Safety and efficacy outcomes of long-term treatment up to 4 years with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia

Comparative Benefit-Risk Assessment for Lidocaine 700 mg Medicated Plaster and Pregabalin in Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Following a Structured Framework Approach

Introduction

Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) is difficult to treat. Several oral drugs are recommended as first-line treatments. Nevertheless, many patients cannot obtain sufficient pain relief or do not tolerate systemically active treatments. Topical treatments, with a lower risk of systemic side effects such as lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster, are also recommended in treatment guidelines. This analysis compares the benefit–risk balance of topical 700 mg lidocaine medicated plaster with the benefit–risk balance of oral pregabalin administration for the treatment of PNP following current recommendations on benefit–risk assessment (BRA) methodology.

Methods

The Benefit–Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework was used as structured approach. Selection of key benefits and risks was supported by a patient survey. Published randomized controlled clinical trials were the main source to identify data related to key benefits and risks. The outcome of randomized clinical trials was compared with real-world evidence (RWE) data for consistency.

Results

Identified key benefits were pain reduction and improvement in quality of life. Key risks identified were application site reactions, dizziness, confusion, weight gain, peripheral edema, and blurred vision. Overall, there was similarity in key benefits between the comparators; however, a clear advantage regarding key risks in favor of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster was observed. This observation was consistent across data from a direct comparison trial, randomized placebo-controlled trials, as well as data from RWE studies. The low number of randomized controlled trials for lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster was the main limitation.

Conclusion

Guided by the opinion of patients regarding key benefits and risks deemed important for treatments of peripheral neuropathic pain, our analysis showed that lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster has a more favorable benefit–risk balance compared to pregabalin (300 and 600 mg daily).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-021-00340-2.

Topical Lidocaine for Chronic Pain Treatment

Topical lidocaine is widely used in current practice for a variety of pain conditions. This literature review shows that its limited absorption and relative lack of systemic adverse events are an attractive analgesic option for a number of vulnerable patients. Topical lidocaine has been approved by health authorities for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia in a number of countries, and studies present some degree of evidence of its efficacy and safety in postsurgical pain, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic lower back pain and osteoarthritis. Topical lidocaine may be a great alternative alone or in addition to systemic drugs and non-pharmacological approaches for an optimized pain management and in multimodal analgesia.

Lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster for postherpetic neuralgia: real-world data from the German Pain e-Registry

Aim: To provide real-world evidence for the effectiveness and tolerability of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) compared with oral systemic first-line medications (OSM) in postherpetic neuralgia treatment. Patients & methods: Retrospective cohort study in patients refractory to at least one recommended OSM (single drug or a combination of drugs) using anonymized routine medical care data from the German Pain e-Registry. A matched pair approach using propensity score matching was employed. Results: A total of 1711 data sets of postherpetic neuralgia patients were identified per treatment group. The majority (>60%) had experienced pain for more than a year and reported a high burden of pain and reduced quality of life. Six months of LMP treatment provided significantly greater pain reductions, improvements in pain-related impairments and quality of life than OSM treatment (p < 0.001 for all parameters). Drug-related adverse events and treatment discontinuation due to drug-related adverse events also occurred less frequently under LMP treatment (p < 0.001). Conclusion: These real-world data confirm the effectiveness and good tolerability of LMP under routine medical care. The treatment was significantly more effective when compared with first-line oral systemic medications.

Expert consensus of the Chinese Association for the Study of Pain on pain treatment with the transdermal patch

Chronic pain lasting more than 3 mo, or even several years can lead to disability. Treating chronic pain safely and effectively is a critical challenge faced by clinicians. Because administration of analgesics through oral, intravenous or intramuscular routes is not satisfactory, research toward percutaneous delivery has gained interest. The transdermal patch is one such percutaneous delivery system that can deliver drugs through the skin and capillaries at a certain rate to achieve a systemic or local therapeutic effect in the affected area. It has many advantages including ease of administration and hepatic first pass metabolism avoidance as well as controlling drug delivery, which reduces the dose frequency and side effects. If not required, then the patch can be removed from the skin immediately. The scopolamine patch was the first transdermal patch to be approved for the treatment of motion sickness by the Food and Drug Administration in 1979. From then on, the transdermal patch has been widely used to treat many diseases. To date, no guidelines or consensus are available on the use of analgesic drugs through transdermal delivery. The pain branch of the Chinese Medical Association, after meeting and discussing with experts and based on clinical evidence, developed a consensus for promoting and regulating standard use of transdermal patches containing analgesic drugs.

