Lidocaine patch as noninvasive alternative treatment option in children with anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome: A retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Chronic abdominal pain in children is occasionally caused by anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome (ACNES). Diagnosing and treating this typical peripheral abdominal wall neuropathy is challenging. Management usually starts with minimally invasive tender point injections. Nevertheless, these injections can be burdensome and might even be refused by children or their parents. However, a surgical neurectomy is far more invasive. Treatment with a Lidocaine 5% medicated patch is successfully used in a variety of peripheral neuropathies. AIMS: This single center retrospective case series aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of lidocaine patches in children with ACNES. METHODS: Children aged under 18 diagnosed with ACNES who were treated with a 10 day lidocaine patch treatment between December 2021 and December 2022 were studied. Patient record files were used to collect treatment outcomes including pain reduction based on NRS and complications. RESULTS: Twelve of sixteen children (mean age 13 years; F:M ratio 3:1) diagnosed with ACNES started the lidocaine patch treatment. Two patients achieved a pain free status and remained pain free during a 4 and 7 months follow-up. A third child reported a lasting pain reduction, but discontinued treatment due to a temporary local skin rash. Five additional patients reported pain reduction only during application of the patch. The remaining four children experienced no pain relief. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: Lidocaine patches provides pain relief in a substantial portion of children with ACNES.

Localized neuropathic pain.

Localized neuropathic pain (LNP) is of peripheral origin and is characterized by circumscribed areas of pain with abnormal skin sensitivity or spontaneous symptoms that are characteristic of neuropathic pain, e.g., burning pain. It should be noted that LNP is confined to a specific area no larger than a letter size sheet of paper. LNP accounts for 60 % of neuropathic pain syndromes. There is no single etiology of LNP. The diagnostic approach is similar to that for other neuropathic pain conditions. General diagnostic tools are used to assess clinical features. So far, there are no specific guidelines for the management of LNP; for this reason, guidelines for general neuropathic pain are used. Topical treatments are included as part of second-line strategies in the Canadian Pain Society guidelines. Despite the lack of guidelines, 5 % lidocaine patches and 8 % capsaicin patches have been proven effective in LNP models.

El dolor neuropático localizado (DNL) es de origen periférico y se caracteriza por áreas circunscritas de dolor con sensibilidad anormal de la piel o síntomas espontáneos característicos de dolor neuropático, por ejemplo, dolor urente. Se debe resaltar que el DNL está confinado a un área específica no mayor a una hoja de papel tamaño carta. El DNL representa 60 % de las condiciones de dolor neuropático. No existe una única etiología. El abordaje diagnóstico es similar al de otros síndromes dolorosos neuropáticos. Se utilizan herramientas diagnósticas generales para evaluar las características clínicas. En la actualidad no existen guías específicas de manejo del DNL, por lo que se utilizan las guías para dolor neuropático en general. En las guías de la Sociedad Canadiense de Dolor se incluyen los tratamientos tópicos como parte de las estrategias de segunda línea. Pese a la falta de guías, los parches de lidocaína a 5 % y los parches de capsaicina a 8 % han demostrado ser efectivos en modelos de DNL.

[Quasi-experimental study of an intervention on the pharmacological management of non-oncological chronic pain in Primary Care]. / Estudio cuasi experimental de una intervención sobre el manejo farmacológico del dolor crónico no oncológico en atención primaria.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of a formative / informative intervention on the treatment of non-oncological chronic pain in Primary Care. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study before-after, and follow-up of the patient cohort. LOCATION: 64 Primary Care teams/centres (770 physicians). PARTICIPANTS: Patients≥14 years without an oncological diagnosis on: 1) fentanyl citrate, 2) major opioids and≥2 anxiolytics-hypnotics, 3) long-term major and minor opioids, 4) transdermal lidocaine, out of indication. INTERVENTION: Dissemination of recommendations for the treatment of non-oncological chronic pain and the reporting of the incidents of their patients to each doctor. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Number of incidents in 2 cross sections (June 2017 and June 2018). Number of incidents in June 2017, which were maintained in June 2018 (prospective cohort). RESULTS: Of the 2,465 incidents detected in 2017, there was a 21.1% reduction after the intervention. The reduction was higher (61.8%, p<.001) in the prospective cohort. In absolute values, the most important reduction was in incidences of lidocaine patches outside of indication (1,032 incidences). The approved indication was found in less than 8% of the treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention reduced the number of patients with incidences, and this reduction was higher in the prospective cohort, confirming the efficacy of sending information about patients with incidences to their physicians. The incorporation of new treatments during the follow-up year was significant, so these interventions should be perpetuated over time.

