Actinic Cheilitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Interventions, Treatment Outcomes, and Adverse Events

Introduction: Actinic cheilitis (AC) is a common precancerous condition affecting the lips, primarily caused by prolonged ultraviolet radiation exposure. Various treatment options are available. However, the optimal treatment approach remains a subject of debate. Objective: To summarize and compare practice-relevant interventions for AC. Materials and Methods: A pre-defined protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021225182). Systematic searches in Medline, Embase, and Central, along with manual trial register searches, identified studies reporting participant clearance rates (PCR) or recurrence rates (PRR). Quality assessment for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2. Uncontrolled studies were evaluated using the tool developed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The generalized linear mixed model was used to pool proportions for uncontrolled studies. A pairwise meta-analysis for RCTs was applied, using the odds ratio (OR) as the effect estimate and the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Adverse events were analyzed qualitatively. Results: A comprehensive inclusion of 36 studies facilitated an evaluation of 614 participants for PCR, and 430 patients for PRR. Diclofenac showed the lowest PCR (0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.41; 0.66]), while CO₂ laser showed the highest PCR (0.97, 95% CI [0.90; 0.99]). For PRR, Er:YAG laser showed the highest rates (0.14, 95% CI [0.08; 0.21]), and imiquimod the lowest (0.00, 95% CI [0.00; 0.06]). In a pairwise meta-analysis, the OR indicated a lower recurrence rate for Er:YAG ablative fractional laser (AFL)-primed methyl-aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) (Er:YAG AFL-PDT) compared to methyl-aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) alone (OR = 0.22, 95% CI [0.06; 0.82]). The CO₂ laser showed fewer local side effects than the Er:YAG laser, while PDTs caused more skin reactions. Due to qualitative data, comparability was limited, highlighting the need for individualized treatment. Conclusions: This study provides a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis of practice-relevant interventions for AC, identifying the CO₂ laser as the most effective treatment and regarding PCR and imiquimod as most effective concerning PRR.