A Randomized, Open-Label, Bioequivalence Study of Lidocaine Topical System 1.8% and Lidocaine Patch 5% in Healthy Subjects

Purpose

This study was designed to characterize drug delivery with lidocaine topical system 1.8% vs lidocaine patch 5% through 2 PK studies.

Patients and Methods

Two Phase 1, single-center, open-label, randomized PK studies were performed in healthy adults. In Study 1, 56 subjects received a single intravenous bolus of 0.7 mg/kg of lidocaine as a lead-in to allow for the accurate determination of apparent dose of both products. After a 7-day washout period, subjects were randomized to receive either lidocaine topical system 1.8% or lidocaine patch 5% for 12 hours followed by another 7-day washout period, after which subjects crossed over to receive the other treatment for 12 hours. In Study 2, 54 subjects were randomized to receive either lidocaine topical system 1.8% or lidocaine patch 5% for 12 hours. After a 7-day washout period, subjects crossed over to receive the other treatment. Adhesion and skin irritation assessments were performed after application of the products in Study 2. In both studies, serial blood samples were collected to measure the plasma concentration of lidocaine after product application. Safety assessments and adverse events were monitored in both studies.

Results

The comparative PK analysis demonstrated that the two products, despite their difference in drug load and strength, are bioequivalent. Both products were well tolerated. In Study 2, dermal response scores (skin tolerability after removal) were similar between lidocaine topical system 1.8% and lidocaine patch 5%, with a mean irritation score per patch <1 (barely perceptible erythema), which is not considered to be clinically significant.

Conclusion

Bioequivalence was demonstrated between lidocaine topical system 1.8% and lidocaine patch 5%. A comparison of the single-time adhesion scores at 12 hours in Study 2 favored lidocaine topical system 1.8% over lidocaine patch 5%. Both products were well tolerated as a single application in healthy adult human subjects.

ClinicalTrialsgov

NCT04144192, NCT04149938.

A Randomized, Open-Label, Bioequivalence Study of Lidocaine Topical System 1.8% and Lidocaine Patch 5% in Healthy Subjects

Purpose

This study was designed to characterize drug delivery with lidocaine topical system 1.8% vs lidocaine patch 5% through 2 PK studies.

Patients and Methods

Two Phase 1, single-center, open-label, randomized PK studies were performed in healthy adults. In Study 1, 56 subjects received a single intravenous bolus of 0.7 mg/kg of lidocaine as a lead-in to allow for the accurate determination of apparent dose of both products. After a 7-day washout period, subjects were randomized to receive either lidocaine topical system 1.8% or lidocaine patch 5% for 12 hours followed by another 7-day washout period, after which subjects crossed over to receive the other treatment for 12 hours. In Study 2, 54 subjects were randomized to receive either lidocaine topical system 1.8% or lidocaine patch 5% for 12 hours. After a 7-day washout period, subjects crossed over to receive the other treatment. Adhesion and skin irritation assessments were performed after application of the products in Study 2. In both studies, serial blood samples were collected to measure the plasma concentration of lidocaine after product application. Safety assessments and adverse events were monitored in both studies.

Results

The comparative PK analysis demonstrated that the two products, despite their difference in drug load and strength, are bioequivalent. Both products were well tolerated. In Study 2, dermal response scores (skin tolerability after removal) were similar between lidocaine topical system 1.8% and lidocaine patch 5%, with a mean irritation score per patch <1 (barely perceptible erythema), which is not considered to be clinically significant.

Conclusion

Bioequivalence was demonstrated between lidocaine topical system 1.8% and lidocaine patch 5%. A comparison of the single-time adhesion scores at 12 hours in Study 2 favored lidocaine topical system 1.8% over lidocaine patch 5%. Both products were well tolerated as a single application in healthy adult human subjects.

