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

Effect of 2% Topical Lidocaine Gel on Discomfort from Electrical Stimulation During Nerve Conduction Studies- A Prospective Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study

Purpose

Procedure discomfort can limit electrodiagnostic studies. Reducing discomfort can maximize the benefits of these diagnostic tools. This study targeted the discomfort associated with nerve conduction studies (NCS).

Patients and Methods

This was a prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study comparing the effect of topical lidocaine gel (2%) versus analgesic-free lubricant gel (K-Y gel) on pain perception during NCS. Sequential patients (n=130) referred for routine NCS participated in the study. We applied 1 mL of lidocaine gel to one palm, and 1 mL of K-Y gel to the other as a control. After 20-45 min of application, graded increments of electrical stimulation intensity were delivered to record the median and ulnar mixed palmar nerve responses. Patients were then asked to score the degree of pain felt from electrical stimulation over each palm using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale (WBFPS) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), independent of baseline pain.

Results

Mean WBFPS and NRS scores for lidocaine-treated palms were significantly lower than those for controls using parametric paired t-test (3.79 vs 4.37 and 3.35 vs 3.78 respectively, all p-values<0.05). Subgroup analysis showed a significant decrease in mean scores in females, patients aged ≤50 years, patients without a history of previous NCS, and patients without comorbidities (all p-values<0.05). Median scores using nonparametric Wilcoxon ranked test also showed statistically significant differences (all p-values<0.05).

Conclusion

The results indicate that topical lidocaine 2% gel reduces discomfort associated with NCS. However, despite the statistical significance, clear clinical significance may be lacking. Clinical implementation may be considered for the subgroups that showed the greatest benefit. Further studies that incorporate more efficient drug delivery methods may yield better results.

Treatment Strategies for Generator Pocket Pain

OBJECTIVE

Generator site pain is a relatively common phenomenon in patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation (SCS) that complicates management and effective pain relief. This pain may be managed conservatively, with repositioning of the battery and, in some cases, with explant. Here we explore our experience with management of generator site pain ("pocket pain") in a large single-center study.

METHODS

All SCS permanent implants and implantable pulse generator (IPG) placements over 9 years were reviewed. Of 785 cases, we identified 43 patients with pocket pain (5.5%). Demographics and treatments of the pocket pain cohort were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age (± SEM) of the pocket pain cohort was 46.86 ± 1.06, and there were 10/33 males/females. Females were overrepresented in pocket pain cohort (76.7%) when compared with the total SCS cohort (59.0%) (X2 = 5.93, P = 0.015). Diagnosis included failed back surgery syndrome (51.2%), complex regional pain syndrome (23.3%), and chronic neuropathic pain (25.5%). No patients improved with conservative therapy. All patients either went on to revision (n = 23) or explant (n = 20). Time from initial surgery to development of pocket pain was 7.5 months (range: 0.3-88) and from pocket pain to revision surgery was 4.5 months (range: 0.4-26). In addition, significantly more pocket pain patients (65.1%) had workers' compensation (WC) insurance compared with patients without pocket pain (24.9%) (X2 = 33.3, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In our institutional experience, pocket pain was inadequately managed with conservative treatments. Being female and having SCS filed under WC increased risk of pocket pain. Future work will explore the nuances in device placement based on body shape and manual activity responsibilities.

Early experience with topical meloxicam and lidocaine combination for the treatment of vulvodynia

INTRODUCTION

We report our early clinical observations on the use of topical meloxicam and lidocaine gel for patients with vulvodynia.

METHODS

This is an early experience in participants with a history of vulvodynia evaluated and treated at the Queen's University Pelvic and Bladder Pain Clinic. Combination meloxicam 0.3% and lidocaine 5% were provided to the participants and they were instructed to apply 5 cc to the vulvar area twice daily. Standardized assessment was conducted for each participant before the start of the topical therapy and again at one week, and included Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (ICSI), Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index (ICPI), and pain scoring (Likert) for vulvar pain, in addition to a subjective global assessment after a week of treatment.

RESULTS

Of the eight participants, six had a subjective improvement in their symptoms with the use of the combination gel. They reported between one- and four-point reductions on the Likert pain scale and mild to moderate improvement of symptoms. Common side effects reported were burning and stinging.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this early experience are promising for a potentially effective topical treatment for vulvodynia.

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.

Novel Treatment of Radicular Pain With a Multi-Mechanistic Combination Topical Agent: A Case Series and Literature Review

Introduction

Pharmacologic treatment of radicular pain with oral medications is limited by adverse effects and concern for dependence. While topical formulations have been explored in pain research, there is no published literature evaluating the efficacy in radicular pain. We present the first three cases of radicular pain successfully treated with a topical formulation of diclofenac, ibuprofen, baclofen, cyclobenzaprine, bupivacaine, gabapentin, and pentoxifylline (T7).

Case Presentation

Case series evaluating T7 for treatment of radicular pain in a single, outpatient pain center. Pain was rated on the numeric rating scale (NRS) on initial evaluation and follow up after a trial of T7. One to two grams of T7 was applied to the affected area 3 - 4 times daily in addition to the patient’s baseline pharmacologic management. Three patients with median age of 50 (range, 39 to 65) and diagnosis of cervical and/or lumbosacral radicular pain participated. Two of the three had chronic radicular pain despite use of analgesic agents, spinal injections and failed spinal surgery syndrome. Each reported subjective improvement in radicular pain, function and sleep. There was an average decrease in NRS score consistent with 30% - 40% global improvement in symptoms, clinically significant based on the minimal clinically important difference for radicular pain. T7 was well tolerated without adverse reactions. Surgery was prevented or delayed in all cases.

Conclusions

This is the first report of the successful treatment of radicular pain with a topical agent. This highlights the need for randomized, prospective study of both single and compounded topical agents for treatment of radicular pain.

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.