Platelet‐rich plasma as a new and successful treatment for lichen planopilaris: A controlled blinded randomized clinical trial
Elham Behrangi,Amirhossein Akbarzadehpasha,Abbas Dehghani,Sona Zare,Mohammadreza Ghassemi,Roya Zeinali,Azadeh Goodarzi,Zahra Lotfi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.16302
2024-03-26
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology
Abstract:Introduction Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is one of the most common causes of scarring hair loss caused by immune‐mediated inflammation resulting in atrophy and scaling. The key to preventing this irreversible hair loss is diagnosing and starting treatment at the earliest possible stage. As there is no definite cure for LPP, the therapy could be challenging. In the study, we conducted a single‐blinded randomized clinical trial to evaluate the therapeutic effects, safety, and tolerability of platelet‐rich plasma versus topical clobetasol in the treatment of LPP. Method A randomized single‐blinded controlled clinical trial was conducted in 24 LPP patients referring to our dermatology clinic between August 2022 and March 2023. Patients in the control group were treated with topical clobetasol 0.05% applied at night, and patients in the case group, in addition to topical clobetasol, received three sessions of PRP injection monthly. Both groups were assessed 1, 2, and 6 months after the start of the study by the Lichen Planopilaris Activity Index (LPPAI), physician and patient satisfaction, tolerability, and recording adverse effects. Results The average age in the clobetasol and PRP groups was 43.75 ± 13.51 and 42.75 ± 9.67, respectively (p = 0.83). In terms of gender, all 12 cases (100%) in the clobetasol group and 9 cases (75%) in the PRP group were female (p = 0.21). Both PRP and topical clobetasol effectively reduced LPPAI in the first 2 months; however, after 6 months, the LPPAI significantly increased in the clobetasol group (p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in LPPAI between the two groups at the beginning of the study and after 1 month. However, the mean LPPAI score in the clobetasol group was significantly higher than in the PRP group at 2 and 6 months after the start of the study (p = 0.01). Patient satisfaction with treatment increased in both groups during follow‐up sessions, but at the end of the follow‐up period, it was significantly higher in the PRP group (p = 0.03). Finally, the study did not have any serious adverse effects, and the pain experienced during PRP injection was tolerable for the patients. Overall, treatment tolerability was excellent in both groups. Conclusion Given the different efficacy profiles, PRP could be considered a new and effective choice for the treatment of LPP.
dermatology