ClinicalTrials.gov

NCT04144192, NCT04149938.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/OsTX66XQcm0

Novel insights on the management of pain: highlights from the ‘Science of Relief’ meeting

The ‘Science of Relief’ event, held in Milan on 10–11 May 2019, was aimed at promoting dialog between different stakeholders among scientific associations, pharma industry, healthcare services and related institutions. The goal was to renew interest and attention on the management of pain, sharing new solutions in order to bring the patients and their quality of life to the center of attention. An international group of scientists and clinicians presented and discussed new and known evidence in the field of chronic pain, from physiopathology and diagnosis to the choice of appropriate and timely pharmacological treatments. This paper reports the highlights of those presentations.

[Long-term effectiveness of topical analgesics]

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain consistently presents a significant therapeutic challenge. Topically applied analgesics have the advantage of showing low systemic side effects, but data on long-term effectiveness are lacking. Consequently, interviews were carried out with all patients being treated with topical analgesics in hospital.

METHODS

Ethics 16-5690, German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) 00011877. Between 2008 and 2017 a total of 265 patients were treated at least once with either capsaicin 8% (C), lidocaine 5% (L) and/or perineural botulinum toxin type A (B). From this sample, 205 patients (77%) were interviewed by telephone for feedback on pain reduction (first/last treatment: low/moderate/very good), the possible reduction of analgesic prescription and if applicable the reasons for discontinuation of use (time of interview C: 26 ± 19 months, L: 61 ± 23 months, B: 11 ± 6 months after start). Further pretreatment data and diagnoses were obtained from the in-house documentation system. Responders or long-term responders were defined as patients with at least one moderate pain reduction after the first or last treatment, as long as the effect was adequately maintained.

RESULTS

In all treatment groups (56 ± 13 years, 62% male, C: 80, L: 84, B: 58 patients) patients with a long history of pain (C: 60 ± 73 months, L: 59 ± 66 months, B: 67 ± 71 months) and high pain intensity (numeric rating scale, NRS, C: 7 ± 2, L: 7 ± 2, B: 6 ± 2), were predominant. The highest primary and long-term responder rates were exhibited by L (57%/60%, B: 52%/37%, C: 23%/15%). With B, long-term responders were most frequently able to reduce analgesic use (74%, C: 58%, L: 38%).

DISCUSSION

Despite the long duration of the disease, the most used off-label topical drugs L and B demonstrated a high primary response rate (in contrast to C), with most benefiting from long-term treatment.

Analysis of the Risk Factors for Postherpetic Neuralgia

Background: Postherpetic neuralgia is the most common complication of herpes zoster, affecting 30% of patients. It seriously affects the quality of life of patients and the curative effect of treatment is limited. So far, researchers do not fully understand the risk factors for postherpetic neuralgia and more research is needed. Objective: The aim of this paper was to investigate the risk factors for postherpetic neuralgia and provide reference for clinical diagnosis and treatment. Methods: A total of 202 inpatients with herpes zoster in the General Hospital of Tianjin Medical University were recruited as study subjects. According to the occurrence of postherpetic neuralgia, the patients were divided into the postherpetic neuralgia group and the nonpostherpetic neuralgia group. Data on age, gender, initial symptoms, clinical classification, involved nerves, pain grading, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid use, and other clinical data of patients in the two groups were collected and statistically analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analysis methods were used to analyze the differences between the two groups and determine the influencing factors of postherpetic neuralgia. Results: The univariate statistical analysis of the factors influencing postherpetic neuralgia showed that the contribution of gender, initial symptoms, general clinical classification, use of glucocorticoid, and the interval from onset to antiviral therapy were not statistically significant, while the differences in age, specific clinical classification, involved nerves, severity of pain during the acute stage, and body side of skin lesion distribution were statistically significant. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that gender, use of glucocorticoid, interval from onset to antiviral therapy, involved nerves, and specific clinical classification showed no statistical significance. However, there were significant differences in age, body side of skin lesion distribution, general clinical classification, and degree of pain during the acute stage of the disease. Conclusion: Pain during the acute stage of herpes zoster, age greater than 70 years, and serious type of skin lesion are risk factors for postherpetic neuralgia (p < 0.05, OR >1).

