Complete response · patients with cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus
Oral ciclosporin showed no clear difference in primary outcome: complete clinical response compared with oral azathioprine (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Primary outcome: partial clinical response · patients with cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary outcome: clinical flare · patients with cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary outcome: CLASI · patients with cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary outcome: Dermatology Quality of Life measure · patients with cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events: severe · patients with cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus
Oral ciclosporin showed no clear difference in adverse events: severe compared with oral azathioprine (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events: minor (hirsutism) · patients with cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus
Oral ciclosporin may leads to higher adverse events: minor (hirsutism) compared with oral azathioprine (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Side effects · People with erosive oral lichen planus
1 finding from 1 review
Investigator‐ or physician‐rated global assessment of disease severity · People with erosive oral lichen planus
Ciclosporin rinse led to lower physician Global Assessment (severity of disease) compared with placebo (vehicle); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
MD -1.40 [-1.86, -0.94]
1 study · 8 participants
GRADE not reported
Pain reduction (participant-reported symptoms) · People with erosive oral lichen planus
1 finding from 1 review
Physician Global Assessment (Thongprasom score) · People with erosive oral lichen planus
Topical ciclosporin 1.5% gel showed no clear difference in physician Global Assessment (Thongprasom score) compared with topical clobetasol propionate 0.025% gel; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Relapse rate when medications stopped · People with erosive oral lichen planus
1 finding from 1 review
Topical clobetasol gave less stable results than ciclosporin when therapy ended and showed a higher incidence of side-effects (Conrotto 2006, n=40).
1 study · 40 participants
GRADE not reported
Partial response (partial or complete response) · People with erosive oral lichen planus
Topical ciclosporin 1.5% gel led to higher partial response (partial or complete response) compared with topical clobetasol propionate 0.025% gel; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Side effects · People with erosive oral lichen planus
1 finding from 1 review
Table 3 (Side-effects). Conrotto 2006: ciclosporin - skin rashes (2), parotid swelling (1), and dyspepsia (3); clobetasol - dyspepsia (1).
1 study · 40 participants
GRADE not reported
Participant‐reported pain relief of 50% or greater · People with erosive oral lichen planus
Topical ciclosporin 1.5% gel showed no clear difference in pain (>=50% improvement in symptoms) compared with topical clobetasol propionate 0.025% gel; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
HRQOL Ocular Surface Disease Index (scale 0 to 100, 100 worst) · Participants with ocular rosacea
1 finding from 1 review
Participant‐assessed improvement in rosacea severity ‐ not measured · Participants with ocular rosacea
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Proportion of participants with adverse event · Participants with ocular rosacea
Ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with adverse event compared with artificial tears (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Physician‐assessed improvement in rosacea severity Schirmer score · Participants with ocular rosacea
1 finding from 1 review
Assessment of erythema or telangiectasia ‐ not measured · Participants with ocular rosacea
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review