Treatment of neuropathic pain with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster: Five years of clinical experience

Effect of 2% Topical Lidocaine Gel on Discomfort from Electrical Stimulation During Nerve Conduction Studies- A Prospective Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study

Purpose

Procedure discomfort can limit electrodiagnostic studies. Reducing discomfort can maximize the benefits of these diagnostic tools. This study targeted the discomfort associated with nerve conduction studies (NCS).

Patients and Methods

This was a prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study comparing the effect of topical lidocaine gel (2%) versus analgesic-free lubricant gel (K-Y gel) on pain perception during NCS. Sequential patients (n=130) referred for routine NCS participated in the study. We applied 1 mL of lidocaine gel to one palm, and 1 mL of K-Y gel to the other as a control. After 20-45 min of application, graded increments of electrical stimulation intensity were delivered to record the median and ulnar mixed palmar nerve responses. Patients were then asked to score the degree of pain felt from electrical stimulation over each palm using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale (WBFPS) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), independent of baseline pain.

Results

Mean WBFPS and NRS scores for lidocaine-treated palms were significantly lower than those for controls using parametric paired t-test (3.79 vs 4.37 and 3.35 vs 3.78 respectively, all p-values<0.05). Subgroup analysis showed a significant decrease in mean scores in females, patients aged ≤50 years, patients without a history of previous NCS, and patients without comorbidities (all p-values<0.05). Median scores using nonparametric Wilcoxon ranked test also showed statistically significant differences (all p-values<0.05).

Conclusion

The results indicate that topical lidocaine 2% gel reduces discomfort associated with NCS. However, despite the statistical significance, clear clinical significance may be lacking. Clinical implementation may be considered for the subgroups that showed the greatest benefit. Further studies that incorporate more efficient drug delivery methods may yield better results.

Localized peripheral neuropathic pain: topical treatment with lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster in routine clinical practice

Aim: To provide real-world evidence for the effectiveness and tolerability of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) in localized peripheral neuropathic pain (l-PNP) treatment compared with first-line oral medications (OM). Patients & methods: This was a noninterventional, retrospective 6-month cohort study in patients refractory to at least one recommended OM, using anonymized medical care data from the German Pain eRegistry. Treatment groups were matched by propensity scoring, considering seven predefined confounding factors. The primary effectiveness end point was the absolute change in average pain intensity index from baseline at weeks 4, 12 and 24 of treatment and over the treatment period. Results: A total of 3081 datasets were retained per treatment group. LMP provided superior pain reductions and significantly greater improvements in pain-related impairments of daily living and quality of life with significantly better tolerability (p < 0.001 for all parameters) than OM. Conclusion: These real-world data confirm the effectiveness and good tolerability of LMP for l-PNP treatment under routine medical care.

Inhibition of Fast Nerve Conduction Produced by Analgesics and Analgesic Adjuvants-Possible Involvement in Pain Alleviation

Nociceptive information is transmitted from the periphery to the cerebral cortex mainly by action potential (AP) conduction in nerve fibers and chemical transmission at synapses. Although this nociceptive transmission is largely inhibited at synapses by analgesics and their adjuvants, it is possible that the antinociceptive drugs inhibit nerve AP conduction, contributing to their antinociceptive effects. Many of the drugs are reported to inhibit the nerve conduction of AP and voltage-gated Na⁺ and K⁺ channels involved in its production. Compound action potential (CAP) is a useful measure to know whether drugs act on nerve AP conduction. Clinically-used analgesics and analgesic adjuvants (opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ₂-adrenoceptor agonists, antiepileptics, antidepressants and local anesthetics) were found to inhibit fast-conducting CAPs recorded from the frog sciatic nerve by using the air-gap method. Similar actions were produced by antinociceptive plant-derived chemicals. Their inhibitory actions depended on the concentrations and chemical structures of the drugs. This review article will mention the inhibitory actions of the antinociceptive compounds on CAPs in frog and mammalian peripheral (particularly, sciatic) nerves and on voltage-gated Na⁺ and K⁺ channels involved in AP production. Nerve AP conduction inhibition produced by analgesics and analgesic adjuvants is suggested to contribute to at least a part of their antinociceptive effects.