Topical drug therapeutics for neuropathic pain

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a particularly severe and intractable chronic condition that is not well treated by commonly recommended systemic pharmacological therapies, partly due to dose-limiting side effects or adverse events. The use of topical therapeutics for NP is growing and benefits from the reduced potential for adverse effects, as well as the ability to directly target peripheral pathological processes.

AREAS COVERED

The current review defines and describes the limitations of various commonly prescribed systemic pharmacological therapies for NP. It also provides a justification for increased research aimed at developing topical therapeutics for NP, particularly localized and peripheral NP. The review discusses the various classes of topical treatments used for NP, including agents that: block sensory inputs; activate inhibitory systems; provide mechanism-based therapeutics; are used in mucosal tissues; and include combinations that produce multimodal therapeutic effects.

EXPERT OPINION

There are arguments that the current topical therapeutics for NP rely too heavily on the use of local anesthetics and capsaicinoids, and more research is certainly needed on topical therapies that are multimodal and/or are targeted at the peripheral sources of pathology. The potential for novel topical therapeutics may be enhanced by further research on topical co-drugs, drug-drug salts, co-crystals and hydrates, and ionic liquids.

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.

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.

Impact of topical 5% lidocaine-medicated plasters on sleep and quality of life in patients with postherpetic neuralgia

Aim: To determine the impact of 5% lidocaine-medicated plasters on sleep, quality of life and pain in 265 patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Patients & methods: An 8-week, open-label arm of a double-blind controlled withdrawal study. Results: Patients treated with 5% lidocaine had less trouble falling asleep, used less sleep medication, had fewer awakenings due to pain at night or in the morning and their perception of quality of life was improved. The 15 pain descriptors in the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire were improved from baseline to week 8, with a decrease in the proportion of patients reporting ‘severe’ pain and an increase in the number reporting ‘none/mild’ pain. Conclusion: 5% lidocaine-medicated plasters provide benefits beyond pain relief for patients with postherpetic neuralgia.

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.

5% Lidocaine Medicated Plaster for the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Review of the Clinical Safety and Tolerability

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common, very painful, and often long-lasting complication of herpes zoster which is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated. It mainly affects the elderly, many of whom are already treated for comorbidities with a variety of systemic medications and are thus at high risk of drug-drug interactions. An efficacious and safe treatment with a low interaction potential is therefore of high importance. This review focuses on the safety and tolerability of the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster, a topical analgesic indicated for the treatment of PHN. The available literature (up to June 2014) was searched for publications containing safety data regarding the use of the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in PHN treatment; unpublished clinical safety data were also included in this review. The 5% lidocaine medicated plaster demonstrated good short- and long-term tolerability with low systemic uptake (3 ± 2%) and minimal risk for systemic adverse drug reactions (ADRs). ADRs related to topical lidocaine treatment were mainly application site reactions of mild to moderate intensity. The treatment discontinuation rate was generally below 5% of patients. In one trial, the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster was better tolerated than systemic treatment with pregabalin. The 5% lidocaine medicated plaster provides a safe alternative to systemic medications for PHN treatment, including long-term pain treatment.

Treatment of localized neuropathic pain of different etiologies with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster - a case series

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of the topical 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in the treatment of localized neuropathic pain.

Study design

This was a case series at an Austrian pain clinic, using retrospective analysis.

Patients and methods

Data of 27 patients treated for localized neuropathic pain with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster were retrospectively analyzed. Assessment included changes in overall pain intensity, in intensity of different pain qualities, and of hyperalgesia and allodynia, and changes in sleep quality.

