CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Cost-Effectiveness of Mirogabalin for the Treatment of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of 30 mg of mirogabalin versus no treatment or 300 mg of pregabalin in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) from a third-party perspective in Taiwan.

METHODS

A Markov model, developed with cycles of 2-week and a 1-year timeframes, consisted of 3 health states: mild, moderate, and severe pain. Average daily pain score (ADPS) was assessed at the end of each 2-week cycle. All patients entered the model in moderate (4 ≤ ADPS < 7) or severe (7 ≤ ADPS ≤ 10) pain health states. At the end of each cycle, patients remained in their assigned health state or transitioned to a different health state according to their pain score change. Efficacy data were informed by the pivotal phase III clinical trial (J303, NCT02318706) or by a network meta-analysis. Utility values were obtained from published literature, and resource use and cost data from Taiwanese clinical experts and Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration. One-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

A head-to-head analysis demonstrated that 30 mg of mirogabalin is a cost-effective treatment option versus placebo for DPNP. The base-case deterministic analysis estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gains of 0.02 at an incremental cost of 9697 New Taiwan dollars (NT$) (equal to $323) versus placebo (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: 489 310 NT$/QALY [$15 860/QALY]). Mirogabalin was also cost-effective compared with 300 mg of pregabalin (ICER: 18 476 NT$/QALY [$600/QALY]). Sensitivity and scenario analyses results confirmed the robustness.

CONCLUSION

Economic analysis suggests that mirogabalin 30 mg, a potent and selective α2δ ligand, is a cost-effective treatment option for DPNP in Taiwan, with an ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Options for Neuropathic Pain: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain significantly reduces an individual's quality of life and places a significant economic burden on society. As such, many cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been published for treatments available for neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review was to provide a detailed summary of the estimates of cost-effectiveness from published CEAs comparing available treatments for neuropathic pain. The secondary objectives were to identify the key drivers of cost-effectiveness and to assess the quality of published CEAs in neuropathic pain.

METHODS

We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and seven other databases to identify CEAs reporting the costs, health benefits (e.g., quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years) and summary statistics, such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, of treatments for neuropathic pain. We excluded studies reporting diseases other than neuropathic pain, those for which the full text was not available (e.g., conference abstracts), studies not written in English or not published in peer-reviewed journals, and narrative reviews, editorials and opinion papers. Titles and abstract reviews, full-text reviews, and data extraction were all performed by two independent reviewers, with disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Mean costs, health benefits, and summary statistics were reported and qualitatively compared across studies, stratified by time horizon. Drivers of cost-effectiveness were assessed using reported one-way sensitivity analyses. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Tufts CEA Registry Quality Score and study reporting using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies were identified and included in this systematic review. Included studies were heterogeneous in the treatments compared, methodology and design, perspectives, and time horizons considered, making cross-study comparisons difficult. No single treatment was consistently the most cost-effective across all studies, but tricyclic antidepressants were the preferred treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $US50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in several studies with a short time horizon and a US payer perspective. Among the 14 studies reporting one-way sensitivity analyses, drivers of cost-effectiveness included utility values for health states and the likelihood of pain relief with treatment. The quality of the identified CEAs was moderate to high, and overall reporting largely met CHEERS recommendations.

LIMITATIONS

To assess drivers of cost-effectiveness and quality, we only included studies with the full text available and thus excluded some CEAs that reported cost-effectiveness results. The heterogeneity of the included studies meant that the study results could not be synthesized and comparison across studies was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Though many pulished studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for neuropathic pain, significant heterogeneity between CEAs prevented synthesis of the results. Standardized methodology and improved reporting would allow for more reliable comparisons across studies.

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.

Epidural steroid injections compared with gabapentin for lumbosacral radicular pain: multicenter randomized double blind comparative efficacy study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether an epidural steroid injection or gabapentin is a better treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy.

DESIGN

A multicenter randomized study conducted between 2011 and 2014. Computer generated randomization was stratified by site. Patients and evaluating physicians were blinded to treatment outcomes.

