective in open studies. Only case reports support the efficacy of topical calcineurin inhibitors in cutaneous lichen planus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".