Transdermal Lidocaine for Perioperative Pain: a Systematic Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide a summary of the perioperative studies that have examined transdermal lidocaine (lidocaine patch) as an analgesic and put the evidence in context of the likely overall benefit of transdermal lidocaine in the perioperative period. RECENT FINDINGS: Several randomized controlled trials have been published in the past 4 years that concluded transdermal lidocaine can reduce acute pain associated with laparoscopic trocar or cannula insertion. Transdermal lidocaine may reduce short-term pain after surgery in selected surgery types and has a low risk of toxicity but its overall clinical utility in the perioperative setting is questionable. Transdermal lidocaine does not consistently reduce opioid consumption after surgery and has not been shown to improve patient function.

Topical anesthesia for staple removal from surgical wounds on the knee: a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Staple removal from surgical wounds is painful. Only a few articles have provided expert opinions using anesthetic cream for such a problem; however, direct application of the anesthetic cream to a wound may cause infection. A safe alternative can be an anesthetic patch without wound contact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Sixty patients who underwent primary total knee replacement were assigned to an experimental group or control group. One lidocaine patch was applied around the surgical wound for each patient in the experimental group. Alternatively, the adhesive sides of the lidocaine patches were shielded with waterproof films in the control group. A resident peeled off the patch before a single nursing practitioner removed the staples. Pain was assessed with the 10-cm visual analog scale, and a face pain scale-revised was performed. The patients and the nursing practitioner were blind to the management. RESULTS: Mean visual analog scale and face pain scale-revised scores were significantly lower in the experimental group. The mean pain score was significantly lower in the experimental group if the application time was >47 min; for patients with application time of 47 min or shorter, the score was comparable with the mean pain scores of the control group (P = 0.215). CONCLUSIONS: Removal of the metal skin staples after total knee arthroplasty is associated with moderate-to-severe pain. The lidocaine patch applied topically around the surgical wound could effectively reduce the pain during the procedure, without remarkable complications such as systemic adverse effects or wound contamination.

[Efficacy of transdermal lidocaine 5% patches in postoperative analgesia following knee arthroscopy]. / Efectividad del parche transdérmico de lidocaína 5% en la analgesia postoperatoria después de la artroscopía de rodilla.

INTRODUCTION: knee arthroscopy is a common orthopedic procedure associated with postoperative pain, so optimizing pain management is essential for patient recovery and satisfaction. Lidocaine, a local anesthetic with well-established safety profiles, offers a potential alternative to traditional analgesic methods. Research regarding lidocaine patches has been conducted in several types of surgeries (laparoscopy, gynecological surgery, prostatectomy, etc.) showing promising results for some. This study investigates the effectiveness of transdermal lidocaine 5% patches as a novel approach to postoperative analgesia after knee arthroscopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted with participants undergoing knee arthroscopy. Patients were divided into two groups: one receiving transdermal lidocaine 5% patches and the other a placebo, both along traditional postoperative pain management, and using opioid only in cases with moderate-severe pain. Pain scores, opioid consumption, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed at various postoperative intervals. RESULTS: there was a significant reduction in pain scores and opioid consumption in the lidocaine patch group compared to the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: transdermal lidocaine 5% patches emerge as a promising adjunct to postoperative pain management in knee arthroscopy patients. Their ease of application, minimal side effects, and opioid-sparing effects contribute to a multifaceted analgesic approach. This study underscores the potential of transdermal lidocaine patches in enhancing the overall postoperative experience for knee arthroscopy patients, advocating for their consideration in clinical practice.