Perineural injection of botulinum toxin-A in painful peripheral nerve injury - a case series: pain relief, safety, sensory profile and sample size recommendation

Objectives: Subcutaneous injection of botulinum toxin-A (sBONT-A) is a novel treatment for peripheral neuropathic pain. While its analgesic effects are well documented, this treatment is often not comfortable and fails in patients who show signs of sensory loss but rarely allodynia. There are some case reports about perineural BONT-A injection (pBONT-A) which could be an alternative approach. Here we present a retrospective, open label case series of pBONT-A's efficacy and safety regarding neurological consequences involving changes in somatosensory profiles of both responders and non-responders. Methods: Sixty patients (53 ± 13years, 77% males) with PNI were treated with pBONT-A after a test injection with a local anesthetic, which prompted distinctive pain relief. Quantitative sensory testing (QST; DFNS protocol) and pain intensity were assessed before and ≥7 days post pBONT-A injection. Definition of response: satisfactory pain reduction of ≥30% NRS (numerical rating scale: 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain) for ≥4 days. Statistics: Paired t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, χ² test. Results: A temporary weak paresis in one case was clinically verified. The QST -parameters remained unchanged, but patients with more frequent hyperalgesia signs reported less analgesia (p = .04). The pBONT-A injection prompted pain relief by 24.8% (NRS: 6.0 ± 1.7 vs. 4.5 ± 2.1; p < .0001); 57% (n = 34) were responders (NRS: 6.0 ± 1.6 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6, relief of 43.4%; p < .0001). Based on these results, we suggest that future parallel design trials on pBONT-A need to include at least 84 patients. Discussion: Ultrasound-guided pBONT-A injection seems to be a safe treatment leading to a sufficient pain relief for some months without sensory changes. Surprisingly, pBONT-A showed a pronounced analgesic effect also in patients without signs of hyperalgesia.

Treatment of postherpetic neuralgia with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in elderly patients - subgroup analyses from three European clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in elderly patients (≥70 years of age).

METHODS

Data from three European clinical trials was compared after stratification according to age (<70 years and ≥70 years). Length of study phase investigated was 4 weeks for study 1, 8 weeks for study 2, and up to 12 months for study 3. Effectiveness outcome measures were pain intensity, pain relief, allodynia severity, Clinical Global Impression of Change, and Patient Global Impression of Change. Safety was assessed by adverse event documentation.

RESULTS

Mean average pain intensity improved in the elderly by -2.1 (SD 2.1) vs. -2.5 (SD 2.0) for <70 year old patients after 4 weeks, by -1.4 (SD 1.8) vs. -1.7 (SD 1.3) after 8 weeks, and by -1.5 (SD 1.9) vs. -2.7 (SD 2.2) after 12 months. Most patients presented with allodynia (>85% of elderly, >78% of younger patients) which was described by >51% as painful or extremely painful. Allodynia severity was markedly reduced in both groups during all three trials. Drug-related adverse events occurred in <20% of elderly and <15% of <70 year old patients and were mainly skin related.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5% lidocaine medicated plaster provided pain relief and marked reductions in allodynia severity in elderly PHN patients with an excellent safety profile under short- and long-term treatment supporting the addition of the plaster to the treatment armamentarium for this age group.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

All analyzed study phases were open-label and lacking a placebo control group.

Topical Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: Applying the Evidence

CONTEXT

Patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (NP) may only achieve partial pain relief with currently recommended first-line oral treatments, which are also associated with systemic adverse events. Topical treatments are currently considered second- or third-line options, but a recent pharmacologic treatment algorithm has called for broader first-line use of these agents. This has highlighted a need to communicate the benefits associated with topical agents, in particular around the efficacy, targeted local action, and limited systemic availability resulting in minimal systemic adverse events and drug-drug interactions.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to evaluate the evidence base for topical therapies currently used to treat peripheral NP, discuss the evidence comparing these treatments head-to-head with oral standard of care, and evaluate how they fit into treatment regimens in the "real world."