SETTINGS

Eight military, Veterans Administration, and civilian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

145 people with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated disc or spinal stenosis for less than four years in duration and in whom leg pain is as severe or more severe than back pain.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received either epidural steroid injection plus placebo pills or sham injection plus gabapentin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Average leg pain one and three months after the injection on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥ 2 point decrease in leg pain coupled with a positive global perceived effect. All patients had one month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for their three month visit.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences for the primary outcome measure at one month (mean pain score 3.3 (SD 2.6) and mean change from baseline -2.2 (SD 2.4) in epidural steroid injection group versus 3.7 (SD 2.6) and -1.7 (SD 2.6) in gabapentin group; adjusted difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.2; P=0.25) and three months (mean pain score 3.4 (SD 2.7) and mean change from baseline -2.0 (SD 2.6) versus 3.7 (SD 2.8) and -1.6 (SD 2.7), respectively; adjusted difference 0.3, -0.5 to 1.2; P=0.43). Among secondary outcomes, one month after treatment those who received epidural steroid injection had greater reductions in worst leg pain (-3.0, SD 2.8) than those treated with gabapentin (-2.0, SD 2.9; P=0.04) and were more likely to experience a positive successful outcome (66% v 46%; number needed to treat=5.0, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 27.0; P=0.02). At three months, there were no significant differences between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although epidural steroid injection might provide greater benefit than gabapentin for some outcome measures, the differences are modest and are transient for most people.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01495923.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of a new 8% capsaicin patch, compared to the current treatments for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), including tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical lidocaine patches, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin.

METHODS

A 1-year Markov model was constructed for PHN with monthly cycles, including dose titration and management of adverse events. The perspective of the analysis was from a payer perspective, managed-care organization. Clinical trials were used to determine the proportion of patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in PHN pain, the efficacy parameter. The outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); second-order probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The effectiveness results indicated that 8% capsaicin patch and topical lidocaine patch were significantly more effective than the oral PHN products. TCAs were least costly and significantly less costly than duloxetine, pregabalin, topical lidocaine patch, 8% capsaicin patch, but not gabapentin. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the 8% capsaicin patch overlapped with the topical lidocaine patch and was within the accepted threshold of cost per QALY gained compared to TCAs, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregablin. The frequency of the 8% capsaicin patch retreatment assumption significantly impacts its cost-effectiveness results. There are several limitations to this analysis. Since no head-to-head studies were identified, this model used inputs from multiple clinical trials. Also, a last observation carried forward process was assumed to have continued for the duration of the model. Additionally, the trials with duloxetine may have over-predicted its efficacy in PHN. Although a 30% improvement in pain is often an endpoint in clinical trials, some patients may require greater or less improvement in pain to be considered a clinical success.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness results demonstrated that 8% capsaicin and topical lidocaine patches had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents used to treat PHN. In addition, this cost-effectiveness analysis found that the 8% capsaicin patch was similar to topical lidocaine patch and within an accepted cost per QALY gained threshold compared to the oral products.

5% lidocaine-medicated plaster vs other relevant interventions and placebo for post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN): a systematic review

Several pharmacological treatments are used to manage post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). The use of topical analgesics, such as 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster (5% LMP), may be preferable to systemic treatments in that they are formulated to produce a local pain relieving effect with minimal systemic absorption. However, direct head-to-head comparisons are relatively few, and a rigorous assessment of the relative efficacy and safety of the various treatment options is lacking. The objective of this study was to compare 5% LMP for the relief of PHN with other relevant interventions and placebo. Six databases were searched up to May 2010. Quantitative methods for data synthesis were used, and a network meta-analysis was conducted. Twenty unique studies (32 publications) were included. Placebo-controlled studies showed 5% LMP to be effective in providing pain relief and reducing allodynia while adverse event rates were generally low. A comparison between 5% LMP and pregabalin indicated the non-inferiority of 5% LMP for pain reduction and showed greater improvement of quality of life for 5% LMP. Adverse events (AE) were significantly fewer with 5% LMP. In the network meta-analysis, only 5% LMP and gabapentin were associated with a greater change in pain from baseline than placebo [-15.50 (95% CI -18.85 to -12.16) and -7.56 (95% CI -12.52 to -2.59) respectively]. 5% LMP was shown to be more effective than capsaicin [-16.45 (95% CI -20.04 to -12.86)], gabapentin [-7.95 (95% CI -13.29 to -2.61)] and pregabalin [-13.45 (95% CI -19.19 to -7.71)]. For pain relief, two comparators were more effective than placebo [mean pain relief, gabapentin: 32.77 (95% CI 15.57-49.97); 5% LMP: 26.77 (95% CI 9.11-44.43)]. 5% LMP was shown to be comparable to gabapentin [-6.00 (95% CI -25.32-13.32)]. The results suggest that 5% LMP and gabapentin have similar effects on pain relief and that 5% LMP is more effective than capsaicin and pregabalin (change in pain from baseline). Topical agents, such as 5% LMP, are associated with fewer and less clinically significant AE than is the case for systemic agents. However, small numbers, and limited size and quality of included studies should be taken into account. Further studies are needed.