INTRODUCCIÓN: la artroscopía de rodilla es un procedimiento ortopédico común asociado con dolor postoperatorio, por lo que optimizar el manejo del dolor es esencial para la recuperación y la satisfacción del paciente. La lidocaína, un anestésico local con perfiles de seguridad bien establecidos, ofrece una alternativa potencial a los métodos analgésicos tradicionales. Se ha llevado a cabo investigación sobre los parches de lidocaína en diversos tipos de cirugías (laparoscopía, cirugía ginecológica, prostatectomía, etcétera), mostrando resultados prometedores en algunos casos. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: se realizó un ensayo clínico aleatorizado, ciego simple y controlado con placebo que incluyó participantes sometidos a artroscopía de rodilla. Los pacientes fueron divididos en dos grupos: uno recibió parches transdérmicos de lidocaína al 5% y otro un placebo, ambos junto con el manejo tradicional del dolor postoperatorio y utilizando opioides sólo en casos de dolor moderado a severo. Se evaluaron las puntuaciones de dolor, el consumo de opioides y los resultados informados por los pacientes en varios intervalos postoperatorios. RESULTADOS: se registró una reducción significativa en las puntuaciones de dolor y el consumo de opioides en el grupo de parches de lidocaína en comparación con el grupo de placebo. CONCLUSIONES: los parches transdérmicos de lidocaína al 5% emergen como un complemento prometedor para el manejo del dolor postoperatorio en pacientes sometidos a artroscopía de rodilla. Su facilidad de aplicación, mínimos efectos secundarios y efectos ahorradores de opioides contribuyen a un enfoque analgésico multifacético. Este estudio destaca el potencial de los parches de lidocaína transdérmica para mejorar la experiencia postoperatoria general de los pacientes con artroscopía de rodilla, abogando por su consideración en la práctica clínica.

The Randomised Evaluation of early topical Lidocaine patches In Elderly patients admitted to hospital with rib Fractures (RELIEF): feasibility trial protocol.