METHODS

This is a narrative review.

RESULTS

Two topical treatments are currently licensed: lidocaine 5% medicated plaster (post-herpetic neuralgia) and the capsaicin 8% patch (peripheral NP). When compared head to head with the oral standard of care (pregabalin), the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster provided similar relief of pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia but did not meet the primary predefined criteria for noninferiority. The capsaicin 8% patch, however, demonstrated noninferior efficacy when compared head-to-head with pregabalin across a wide range of peripheral NP etiologies. Importantly, both treatments demonstrated effective pain relief without the systemic adverse events associated with oral therapies.

CONCLUSION

First-line use of topical agents may be of particular benefit in patients where the safety and tolerability of oral therapy is a concern.

The 5% Lidocaine-Medicated Plaster: Its Inclusion in International Treatment Guidelines for Treating Localized Neuropathic Pain, and Clinical Evidence Supporting its Use

When peripheral neuropathic pain affects a specific, clearly demarcated area of the body, it may be described as localized neuropathic pain (LNP). Examples include postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, as well as post-surgical and post-traumatic pain. These conditions may respond to topical treatment, i.e., pharmaceutical agents acting locally on the peripheral nervous system, and the topical route offers advantages over systemic administration. Notably, only a small fraction of the dose reaches the systemic circulation, thereby reducing the risk of systemic adverse effects, drug–drug interactions and overdose. From the patient’s perspective, the analgesic agent is easily applied to the most painful area(s). The 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster has been used for several years to treat LNP and is registered in approximately 50 countries. Many clinical guidelines recommend this treatment modality as a first-line option for treating LNP, particularly in frail and/or elderly patients and those receiving multiple medications, because the benefit-to-risk ratios are far better than those of systemic analgesics. However, some guidelines make only a weak recommendation for its use. This paper considers the positioning of the 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster in international treatment guidelines and how they may be influenced by the specific criteria used in developing them, such as the methodology employed by randomized, placebo-controlled trials. It then examines the body of evidence supporting use of the plaster in some prevalent LNP conditions. Common themes that emerge from clinical studies are: (1) the excellent tolerability and safety of the plaster, which can increase patients’ adherence to treatment, (2) continued efficacy over long-term treatment, and (3) significant reduction in the size of the painful area. On this basis, it is felt that the 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster should be more strongly recommended for treating LNP, either as one component of a multimodal approach or as monotherapy.

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.

Topical analgesics for neuropathic pain in the elderly: current and future prospects

Neuropathic pain (NeP) is a significant medical and socioeconomic burden with limited therapeutic options. Elderly patients exhibit a higher incidence of several NeP conditions and pose a particular challenge due to age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic issues, comorbid conditions, and polypharmacy, as well as frailty and cognitive decline. Topical analgesics are of interest because of their comparable efficacy to oral agents, good tolerability and safety, and potential to be add-on therapies to oral treatments. In recent years, two topical formulations for NeP have been approved (5% lidocaine medicated plaster, 8% capsaicin patch) but are not available in all countries. There are controlled trials and a growing body of open-label reports on their use in clinical care. Some studies provide a post hoc analysis of data in relation to older age (≥65 years), which is useful. The body of evidence relating to topical investigational agents is growing and involves controlled trials as well as individual cases. The largest single body of information is for topical ketamine, administered either alone or combined with other agents (particularly amitriptyline), and some large randomized controlled trials report efficacy. Other large trials involve topical clonidine and further ketamine combinations. Compounding analgesics involves challenges, including uncertain composition (two to five ingredients are used) and concentrations (range 0.5-5%), as well as the heterogeneity of data that support choices. Nevertheless, case reports and acceptable response rates in larger cohorts are intriguing, and this area merits further investigation in controlled settings as well as continued documentation of clinical experiences.