[Lidocaine patch for therapy of neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain. A clinical case series of 87 patients]

BACKGROUND

Topical lidocaine patches (LP) reduce pain in postherpetic neuralgia and other forms of focal neuropathy. The aim of this study was to determine clinical predictors of therapeutic success.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The medical histories of 87 patients with neuropathic (NS) and non-neuropathic pain (NNS) who had received LP as an add-on to their established pain medication were retrospectively analyzed. The variables assessed were gender, age, analgesic co-medication, pain localization, adverse effects and presence of dynamic allodynia. The impact of these variables on the clinical pain-relieving effect (scored on a 5-point scale) was investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 24 out of 28 patients with manifest allodynia scored the therapy with LP as beneficial, patients without allodynia (n=59, 67.8%) profited significantly less frequently with only 39% (p<0.001). The probability of profiting from LP therapy in the presence of allodynia was found to be about tenfold higher compared to patients without allodynia (odds ratio 9.14). Of the 87 patients investigated 48 were female (55.2%). Allodynia was considerably more frequent in women (39.6%) compared to men (23.1%) but this was insignificant. Of the female patients 62.5% responded to LP treatment, compared to only 43.6% of men. In more than 60% of cases rated as very good pain relief allodynia was manifest and in non-responders only in less than 10%. The variables age, pain localization and analgesic co-medication were not related with the success of therapy.

DISCUSSION

Patients with manifest allodynia profited significantly more frequently from LP therapy and were less frequently non-responders. Female patients showed therapeutic success more often together with a higher rate of allodynia.

CONCLUSIONS

In the presence of allodynia, in especially of neuropathic origin, LP seems to be an effective and save option for add-on therapy, this being independent from pain localization and age. Gender specific effects however need more systematic investigation.

Subcutaneous injection of botulinum toxin a is beneficial in postherpetic neuralgia

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits of subcutaneous injection of botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN).

DESIGN

We investigated the therapeutic benefits of BTX-A in subjects with PHN in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Sixty subjects with PHN were randomly and evenly distributed into BTX-A, lidocaine, and placebo groups.

MEASURES

After randomization, one of the following solutions was injected subcutaneously in the affected dermatome: 5u/mL BTX-A, 0.5% lidocaine, or 0.9% saline (placebo). Visual analog scale (VAS) pain and sleeping time (hours) were evaluated at the time of pretreatment, day 1, day 7, and 3 months posttreatment. Opioid usage was calculated at day 7 and 3 months posttreatment.

RESULTS

  Compared with pretreatment, VAS pain scores decreased at day 7 and 3 months posttreatment in all three groups (P<0.01). However, the VAS pain scores of the BTX-A group decreased more significantly compared with lidocaine and placebo groups at day 7 and 3 months posttreatment (P<0.01). Sleep time (hours) had improved at day 7 and at 3 months compared with pretreatment in all three groups, but the BTX-A group improved more significantly compared with lidocaine and placebo groups (P<0.01). The percent of subjects using opioids posttreatment in the BTX-A group was the lowest (21.1%) compared with the lidocaine (52.6%) and placebo (66.7%) groups (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous administration of BTX-A significantly decreased pain in PHN and reduced opioid use compared with lidocaine and placebo at day 7 and 3 months post-treatment. It also increased subjects' sleep times.