Background: Topical lidocaine patches, applied over rib fractures, have been suggested as a non-invasive method of local anaesthetic delivery to improve respiratory function, reduce opioid consumption and consequently reduce pulmonary complications. Older patients may gain most benefit from improved analgesic regimens yet lidocaine patches are untested as an early intervention in the Emergency Department (ED). The aim of this trial is to investigate uncertainties around trial design and conduct, to establish whether a definitive randomised trial of topical lidocaine patches in older patients with rib fractures is feasible. Methods: RELIEF is an open label, multicentre, parallel group, individually randomised, feasibility randomised controlled trial with economic scoping and nested qualitative study. Patients aged ≥ 65 years presenting to the ED with traumatic rib fracture(s) requiring admission will be randomised 1:1 to lidocaine patches (intervention), in addition to standard clinical management, or standard clinical management alone. Lidocaine patches will be applied immediately after diagnosis in ED and continued daily for 72 hours or until discharge. Feasibility outcomes will focus on recruitment, adherence and follow-up data with a total sample size of 100. Clinical outcomes, such as 30-day pulmonary complications, and resource use will be collected to understand feasibility of data collection. Qualitative interviews will explore details of the trial design, trial acceptability and recruitment processes. An evaluation of the feasibility of measuring health economics outcomes data will be completed. Discussion: Interventions to improve outcomes in elderly patients with rib fractures are urgently required. This feasibility trial will test a novel early intervention which has the potential of fulfilling this unmet need. The Randomised Evaluation of early topical Lidocaine patches In Elderly patients admitted to hospital with rib Fractures (RELIEF) feasibility trial will determine whether a definitive trial is feasible. ISRCTN Registration: ISRCTN14813929 (22/04/2021).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patches containing a numbing medication (lidocaine), put on the skin over broken ribs, may help to improve outcomes in older people. We will carry out a clinical trial of these patches, to see whether this research would work in Accident and Emergency (A&E) and whether patients will take part. DESIGN: We will ask 100 older people who need to stay in hospital with broken ribs to take part in this research. We will ask permission from relatives to include people with dementia. We will put those who agree to take part into one of two groups by chance. One group will have the patch put over their broken ribs in A&E for up to 3 days, along with usual pain killers if needed. We will treat people in the other group in the normal way, without a patch. We will track how many people are willing to take part. We will collect information on patient recovery in the 30 days after going to A&E and ask people to complete questionnaires about their health. We will interview patients and clinicians to get feedback. Patient and Public Involvement: Patient volunteers helped us design this research and will provide advice throughout. They agreed that including older people was appropriate, people with dementia and their carers should take part, and side-effects of strong pain killers are important to patients. FINDINGS: We will use the research findings to develop a larger trial to see if lidocaine patches help patients with broken ribs. We will write up results for scientific journals, speak at conferences and to our patient group.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Clinical Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine Patches in Chinese Patients with Postherpetic Neuralgia.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lidocaine patches in Chinese patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive lidocaine patches or placebo every day for 4 weeks. Efficacy endpoints included the decrease of analogue scale score (VAS) value at week 4, 2 and 1 and the percentage of patients that achieved a 30% decrease of VAS value. Safety analyses were conducted as well. RESULTS: Two hundred forty Chinese patients were randomized. At week 1, lidocaine patch-treated patients had a higher clinical response versus placebo, and at week 4, the mean (SD) decreases of VAS value compared to the baseline were 14.01 (14.35) in the treatment group and 9.36 (12.03) in the placebo group (p = 0.0088). Overall, the safety profile in the treatment group was consistent with that observed in the placebo group [adverse event (AE) incidence rate: 33.33% versus 37.29%, p = 0.5857]. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine patches resulted in improved clinical response versus placebo in the treatment of PHN patients and were well tolerated.

Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine Patch in the Management of Acute Postoperative Wound Pain: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Objective: This study sought to quantify the pooled effects of lidocaine patch (LP) on postoperative pain and side effects through a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Approach: The study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), AMSTAR, and the Cochrane Collaboration. Randomized controlled trials comparing LP with placebo were retrieved from five electronic databases. Primary outcome in the study was cumulative intravenous morphine equivalent consumption (mg) within 24 h postoperatively. Results: Twelve trials comprising 617 patients were included in the final analysis. Primary result indicated that the analgesic effects LP were only statistical but not clinically significant of postoperative intravenous morphine consumption within 24 h (mean difference, -4.61 mg; 95% confidence interval, -8.09 to -1.14). Interestingly, the results of subgroup and meta-regression analysis indicated that preoperative administration of LP had potential advantages in postoperative wound pain management. It is also worthwhile to mention that LP provided a clinically important benefit in rest pain scores within 24-h postoperatively. Apart from these, other secondary outcome analysis did not uncover any particularly significant analgesic or safety advantages to LP. Finally, LP also does not increase the risk of any local anesthetic-related side effects. Innovation: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides moderate-to-high quality evidence undermining the role of LP for management of acute postoperative wound pain after surgical procedures and the justification for the associated extra costs. Conclusion: Taken together, the current evidence does not support LP as part of a routine multimodal analgesia strategy to alleviate early postoperative acute pain. However, further studies should explore the clinical value of preoperative administration and the long-term effect of LP.

The Impact of Non-opioid Analgesic Usage on Total Opioid Load During Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Study.

