5% lidocaine medicated plaster use in children with neuropathic pain from burn sequelae

Lidocaine patch as noninvasive alternative treatment option in children with anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome: A retrospective case series

BACKGROUND

Chronic abdominal pain in children is occasionally caused by anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome (ACNES). Diagnosing and treating this typical peripheral abdominal wall neuropathy is challenging. Management usually starts with minimally invasive tender point injections. Nevertheless, these injections can be burdensome and might even be refused by children or their parents. However, a surgical neurectomy is far more invasive. Treatment with a Lidocaine 5% medicated patch is successfully used in a variety of peripheral neuropathies.

AIMS

This single center retrospective case series aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of lidocaine patches in children with ACNES.

METHODS

Children aged under 18 diagnosed with ACNES who were treated with a 10 day lidocaine patch treatment between December 2021 and December 2022 were studied. Patient record files were used to collect treatment outcomes including pain reduction based on NRS and complications.

RESULTS

Twelve of sixteen children (mean age 13 years; F:M ratio 3:1) diagnosed with ACNES started the lidocaine patch treatment. Two patients achieved a pain free status and remained pain free during a 4 and 7 months follow-up. A third child reported a lasting pain reduction, but discontinued treatment due to a temporary local skin rash. Five additional patients reported pain reduction only during application of the patch. The remaining four children experienced no pain relief. No adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine patches provides pain relief in a substantial portion of children with ACNES.

Age and Sex Differences in Pediatric Neuropathic Pain and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Age and sex differences may exist in the frequency (incidence, prevalence) or symptoms of neuropathic pain (NP) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) due to biopsychosocial factors (eg, neurodevelopment, physiological and hormonal changes, psychosocial differences) that evolve through childhood and adolescence. Age and sex differences may have implications for evaluating screening and diagnostic tools and treatment interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To map the existing literature on pediatric NP and CRPS with respect to age and sex distributions, and age and sex differences in symptomology and frequency.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted. Databases were searched from inception to January 2023. Data were collected on study design, setting, demographics, and age and sex differences in frequency and symptoms.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies were included. Distribution of participants with CRPS (n=37 studies) was predominantly early adolescence (10 to 14 y) and female sex, while NP (n=42 studies) was most commonly reported throughout adolescence (10 to 19 y) in both sexes. Forty-one studies examined age and sex differences in frequency; 6 studies reported higher frequency in adolescence. Very few studies (n=11) examined differences in symptomology.

DISCUSSION

Large epidemiological studies are required to further understand age and sex differences in frequency of pediatric NP and CRPS. Age and sex differences must be considered when evaluating screening and diagnostic tools and treatment interventions to ensure relevance and validity to both sexes and across ages. Validated tools will improve understanding of age-dependent and sex-dependent differences in symptoms, pathophysiology, and psychosocial impact of pediatric NP and CRPS.

Neuropathic pain in burn patients - A common problem with little literature: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of neuropathic pain (NP) in burn patients is reported in the literature to be as high as 80%1. Given the complexity of NP in burn patients and the wide range of treatments available, a systematic review of the literature is warranted to summarize our current understanding of management and treatment of NP in this population.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The following databases were queried to identify relevant articles: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Ovid, and Web of Science. The main outcome measures were incidence and management of NP. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for NP.

RESULTS

Included articles presented findings from 11 different countries, capturing outcomes for 4366 patients. Risk factors for neuropathic pain in burn patients were identified, including older age, alcohol and substance abuse, current daily smoking, greater % total body surface area burns (TBSA), and longer hospitalizations. Pharmacologic treatments included gabapentin/pregabalin (n = 7), ascorbic acid (n = 1), and lidocaine (n = 1). Overall, the studies showed varied results regarding the efficacy of pharmacological treatments. While certain studies demonstrated gabapentanoids to be effective in reducing neuropathic symptoms, others found conflicting results. With regards to non-pharmacologic treatments, electroconvulsive therapy (n = 1), electropuncture (n = 1), nerve release/reconstruction (n = 2), and somatosensory feedback rehabilitation (n = 1) were used and demonstrated promise in reducing pain intensity and improving functionality.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite NP afflicting the majority of burn patients long after their injury, this systematic review demonstrates insufficient evidence on the pathophysiology, outcomes, and risk factors in NP, as well as the efficacy of various therapies. Future prospective and randomized studies evaluating the etiology of these factors can substantially improve our treatment strategies. This can allow for the development of well-delineated and evidence-based protocols in NP management in hopes of improving quality of life and both psychological and physical function in burn patients.

