20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The topical 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in localized neuropathic pain: a reappraisal of the clinical evidence

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Algorithm for neuropathic pain treatment: an evidence based proposal.

          New studies of the treatment of neuropathic pain have increased the need for an updated review of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to support an evidence based algorithm to treat neuropathic pain conditions. Available studies were identified using a MEDLINE and EMBASE search. One hundred and five studies were included. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) and numbers needed to harm (NNH) were used to compare efficacy and safety of the treatments in different neuropathic pain syndromes. The quality of each trial was assessed. Tricyclic antidepressants and the anticonvulsants gabapentin and pregabalin were the most frequently studied drug classes. In peripheral neuropathic pain, the lowest NNT was for tricyclic antidepressants, followed by opioids and the anticonvulsants gabapentin and pregabalin. For central neuropathic pain there is limited data. NNT and NNH are currently the best way to assess relative efficacy and safety, but the need for dichotomous data, which may have to be estimated retrospectively for old trials, and the methodological complexity of pooling data from small cross-over and large parallel group trials, remain as limitations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Morphine, gabapentin, or their combination for neuropathic pain.

            The available drugs to treat neuropathic pain have incomplete efficacy and dose-limiting adverse effects. We compared the efficacy of a combination of gabapentin and morphine with that of each as a single agent in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. In this randomized, double-blind, active placebo-controlled, four-period crossover trial, patients received daily active placebo (lorazepam), sustained-release morphine, gabapentin, and a combination of gabapentin and morphine--each given orally for five weeks. The primary outcome measure was mean daily pain intensity in patients receiving a maximal tolerated dose; secondary outcomes included pain (rated according to the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire), adverse effects, maximal tolerated doses, mood, and quality of life. Of 57 patients who underwent randomization (35 with diabetic neuropathy and 22 with postherpetic neuralgia), 41 completed the trial. Mean daily pain (on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher numbers indicating more severe pain) at a maximal tolerated dose of the study drug was as follows: 5.72 at baseline, 4.49 with placebo, 4.15 with gabapentin, 3.70 with morphine, and 3.06 with the gabapentin-morphine combination (P<0.05 for the combination vs. placebo, gabapentin, and morphine). Total scores on the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (on a scale from 0 to 45, with higher numbers indicating more severe pain) at a maximal tolerated dose were 14.4 with placebo, 10.7 with gabapentin, 10.7 with morphine, and 7.5 with the gabapentin-morphine combination (P<0.05 for the combination vs. placebo, gabapentin, and morphine). The maximal tolerated doses of morphine and gabapentin were lower (P<0.05) with the combination than for each drug as single agent. At the maximal tolerated dose, the gabapentin-morphine combination resulted in a higher frequency of constipation than gabapentin alone (P<0.05) and a higher frequency of dry mouth than morphine alone (P<0.05). Gabapentin and morphine combined achieved better analgesia at lower doses of each drug than either as a single agent, with constipation, sedation, and dry mouth as the most frequent adverse effects. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Treatment of neuropathic pain: an overview of recent guidelines.

              A number of different treatments for neuropathic pain have been studied, but the literature is sizable, rapidly evolving, and lacks important information about practical aspects of patient management. Under the auspices of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG), a consensus process was used to develop evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain that take into account clinical efficacy, adverse effects, impact on health-related quality of life, convenience, and costs. On the basis of randomized clinical trials, medications recommended as first-line treatments for neuropathic pain included certain antidepressants (i.e., tricyclic antidepressants and dual reuptake inhibitors of both serotonin and norepinephrine), calcium channel alpha(2)-delta ligands (i.e., gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine. Opioid analgesics and tramadol were recommended as second-line treatments that can be considered for first-line use in selected clinical circumstances. Other medications that generally would be used as third-line treatments include certain other antidepressant and antiepileptic medications, topical capsaicin, mexiletine, and N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonists. Two other national and international associations recently published pharmacologic treatment guidelines for neuropathic pain, which are summarized and contrasted with the NeuPSIG recommendations. Recent guidelines for the use of neurostimulation for the treatment of neuropathic pain also are summarized. For all treatments for neuropathic pain, long-term studies, head-to-head comparisons, and studies of treatment combinations are a priority for future research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                1178-7090
                2016
                12 February 2016
                : 9
                : 67-79
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, NY, USA
                [2 ]University at Buffalo, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. NY, USA
                [3 ]Anesthesiology Department, Pain Management Unit, University Hospital of Bellvitge, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Oscar A de León-Casasola, Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA, Email oscar.deleon@ 123456roswellpark.org
                Article
                jpr-9-067
                10.2147/JPR.S99231
                4758786
                26929664
                © 2016 de León-Casasola and Mayoral. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article