Background Patients staying in acute rehabilitation often use large amounts of opioids during their stay. There are a number of reasons for this increased opioid exposure, including but not limited to daily exercises with physical and occupational therapists, increased demand on a healing body, and use of previously atrophying musculature. Some physiatrists have noticed that patients who concurrently are prescribed medications such as Robaxin seem to require fewer opioids during their stay in acute rehabilitation. This study aimed to determine the association between non-opioid analgesic use and total opioid load, as measured using morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), during inpatient rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. Methodology A retrospective study of individuals with a diagnosis of traumatic brain injury admitted to an acute inpatient rehabilitation program was performed. Non-opioid medications that were reviewed in the study included acetaminophen, amitriptyline, baclofen, diclofenac, gabapentin, ibuprofen, lidocaine, methocarbamol, nortriptyline, and pregabalin. Five of the most-used non-opioid medications (acetaminophen, diclofenac, gabapentin, lidocaine, and methocarbamol) were statistically analyzed using regression and analysis of variance to evaluate for any significant variables. Results Results showed that the average daily dose of acetaminophen has a significant effect on the average daily MME and that the average daily dose of gabapentin and methocarbamol each have a significant effect on the change of daily MME usage from admission to discharge from acute rehab (ΔMME). Results also showed that the mere presence of methocarbamol (regardless of daily or total dosage) had a significant effect on the ΔMME. Conclusions Based on these findings, physicians may want to consider prescribing acetaminophen, gabapentin, or methocarbamol for patients admitted for inpatient rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury who require high amounts of opioids.

Raising the Bar: Multimodal Analgesia with Transdermal Lidocaine for Nuss Repair of Pectus Excavatum Decreases Length of Stay and Opioid Use.

INTRO: Pain management for minimally invasive (Nuss) repair of pectus excavatum (PE) is challenging, particularly as the judicious use of opioids has become a patient safety priority. Multi-modal pain management protocols are increasingly used, but there is limited experience using transdermal lidocaine patches (TLP) in this patient population. METHODS: Pediatric anesthesiologists and surgeons in a children's hospital within a hospital designed a multi-modal perioperative pain management protocol for patients undergoing Nuss repair of PE (IRB00068901). The protocol included use of TLP in addition to other adjuncts such as methadone, gabapentin, and NSAIDS. Following initiation of the protocol charts were reviewed retrospectively, comparing outcomes before and after implementation of the protocol. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients underwent a Nuss procedure between 2013 and 2022, 15 prior to initiation of the protocol and 34 after. Patient demographics and operative length were similar between the two groups. Average length of stay decreased from 4.7 to 3.3 days and reported opioid use at the time of the first outpatient post-op visit dropped from 60% to 24% (p < 0.05). Morphine milligram equivalents (MME) usage was decreased following implementation during hospital admission, at discharge, and at first post-operative visit (464 vs. 169, 1288 vs. 218, and 214 vs. 56, respectfully, p < 0.05). There were no ED visits or readmissions <30 days related to post-operative pain. CONCLUSION: Post-operative opioid usage and hospital length of stay were decreased after initiation of the protocol. Transdermal lidocaine patches may be a helpful adjunct to minimize narcotic requirements after repair of pectus excavatum. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Topical Delivery Systems Effectively Transport Analgesics to Areas of Localized Pain via Direct Diffusion.

Topical delivery systems (TDSs) enable the direct transport of analgesics into areas of localized pain and thus minimize the side effects of administration routes that rely on systemic drug distribution. For musculoskeletal pain, clinicians frequently prescribe topical products containing lidocaine or diclofenac. This study assessed whether drug delivery from a TDS into muscle tissue occurs mainly via direct diffusion or systemic transport. An investigational TDS containing 108 mg lidocaine (SP-103, 5.4% lidocaine), a commercially available TDS containing 36 mg lidocaine (ZTlido®, 1.8% lidocaine), and a topical pain relief gel (Pennsaid®, 2% diclofenac) were tested. Using open flow microperfusion (OFM), interstitial fluid from the dermis, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and muscle was continuously sampled to assess drug penetration in all tissue layers. Ex vivo and in vivo experiments showed a higher diffusive transport of lidocaine compared to diclofenac. The data showed a clear contribution of diffusive transport to lidocaine concentration, with SP-103 5.4% resulting in a significantly higher lidocaine concentration in muscle tissue than commercially available ZTlido® (p = 0.008). These results indicate that SP-103 5.4% is highly effective in delivering lidocaine into muscle tissue in areas of localized pain for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain disorders (e.g., lower back pain).