Sensitivity and Specificity of a Neuropathic Screening Tool (Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, S-LANSS) in Adolescents With Moderate-Severe Chronic Pain

Neuropathic screening tools improve recognition of neuropathic pain in adults. Although utilized in pediatric populations, the sensitivity, specificity and methodology of screening tool delivery have not been compared in children. We evaluated the Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) in adolescents (10-18 years) referred to a tertiary pediatric pain clinic. History and examination by specialist clinicians and multidisciplinary assessment informed classification of the primary pain type. In a prospective cohort, scores were obtained at interview (S-LANSS interview; n = 161, 70% female), and following substitution of self-reported signs with examination findings in the primary pain region (Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, LANSS examination). Secondly, we retrospectively retrieved questionnaires self-completed by adolescents at their initial clinic appointment (S-LANSS self-completed; n = 456, 73% female). Thirdly, we explored relationships between patient-reported outcomes and S-LANSS scores. S-LANSS interview scores varied with pain classification, and S-LANSS self-completed scores were similarly highest with neuropathic pain (median [interquartile range]: 18 [11, 21]) and complex regional pain syndrome (21 [14, 24]), variable with musculoskeletal pain (13 [7, 19]) and lowest with visceral pain (6.5 [2, 11.5]) and headache (8.5 [4, 14]). As in adults, the cutpoint score of 12/24 was optimal. Sensitivity was highest with inclusion of examination findings and lowest with self-completion (LANSS examination vs S-LANSS interview vs S-LANSS self-completed: 86.3% vs 80.8% vs 74.7%), but specificity was relatively low (37.8% vs 36.7% vs 48%). High S-LANSS scores in non-neuropathic groups were associated with female sex and high pain catastrophizing. The S-LANSS is a sensitive screening tool for pain with neuropathic features in adolescents, but needs to be interpreted in the context of clinical evaluation (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03312881). PERSPECTIVE: This article reports high sensitivity of the S-LANSS screening tool for identifying pain with neuropathic features in adolescents with moderate-severe chronic pain. However, as sensitivity is lower than in adult populations, further interdisciplinary evaluation is necessary to inform diagnosis and management.

Neuropathic Pain in Pediatric Oncology: A Clinical Decision Algorithm

Neuropathic pain in pediatric oncology can be caused by distinct lesions or disease processes affecting the somatosensory system, including chemotherapy-related neuronal injury, solid tumor-related involvement of neural structures, post-surgical neuropathic pain-including phantom limb pain and pain after limb-sparing surgery-and the complex circumstances of neuropathic pain at the end of life. Treatment algorithms reflect the general treatment principles applied for adult neuropathic pain, but the dose regimens applied in children are modest and rarely escalated to the maximum doses to optimize analgesic efficacy. Pharmacological management of neuropathic pain should be based on a stepwise intervention strategy, as combinations of medications are the most effective approach. Gabapentinoids and tricyclic antidepressants are recommended as first-line therapy. Methadone, ketamine, and lidocaine may be useful adjuvants in selected patients. Prospective studies extended over a substantial length of time are recommended because of the nature of neuropathic pain as persistent, chronic pain and based on the need for sufficient time to escalate medication dose regimens to full analgesic efficacy.

Intravenous Lidocaine Alleviates the Pain of Propofol Injection by Local Anesthetic and Central Analgesic Effects

Objective

Lidocaine alleviates propofol injection pain. However, whether lidocaine works through a local anesthetic effect at the site of intravenous injection or through a systemic effect on the central nervous system remains unknown. This study aimed to determine the pain-alleviating mechanism of lidocaine.

Design

A randomized controlled study.

Setting

A gastroscopy facility.

Methods

The study was divided into two parts. Part 1 involved 717 patients who were randomly assigned into five groups. Groups PR, RL20, and RL40 received normal saline or saline containing 20 or 40 mg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the right hand. Groups LL20 and LL40 received 20 or 40 mg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the left hand. Part 2 involved 378 patients who were randomly assigned into five groups. Groups RL40, RL1.2, and RL1.5 received 40 mg, 1.2 mg/kg, and 1.5 mg/kg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the right hand. Groups LL1.2 and LL1.5 received 1.2 or 1.5 mg/kg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the left hand. All received 2 mg/kg of propofol via the vein on the right hand two minutes later. Injection pain and patient satisfaction were recorded.

Results

The incidence of pain of group RL40 was lower than that of group PR. The incidence of pain of group LL1.2 was higher than that of other groups.

Conclusions

A dosage of 40 mg lidocaine is an appropriate dosage to alleviate propofol injection pain within the same vein. Lidocaine reduces propofol injection pain through both a local anesthetic effect and a central analgesic effect when the dosage reaches 1.5 mg/kg.

Pain Management in Pediatric Burn Patients: Review of Recent Literature and Future Directions

Childhood burns are a profoundly traumatic and painful experience. Despite recognition of the prevalence of burn injuries in children and the severity of the associated pain, burn pain remains undertreated. At the same time, more evidence is emerging to suggest that undertreated pain has serious long-term medical and psychiatric consequences, many of which can be ameliorated with improved pain control. Pain in burn patients is, however, notoriously difficult to treat, perhaps because there is a chronic pain aspect underlying the acute pain that accompanies wound care and procedures. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that there are little data to guide decision making in these patients. This article aims to identify the best strategies to guide clinical practice through a review of the past 10 years' development in pediatric burn pain management. However, because clinical investigations remain limited in burned children, we also aim to draw attention to those areas where the data do not identify an optimal approach and further work is needed. Overall, in addition to just the traditional pharmacological approaches to pain, such as acetaminophen, benzodiazepines, and opioids, there is growing evidence to support more widespread use of regional anesthesia and novel technologies such as virtual reality. Starting with an improved understanding of the current state of the literature, we can identify areas of research and important questions whose answers will ultimately improve care and reduce suffering for this unfortunate population of children.