Treatment of localized post-traumatic neuropathic pain in scars with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (LMP) for treating painful scars resulting from burns or skin degloving.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, observational case series study in individuals with painful scars <70 cm(2) in area, caused by burns or skin degloving. The study included a structured questionnaire incorporating demographic variables, pain evaluation using the numeric rating scale (NRS), the DN4 questionnaire, and measurement of the painful surface area. Patients with open wounds in the painful skin or with severe psychiatric disease were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-one men and eight women were studied, aged (mean + standard deviation) 41.4 ± 11.0 years, with painful scars located in the upper extremity (n = 9), lower extremity (n = 19), or trunk (n = 1). Eleven patients (37.9%) had an associated peripheral nerve lesion. The scars were caused by burns (n = 13), degloving (n = 7), and/or orthopedic surgery (n = 9). The duration of pain before starting treatment with lidocaine plaster was 9.7 ± 10.0 (median 6) months. The initial NRS was 6.66 ± 1.84 points, average painful area 23.0 ± 18.6 (median 15) cm(2), and DN4 score 4.7 ± 2.3 points. The duration of treatment with LMP was 13.9 ± 10.2 (median 11) weeks. After treatment, the NRS was reduced by 58.2% ± 27.8% to 2.72 ± 1.65. The average painful area was reduced by 72.4% ± 24.7% to 6.5 ± 8.6 (median 5) cm(2). Nineteen patients (69%) showed functional improvement following treatment.

CONCLUSION

LMP was useful for treating painful scars with a neuropathic component, producing meaningful reductions in the intensity of pain and painful surface area. This is the first time that a decrease in the painful area has been demonstrated in neuropathic pain using topical therapy, and may reflect the disease-modifying potential of LMP.

Lidocaine 5% medicated plaster: a review of its use in postherpetic neuralgia

The lidocaine 5% medicated plaster (Versatis) is a topical analgesic, indicated for the symptomatic relief of neuropathic pain associated with previous herpes zoster infection (i.e. postherpetic neuralgia [PHN]) in adults. The lidocaine 5% medicated plaster has a direct local action with low systemic exposure and is effective in the treatment of patients with PHN. Limited data, from a study in patients with PHN or painful diabetic neuropathy, show that short-term treatment with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was associated with numerically higher pain intensity response rates than pregabalin in the PHN subgroup. The efficacy of the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was maintained in the longer term. Additionally, the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was well tolerated, with application site reactions being the most commonly reported drug-related adverse events; drug-related adverse events were few, and most were of mild to moderate severity. Due to its low systemic exposure, the drug may be of particular advantage in the treatment of patients with a low tolerance for adverse events, or who are receiving concomitant drugs that may otherwise result in drug interactions. Thus, the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster is a useful first-line option for the treatment of patients with PHN.

Pregabalin: in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia

Pregabalin is the pharmacologically active S-enantiomer of 3-aminomethyl-5-methyl-hexanoic acid. It has a similar pharmacological profile to that of its developmental predecessor gabapentin, but had greater analgesic activity in rodent models of neuropathic pain. Pregabalin is thought to act by reducing the excessive release of several excitatory neurotransmitters by binding to the alpha(2)-delta protein subunit of voltage-gated calcium channels. Oral pregabalin 150-600 mg/day, administered in two or three divided doses, was significantly more effective than placebo in relieving pain and improving pain-related sleep interference in four randomized, double-blind, multicentre studies of 4-13 weeks' duration in patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Pregabalin achieved a faster onset of pain relief than placebo. The median times to the onset of pain relief with fixed and flexible doses of pregabalin were 1.5 and 3.5 days compared with >4 weeks with placebo. Pregabalin was generally well tolerated when titrated over 1 week to fixed dosages (maximum 600 mg/day) in clinical trials in mostly elderly PHN patients. Adverse events were usually mild to moderate in severity.