Building a diagnostic algorithm on localized neuropathic pain (LNP) and targeted topical treatment: focus on 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster

Within the broad definition of neuropathic pain, the refinement of clinical diagnostic procedures has led to the introduction of the concept of localized neuropathic pain (LNP). It is characterized by consistent and circumscribed area(s) of maximum pain, which are associated with negative or positive sensory signs and/or spontaneous symptoms typical of neuropathic pain. This description outlines the clinical features (currently lacking in guidelines and treatment recommendations) in patients for whom topical targeted treatment with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster is suggested as first-line therapy. Few epidemiologic data are present in the literature but it is generally estimated that about 60% of neuropathic pain conditions are localized, and therefore identifiable as LNP. A mandatory clinical criterion for the diagnosis of LNP is that signs and symptoms must be present in a clearly identified and defined area(s). Cartographic recordings can help to define each area and to assess variations. The diagnosis of LNP relies on careful neurological examination more than on pain questionnaires, but it is recognized that they can be extremely useful for recording the symptom profiles and establishing a more targeted treatment. The most widely studied frequent/relevant clinical presentations of LNP are postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy, and neuropathic postoperative pain. They successfully respond to treatment with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster with equal if not better pain control but with fewer side effects versus conventional systemic treatments. Generally, the more localized the pain (ie, the area of an A4 sheet of paper) the better the results of topical treatment. This paper proposes an easy-to-understand algorithm to identify patients with LNP and to guide targeted topical treatments with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster.

Effects of various antiepileptics used to alleviate neuropathic pain on compound action potential in frog sciatic nerves: comparison with those of local anesthetics

Antiepileptics used for treating neuropathic pain have various actions including voltage-gated Na(+) and Ca(2+) channels, glutamate-receptor inhibition, and GABA(A)-receptor activation, while local anesthetics are also used to alleviate the pain. It has not been fully examined yet how nerve conduction inhibitions by local anesthetics differ in extent from those by antiepileptics. Fast-conducting compound action potentials (CAPs) were recorded from frog sciatic nerve fibers by using the air-gap method. Antiepileptics (lamotrigine and carbamazepine) concentration dependently reduced the peak amplitude of the CAP (IC50 = 0.44 and 0.50 mM, resp.). Carbamazepine analog oxcarbazepine exhibited an inhibition smaller than that of carbamazepine. Antiepileptic phenytoin (0.1 mM) reduced CAP amplitude by 15%. On the other hand, other antiepileptics (gabapentin, sodium valproate, and topiramate) at 10 mM had no effect on CAPs. The CAPs were inhibited by local anesthetic levobupivacaine (IC50 = 0.23 mM). These results indicate that there is a difference in the extent of nerve conduction inhibition among antiepileptics and that some antiepileptics inhibit nerve conduction with an efficacy similar to that of levobupivacaine or to those of other local anesthetics (lidocaine, ropivacaine, and cocaine) as reported previously. This may serve to know a contribution of nerve conduction inhibition in the antinociception by antiepileptics.

Lidocaine Patch (5%) in Treatment of Persistent Inguinal Postherniorrhaphy Pain

Background:

Evidence-based pharmacological treatment options for patients with persistent inguinal postherniorrhaphy pain are lacking.

Methods:

Twenty-one male patients, with severe, unilateral, persistent inguinal postherniorrhaphy pain, participated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial, receiving lidocaine patch (5%) and placebo patch treatments in periods of 14 days separated by a 14-day wash-out period. Pain intensities (at rest, during movement, and pressure evoked [Numerical Rating Scale]) were assessed before treatment and on the last 3 days of each treatment period. Patients were a priori divided into two subgroups based on quantitative sensory testing (+/− thermal “hyposensitivity”). Skin biopsies for intraepidermal nerve fiber density assessment were taken at baseline, and quantitative sensory testing was performed before and after each treatment period. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity assessed as the difference in summed pain intensity differences between lidocaine and placebo patch treatments.