Results

Patients (17 female, ten male; mean age 53.4±11.4 years) presented mainly with dorsalgia (16 patients) or postoperative/posttraumatic pain (seven patients); one patient suffered from both. The mean overall pain intensity prior to treatment with lidocaine medicated plaster was 8.4±1.2 on the 11-point Likert scale. In the majority of cases, the lidocaine plaster was applied concomitantly with preexisting pain medication (81.5% of the patients). During the 6-month observation period, overall mean pain intensity was reduced by almost 5 points (4.98) to 3.5±2.6. Substantial reductions were also observed for neuralgiform pain (5 points from 7.9±2.6 at baseline) and burning pain (3 points from 5.2±4.1). Sleep quality improved from 4.6±2.6 at baseline to 5.5±1.8. Stratification by pain diagnosis showed marked improvements in overall pain intensity for patients with dorsalgia or postoperative/posttraumatic pain. The lidocaine plaster was well tolerated.

Conclusion

Overall, topical treatment with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster was associated with effective pain relief and was well tolerated.

Topical lidocaine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Lidocaine is a local anaesthetic that is sometimes used on the skin to treat neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of topical lidocaine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and to assess the associated adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 1 July 2014, together with the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal to identify additional published or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing any formulation of topical lidocaine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies (508 participants) in comparisons with placebo or an active control. Six studies enrolled participants with moderate or severe postherpetic neuralgia, and the remaining studies enrolled different, or mixed, neuropathic pain conditions, including trigeminal neuralgia and postsurgical or post-traumatic neuralgia. Four different formulations were used: 5% medicated patch, 5% cream, 5% gel, and 8% spray. Most studies used a cross-over design, and two used a parallel-group design. Two studies used enriched enrolment with randomised withdrawal. Seven studies used multiple doses, with one to four-week treatment periods, and five used single applications. We judged all of the studies at high risk of bias because of small size or incomplete outcome assessment, or both.There was no first or second tier evidence, and no pooling of data was possible for efficacy outcomes. Only one multiple-dose study reported our primary outcome of participants with ≥ 50% or ≥ 30% pain intensity reduction. Three single-dose studies reported participants who were pain-free at a particular time point, or had a 2-point (of 10) reduction in pain intensity. The two enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal studies reported time to loss of efficacy. In all but one study, third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated that lidocaine was better than placebo for some measure of pain relief. Pooling multiple-dose studies across conditions demonstrated no clear evidence of an effect of lidocaine on the incidence of adverse events or withdrawals, but there were few events and the withdrawal phase of enriched enrolment designs is not suitable to assess the true impact of adverse events (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found no evidence from good quality randomised controlled studies to support the use of topical lidocaine to treat neuropathic pain, although individual studies indicated that it was effective for relief of pain. Clinical experience also supports efficacy in some patients. Several large ongoing studies, of adequate duration, with clinically useful outcomes should provide more robust conclusions about both efficacy and harm.

Reduction of painful area as new possible therapeutic target in post-herpetic neuropathic pain treated with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster: a case series

Post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) is neuropathic pain persisting after an acute episode of herpes zoster, and is associated with severe pain and sensory abnormalities that adversely affect the patient's quality of life and increase health care costs. Up to 83% of patients with PHN describe localized neuropathic pain, defined as "a type of neuropathic pain characterized by consistent and circumscribed area(s) of maximum pain". Topical treatments have been suggested as a first-line treatment for localized neuropathic pain. Use of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster could reduce abnormal nervous peripheral discharge and via the plaster could have a "protective" function in the affected area. It has been suggested that use of this plaster could reduce pain as well as the size of the painful area. To evaluate this possible outcome, we retrospectively reviewed eight patients with PHN, treated using 5% lidocaine medicated plaster. During a follow-up period of 3 months, we observed good pain relief, which was associated with a 46% reduction in size of the painful area after one month (from 236.38±140.34 cm(2) to 128.80±95.7 cm(2)) and a 66% reduction after 3 months (81.38±59.19 cm(2)). Our study cohort was composed mainly of elderly patients taking multiple drugs to treat comorbidities, who have a high risk of drug-drug interactions. Such patients benefit greatly from topical treatment of PHN. Our observations confirm the effectiveness of lidocaine plasters in the treatment of PHN, indicating that 5% lidocaine medicated plaster could reduce the size of the painful area. This last observation has to be confirmed and the mechanisms clarified in appropriate larger randomized controlled trials.

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.

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.