Comparing healthcare costs of Medicaid patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) treated with lidocaine patch 5% versus gabapentin or pregabalin

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare resource utilization and costs of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) patients initiating lidocaine patch 5% (lidocaine patch) or oral gabapentin/pregabalin.

METHODS

Patients with PHN diagnosis, or herpes zoster diagnosis and ≥30 days PHN-recommended treatment were selected from de-identified Medicaid claims data from Florida, Iowa, Missouri, and New Jersey, 1999-2007. Patients initiated monotherapy with lidocaine patch or gabapentin/pregabalin after PHN diagnosis, had continuous eligibility 6 months before (baseline) and 6 months after (study period) medication index date, and were ≥18 years old. Lidocaine patch patients were matched to gabapentin/pregabalin patients based on their propensity to initiate treatment. Study period resource utilization and costs from a Medicaid perspective were compared between treatment groups using univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Matched patients were on average 61.3 years old, approximately 73% were women, and 55% had other painful conditions during the baseline period. 6-month per patient PHN-related prescription drug costs were similar for matched lidocaine patch (n=312) and gabapentin/pregabalin (n=312) patients ($854 vs. 820, p=0.75), while PHN-related medical costs appeared lower in the lidocaine patch group ($145 vs. 353, p=0.12). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups during the observation period in overall resource utilization, total prescription drug costs, and total medical costs per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of higher list prices, PHN patients treated with lidocaine patch cost no more than patients treated with gabapentin or pregabalin in terms of overall healthcare costs over the 6-month study period. The study suggests that PHN-related medical costs may be lower among lidocaine patch patients.

LIMITATIONS

Findings are based on a Medicaid sample and may not be generalizable to all PHN patients.

5% lidocaine medicated plaster versus pregabalin in post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic polyneuropathy: an open-label, non-inferiority two-stage RCT study

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster with pregabalin in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) or painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a two-stage adaptive, randomized, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority study. Data are reported from the initial 4-week comparative phase, in which adults with PHN or painful DPN received either topical 5% lidocaine medicated plaster applied to the most painful skin area or twice-daily pregabalin capsules titrated to effect according to the Summary of Product Characteristics. The primary endpoint was response rate at 4 weeks, defined as reduction averaged over the last three days from baseline of > or = 2 points or an absolute value of < or = 4 points on the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-3). Secondary endpoints included 30% and 50% reductions in NRS-3 scores; change in allodynia severity rating; quality of life (QoL) parameters EQ-5D, CGIC, and PGIC; patient satisfaction with treatment; and evaluation of safety (laboratory parameters, vital signs, physical examinations, adverse events [AEs], drug-related AEs [DRAEs], and withdrawal due to AEs).

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients with PHN and 204 with painful DPN were analysed (full analysis set, FAS). Overall, 66.4% of patients treated with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster and 61.5% receiving pregabalin were considered responders (corresponding numbers for the per protocol set, PPS: 65.3% vs. 62.0%). In PHN more patients responded to 5% lidocaine medicated plaster treatment than to pregabalin (PPS: 62.2% vs. 46.5%), while response was comparable for patients with painful DPN (PPS: 66.7% vs 69.1%). 30% and 50% reductions in NRS-3 scores were greater with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster than with pregabalin. Both treatments reduced allodynia severity. 5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed greater improvements in QoL based on EQ-5D in both PHN and DPN. PGIC and CGIC scores indicated greater improvement for 5% lidocaine medicated plaster treated patients with PHN. Improvements were comparable between treatments in painful DPN. Fewer patients administering 5% lidocaine medicated plaster experienced AEs (safety set, SAF: 18.7% vs. 46.4%), DRAEs (5.8% vs. 41.2%) and related discontinuations compared to patients taking pregabalin.

CONCLUSION

5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed better efficacy compared with pregabalin in patients with PHN. Within DPN, efficacy was comparable for both treatments. 5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed a favourable efficacy/safety profile with greater improvements in patient satisfaction and QoL compared with pregabalin for both indications, supporting its first line position in the treatment of localized neuropathic pain.