Results:

There was no difference in summed pain intensity differences between lidocaine and placebo patch treatments in all patients (mean difference 6.2% [95% CI = −6.6 to 18.9%]; P = 0.33) or in the two subgroups (+/− thermal “hyposensitivity”). The quantitative sensory testing (n = 21) demonstrated an increased pressure pain thresholds after lidocaine compared with placebo patch treatment. Baseline intraepidermal nerve fiber density (n = 21) was lower on the pain side compared with the nonpain side (−3.8 fibers per millimeter [95% CI = −6.1 to −1.4]; P = 0.003). One patient developed mild erythema in the groin during both treatments.

Conclusions:

Lidocaine patch treatment did not reduce combined resting and dynamic pain ratings compared with placebo in patients with severe, persistent inguinal postherniorrhaphy pain.

Health economic evidence of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in post-herpetic neuralgia

BACKGROUND

Post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) is the most common and most debilitating complication of herpes zoster, and involves considerable associated costs.

OBJECTIVE

This paper presents results from nine health economic studies undertaken in eight European countries that compared lidocaine medicated plaster with gabapentin and/or pregabalin in PHN. It aims to support the increasing need for published cost-effectiveness data for health care decision-making processes in Europe.

METHODS

All studies were based on a similar core Markov model with data derived from clinical trials, local Delphi panels, and official national price and tariff lists. The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life year gained; time without pain or intolerable adverse events was also included as a secondary outcome measure. All studies focused on an elderly population of patients with PHN who had insufficient pain relief with standard analgesics and could not tolerate or had contraindications to tricyclic antidepressants.

RESULTS

Despite considerable differences in many of the variables used, the results showed remarkable similarity and suggested that use of lidocaine medicated plaster offered cost-savings in many of the countries studied, where it proved a highly cost-effective alternative to both gabapentin and pregabalin.

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine medicated plaster is a cost-effective alternative to gabapentin and pregabalin in the treatment of PHN. These savings are largely the result of the superior safety profile of the lidocaine medicated plaster.

Can treatment success with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster be predicted in cancer pain with neuropathic components or trigeminal neuropathic pain?

An expert group of 40 pain specialists from 16 countries performed a first assessment of the value of predictors for treatment success with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster in the management of cancer pain with neuropathic components and trigeminal neuropathic pain. Results were based on the retrospective analysis of 68 case reports (sent in by participants in the 4 weeks prior to the conference) and the practical experience of the experts. Lidocaine plaster treatment was mostly successful for surgery or chemotherapy-related cancer pain with neuropathic components. A dose reduction of systemic pain treatment was observed in at least 50% of all cancer pain patients using the plaster as adjunct treatment; the presence of allodynia, hyperalgesia or pain quality provided a potential but not definitively clear indication of treatment success. In trigeminal neuropathic pain, continuous pain, severe allodynia, hyperalgesia, or postherpetic neuralgia or trauma as the cause of orofacial neuropathic pain were perceived as potential predictors of treatment success with lidocaine plaster. In conclusion, these findings provide a first assessment of the likelihood of treatment benefits with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster in the management of cancer pain with neuropathic components and trigeminal neuropathic pain and support conducting large, well-designed multicenter studies.

Use of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster to treat localized neuropathic pain secondary to traumatic injury of peripheral nerves

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (LMP) has previously been demonstrated in post-traumatic localized neuropathic pain. This study evaluated the use of LMP in localized neuropathic pain secondary to traumatic peripheral nerve injury.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective observational study enrolled patients with traumatic injuries to peripheral nerves that were accompanied by localized neuropathic pain of more than 3 months duration. Demographic variables, pain intensity (measured using the numeric rating scale; NRS), answers to the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaire, and the size of the painful area were recorded.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were included, aged (mean ± standard deviation) 41.4 ± 15.7 years. Nerve injuries affected the upper (eight patients) or lower (11 patients) limbs. The mean duration of pain before starting treatment with LMP was 22.6 ± 43.5 months (median 8 months). Mean baseline values included: NRS 6.7 ± 1.6, painful area 17.8 ± 10.4 cm(2) (median 18 cm(2)), and DN4 score 6.7 ± 1.4. The mean duration of treatment with LMP was 19.5 ± 10.0 weeks (median 17.4 weeks). Mean values after treatment were: NRS 2.8 ± 1.5 (≥3 point reduction in 79% of patients, ≥50% reduction in 57.9% of patients) and painful area 2.1 ± 2.3 cm(2) (median 1 cm(2), ≥50% reduction in 94.7% of patients). Functional improvement after treatment was observed in 14/19 patients (73.7%).

