Local Therapies for Localised Neuropathic Pain

Localised neuropathic pain in the primary care setting: a cross-sectional study of prevalence, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, quality of life and sleep performance

BACKGROUND

Localised Neuropathic Pain (LNP) is challenging to diagnose and manage in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, quality of life and sleep performance of patients with LNP and estimate its prevalence in primary care.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study in 4 European countries. Patients were identified using a screening tool for LNP. Patients completed the EQ-5D VAS score and Chronic Pain Sleep Inventory (CPSI).

RESULTS

There were 1030 LNP patients for analysis. They presented a median pain intensity of 6.0 (IQR 4.0-7.0) with a median duration of 30.9 months (IQR 12.0-75.3), despite 97% receiving pain treatment. Main sites affected were the limbs (62% upper/58% lower) and spine (41%). Main aetiologies were neuropathic low back pain (47%), post-surgical neuropathic pain (17%), and diabetic poly-neuropathy (12%). Thirty percent received a single analgesic (2% topical), while combinations comprised 43% systemic-systemic, 24% topical-systemic, 1% topical-topical. Medications included NSAIDs (45%), anticonvulsants (38%), WHO step 2 opioids (35%), and topical analgesics (27%). In the previous 6 months, 40% had switched treatment. The mean (SD) EQ-5D VAS score was 58 (22.3) and the mean (SD) EQ-5D summary score (UK tariff) was 0.62 (0.25). Patients had a CPSI mean index of 41/100, and sleeping pills were used by 33% of patients. The standardized prevalence of LNP by age and sex was 2.01% in the general population and 43.3% among chronic pain patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Many LNP patients reported pain intensities of six on a ten-point scale in average for durations longer than 2.5 years, with quality of life and sleep performance affected, with frequent treatment combinations and switches, suggesting suboptimal pain management.

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.