Herpes zoster: A clinicocytopathological insight

Bell's Palsy Associated with COVID-19 Infection: A Case Report

The COVID-19 has a wide range of symptoms. This novel infectious disease may also trigger a vast range of neurological involvements. The current report describes a case of COVID-19 complicated with Bell's palsy. A 64-year-old woman with diabetes was admitted due to abrupt left hemifacial weakness. On examination, her left hemifacial expression ability was impaired so that her face seemed asymmetrical during smiling, and numbness around the left nasolabial fold was detected. Furthermore, her ability to wink was impaired, and her eyebrow drooped. A brain computed tomography (CT) scan did not show any abnormalities. A lung CT scan was performed, which demonstrated bilateral ground-glass opacity (GGO), along with RT-PCR results indicative of COVID-19. A diagnosis of Bell's palsy in the setting of COVID-19 infection was made. She received antiviral agents and corticosteroids. At two-week follow-up, her symptoms had improved. During the COVID-19 epidemic, any newly occurred neurological involvement raises the suspicion of COVID-19 infection.

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