| 1. |
- Baron, Ralf, et al.
(författare)
-
5% lidocaine medicated plaster versus pregabalin in post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic polyneuropathy : an open-label, non-inferiority two-stage RCT study
- 2009
-
Ingår i: CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION. - : Informa Healthcare. - 0300-7995 .- 1473-4877. ; 25:7, s. 1663-1676
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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 greater than= 2 points or an absolute value of less than= 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 (cor-responding 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Baron, Ralf, et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster and pregabalin in post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic polyneuropathy
- 2009
-
Ingår i: CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION. - : Informa Healthcare. - 0300-7995 .- 1473-4877. ; 25:7, s. 1677-1687
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Neuropathic pain is often difficult to treat due to a complex pathophysiology. This study evaluated the efficacy, tolerability and safety of combination therapy with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster and pregabalin for neuropathic pain in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) or painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN). Methods: Patients completing 4-week monotherapy with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster or pregabalin were enrolled in an 8-week combination phase. Patients with adequate response to monotherapy (recalled average pain intensity of 4 or less on 11-point numeric rating scale in the previous 3 days [NRS-3 score]) continued their previous therapy, whereas those with insufficient response received combination therapy. Efficacy endpoints included change in NRS-3 from combination phase baseline, Patient and Clinical Global Impression of Change (PGIC/CGIC), and patients satisfaction with treatment. Safety evaluation included adverse events (AEs), drug-related AEs (DRAEs), and withdrawal due to AEs. Clinical trial registration: EudraCT No. 2006-003132-29. Results: Of 229 patients in the per-protocol set(PPS: 68 PHN and 161 DPN), 71 received 5% lidocaine medicated plaster monotherapy, 57 had pregabalin added to 5% lidocaine medicated plaster, 57 pregabalin monotherapy and 44 received 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in addition to continued pregabalin treatment. There were no meaningful differences in demographic data between the treatment groups. Patients continuing on monotherapy demonstrated additional decreases in NRS-3 scores. Patients receiving combination therapy achieved clinically relevant reduction in NRS-3 values in addition to improvement achieved during the 4 weeks of monotherapy. Improvement was similar between the two combination therapy groups. Considerable improvements in patients treatment satisfaction were reported. Incidences of AEs were in line with previous reports for the two treatments and combination therapy was generally well tolerated. Conclusions: In patients with PHN and painful DPN failing to respond to monotherapy, combination therapy with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster and pregabalin provides additional clinically relevant pain relief and is safe and well-tolerated.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Kosek, Eva, et al.
(författare)
-
Reply to Hoegh et al.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Pain. - : International Association for the Study of Pain. - 0304-3959 .- 1872-6623. ; 164:2, s. E116-E117
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 5. |
- Pascal, Mathilde M.V., et al.
(författare)
-
DOLORisk : Study protocol for a multi-centre observational study to understand the risk factors and determinants of neuropathic pain [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Wellcome Open Research. - : F1000 Research Ltd. - 2398-502X. ; 3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Neuropathic pain is an increasingly prevalent condition and has a major impact on health and quality of life. However, the risk factors for the development and maintenance of neuropathic pain are poorly understood. Clinical, genetic and psychosocial factors all contribute to chronic pain, but their interactions have not been studied in large cohorts. The DOLORisk study aims to study these factors. Protocol: Multicentre cross-sectional and longitudinal cohorts covering the main causes leading to neuropathic pain (e.g. diabetes, surgery, chemotherapy, traumatic injury), as well as rare conditions, follow a common protocol for phenotyping of the participants. This core protocol correlates answers given by the participants on a set of questionnaires with the results of protocol for phenotyping of the participants. This core protocol correlates answers given by the participants on a set of questionnaires with the results of their genetic analyses. A smaller number of participants undergo deeper phenotyping procedures, including neurological examination, nerve conduction studies, threshold tracking, quantitative sensory testing, conditioned pain modulation and electroencephalography. Ethics and dissemination: All studies have been approved by their regional ethics committees as required by national law. Results are disseminated through the DOLORisk website, scientific meetings, open-access publications, and in partnership with patient organisations. Strengths and limitations: • Large cohorts covering many possible triggers for neuropathic pain • Multi-disciplinary approach to study the interaction of clinical, psychosocial and genetic risk factors • High comparability of the data across centres thanks to harmonised protocols • One limitation is that the length of the questionnaires might reduce the response rate and quality of responses of participants.
|
|
| 6. |
- Scholz, Joachim, et al.
(författare)
-
The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11 : chronic neuropathic pain.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Pain. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0304-3959 .- 1872-6623. ; 160:1, s. 53-59
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The upcoming 11th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) offers a unique opportunity to improve the representation of painful disorders. For this purpose, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has convened an interdisciplinary task force of pain specialists. Here, we present the case for a reclassification of nervous system lesions or diseases associated with persistent or recurrent pain for ≥3 months. The new classification lists the most common conditions of peripheral neuropathic pain: trigeminal neuralgia, peripheral nerve injury, painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and painful radiculopathy. Conditions of central neuropathic pain include pain caused by spinal cord or brain injury, poststroke pain, and pain associated with multiple sclerosis. Diseases not explicitly mentioned in the classification are captured in residual categories of ICD-11. Conditions of chronic neuropathic pain are either insufficiently defined or missing in the current version of the ICD, despite their prevalence and clinical importance. We provide the short definitions of diagnostic entities for which we submitted more detailed content models to the WHO. Definitions and content models were established in collaboration with the Classification Committee of the IASP's Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG). Up to 10% of the general population experience neuropathic pain. The majority of these patients do not receive satisfactory relief with existing treatments. A precise classification of chronic neuropathic pain in ICD-11 is necessary to document this public health need and the therapeutic challenges related to chronic neuropathic pain.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