Lidocaine 5%-medicated plaster (Versatis) for localised neuropathic pain: results of a multicentre evaluation of use in children and adolescents

The Lidocaine 5% plaster is licensed for the symptomatic relief of neuropathic pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia in adult patients over 18 years of age. Studies in adults also demonstrate efficacy of Lidocaine 5% plasters in other neuropathic pain conditions. Case reports and experience suggested efficacy of Lidocaine 5% plasters in children and adolescents with localised neuropathic pain. Initiated by the Pain in Children Special Interest Group (PICSIG) of the British Pain Society, a 3-year prospective multicentre service evaluation was undertaken to document the usage and efficacy of the Lidocaine 5% plaster in paediatric patients being managed by paediatric pain teams in the United Kingdom. Five paediatric pain teams provided anonymised data pre-treatment and 3-6 months after commencing Lidocaine 5% plaster. Changes in pain score, function, sleep and continuing use were evaluated. Data were obtained for 115 patients; age range 5-18 years (mean: 12 years). Diagnosis and site of application varied. Benefit from use of a Lidocaine 5% plaster in an individual was deemed if two or more of the following were reported: reduction in pain score, functional improvement, sleep improvement and continuing use of Lidocaine 5% plaster. Benefit was recorded for 79 patients (69%); 32 patients were recorded as receiving no benefit and data were unavailable for 4 patients, and 7 patients reported minor skin reactions. This prospective service evaluation supports the efficacy of the Lidocaine 5% plaster in children and adolescents with localised neuropathic pain and confirms tolerability and safety. It is the opinion of the PICSIG of the British Pain Society that the Lidocaine 5% plaster should be considered early in the multidisciplinary management of localised neuropathic pain in children and adolescents.

Advances in topical analgesics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The recent increase in opioid consumption in the modern world prompted pain physicians to find new and improved solutions to tackle chronic, refractory pain syndromes. Topical analgesics are emerging as a valued multimodal analgesic arm in the fight against chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

New and improved topical formulations have emerged as effective tools to treat chronic refractory pain. In addition to formulations manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry, there has been a recent interest in mixed topical products by local, regional and national compounding pharmacies. This review will focus on advances in topical analgesics, especially their role as an effective analgesic in nociceptive and neuropathic refractory pain states. We will explore topical analgesics' mechanisms of action and their efficacy as opioid-sparing formulations.

SUMMARY

This review will allow physicians to understand the role of topical agents in the treatment of intractable pain syndromes. Increasing medical providers' familiarity with these agents will allow their incorporation as part of a complex analgesic regimen for an improved pain management plan benefiting the patient population at large.

The topical 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in localized neuropathic pain: a reappraisal of the clinical evidence

Topical 5% lidocaine medicated plasters represent a well-established first-line option for the treatment of peripheral localized neuropathic pain (LNP). This review provides an updated overview of the clinical evidence (randomized, controlled, and open-label clinical studies, real-life daily clinical practice, and case series). The 5% lidocaine medicated plaster effectively provides pain relief in postherpetic neuralgia, and data from a large open-label controlled study indicate that the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster is as effective as systemic pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic polyneuropathy but with an improved tolerability profile. Additionally, improved analgesia and fewer side effects were experienced by patients treated synchronously with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster, further demonstrating the value of multimodal analgesia in LNP. The 5% lidocaine medicated plaster provides continued benefit after long-term (≤7 years) use and is also effective in various other LNP conditions. Minor application-site reactions are the most common adverse events associated with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster; there is minimal risk of systemic adverse events and drug–drug interactions. Although further well-controlled studies are warranted, the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster is efficacious and safe in LNP and may have particular clinical benefit in elderly and/or medically compromised patients because of the low incidence of adverse events.

Pharmacological treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in pediatric patients

Chronic pain in children and young adults occurs frequently and contributes to early disability as well as personal and familial distress. A biopsychosocial approach to evaluation and treatment is recommended. Within this approach, there is a role for pharmacologic intervention. A variety of medications are used for chronic pain conditions in pediatric patients. Medication classes include anticonvulsants, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, opioids, local anesthetics, and anti-inflammatory drugs. Data is sparse, and most medications are used without condition-specific approval by national regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration in the US and the European Medicines Agency. In the absence of evidence on which to base practice, optimal drug therapy decisions rest on understanding proposed mechanisms of pain conditions, extrapolation from adult data-when such exists, and empirical and experiential knowledge. Drug delivery systems have evolved, and practitioners have to decide amongst not only medication classes, but also routes of delivery. Opioids are not recommended for use by non-pain specialists for the treatment of pediatric chronic pain, and even then the issues are more complex than can be addressed here. This article reviews the major medications used for pediatric chronic pain conditions.