CONCLUSION

LMP effectively treated traumatic injuries of peripheral nerves which presented with chronic localized neuropathic pain, reducing both pain intensity and the size of the painful area.

Topical pain management with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster--a review

BACKGROUND

The topical 5% lidocaine medicated plaster is recommended as first-line treatment for localized peripheral neuropathic pain.

SCOPE

In order to provide an overview of the efficacy and safety of the lidocaine plaster in the treatment of different neuropathic pain conditions, all efficacy and safety studies (randomized, controlled, or open-label with well described methodology), case reports, and pharmacological studies on the lidocaine plaster retrieved from a PubMed literature research (1960-March 2012) plus additional references identified from retrieved articles were included.

FINDINGS

The lidocaine plaster is efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain symptoms associated with previous herpes zoster infection. Results from a large open-label controlled study suggest that the lidocaine plaster could be at least as effective as systemic pregabalin in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic polyneuropathy. Open-label studies indicate efficacy in the treatment of other localized neuropathic pain conditions, such as painful idiopathic sensory polyneuropathy, complex regional pain syndrome, carpal tunnel syndrome sequelae, postsurgical and posttraumatic pain. Quality of life markedly improved in a variety of neuropathic pain conditions and long-term treatment provided sustained relief in patients with neuropathic pain who are responsive to lidocaine plaster. The lidocaine plaster is usually well tolerated. The risk of systemic adverse events and pharmacokinetic interactions with concomitant medication is minimal owing to low systemic exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of several, primarily neuropathic and mixed-pain conditions with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster was found efficacious and safe. Further controlled studies, in particular where only small open-label studies or case reports are available, should be considered.

Patient perceptions associated with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in daily practice

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patients' perceptions of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster for treatment of chronic neuropathic pain in daily clinical practice.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a prospective, multicentre, non-interventional observation, patient-reported outcome data were collected in clinical practices in Germany using the German Pain Questionnaire for pre-treatment documentation and the German Pain Diary for documentation of weekly treatment-associated changes. Questionnaires were completed by the patients without input from their physicians.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean changes over the 12-week treatment period in pain intensity, in impairments of daily activities (modified pain disability index, mPDI) and of quality of life (quality of life impairment by pain inventory, QLIP), in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores (HADS-A and HADS-D), and in overall burden of pain.

RESULTS

Data of 922 patients were evaluated. Mean average pain intensity over 24 h improved by 5.1 points (74%) from 6.9 ± 1.6 points at baseline. A 30% reduction in overall pain intensity was already observed within the first 2-3 weeks with continuous further reductions until end of observation. Marked improvements in anxiety and depression scores (40% and 52%, respectively), and in pain-related restrictions in daily life activities (66%) and quality of life (157%) were also noted. Burden of pain was reduced by 56.2 points (73%) from 77.5 points at baseline. Stratification by diagnosis showed a treatment effect of lidocaine plaster for all underlying conditions with highest treatment effects for diabetic polyneuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia.

CONCLUSIONS

In a patient population where 46% of individuals already suffered from chronic to markedly chronic pain, patients perceive the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster as an efficacious topical treatment of chronic neuropathic pain in daily clinical practice. Strongest pain relief as well as associated improvements in pain-related restrictions were observed within the first five treatment weeks; however, beneficial effects continued until end of observation.