Open-Label Adhesion Performance Study of a Prescription Lidocaine Topical System 1.8% versus Three Lidocaine-Containing Over-the-Counter Patches in Healthy Subjects.

Purpose: This study evaluates and compares the clinical adhesion performance of a prescription lidocaine topical system 1.8% versus two different over-the-counter (OTC) lidocaine patches 4% and an OTC combination menthol and lidocaine patch 1%/4% in human subjects. Patients and Methods: This study was an open-label, randomized, four-treatment, four-sequence, Phase 1 adhesion performance study in healthy adult volunteers (N = 24). Lidocaine topical system 1.8% (R) and the three OTC patch products (T1, T2, and T3) were separately applied for 12 hours. Adhesion of all products was scored at 0, 3, 6, 8, and 12 hours post-application. Results: There were no issues with the conduct of the study. Overall, the majority (≥59.1%) of subjects treated ("patched") with the lidocaine topical system 1.8% (R) demonstrated ≥90% adhesion (FDA adhesion score 0) throughout the 12-hour administration period versus 27.3% of subjects treated with OTC lidocaine patch 4% (T1), 22.7% of subjects treated with OTC lidocaine patch 4% (T2), and 18.2% of subjects treated with OTC menthol/lidocaine patch 1%/4%. Only one subject (4.5%) treated with lidocaine topical system 1.8% was observed with <75% adhesion (FDA adhesion score <2) versus 11 (50.0%) and 10 (45.5%) for the two OTC lidocaine patches 4% (T1 and T2), respectively, and 13 (59.1%) subjects for the OTC menthol/lidocaine patch 1%/4%. There were no complete detachments observed for lidocaine topical system 1.8%, whereas 50.0% and 31.8% complete detachments were observed for the two OTC lidocaine patches 4% (T1 and T2), and 27.3% complete detachments were observed for the OTC menthol/lidocaine patch 1%/4%. No adverse events were observed for any of the treatments. Conclusion: Lidocaine topical system 1.8% demonstrated superior adhesion relative to the three lidocaine-containing OTC products over the 12-hour treatment period.

Efficacy and safety of 5% lidocaine patches for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing unilateral inguinal hernia repair: study protocol for a prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute postoperative pain is a common complication of inguinal hernia repair. Pain management using local application of anesthetic agents over the skin surrounding the surgical incision may reduce the requirement for other pain medications. Targeted topical analgesics such as 5% lidocaine patches have been known to improve acute and chronic pain. However, the clinical effect of lidocaine patches on postoperative pain after inguinal hernia repair has not been studied, especially in patients undergoing surgery at day surgery units. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a single-center, prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Participants with unilateral inguinal hernia will be randomized to the lidocaine patch group or the placebo patch group. Based on the randomized allocation sequence, either lidocaine patches or placebo patches will be attached near each participant's surgical wound after open hernia repair under general anesthesia. Participants will be asked to follow up at our outpatient clinic on the first postoperative day and at 1 week after surgery. The primary outcome is pain intensity, which will be measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) at the time of discharge from the day surgery unit. The secondary outcomes are VAS score at 24 h and 1 week after surgery. We will collect and analyze the participants' clinical data (amount of intraoperative opioid use, time to recovery, and pain intensity at 30 min after surgery) and demographic characteristics (age, sex, body weight, and height). DISCUSSION: This trial may not only provide evidence on the efficacy of a 5% lidocaine patch for acute postoperative pain management after unilateral inguinal hernia repair, but also demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the patch for post-discharge pain management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04754451. Registered on February 10, 2021.

Successful treatment of notalgia paresthetica with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster: a case report.

Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a sensory neuropathy characterized by chronic, localized pruritus in a circumscribed area on the upper back. Pruritus, frequently resistant to treatment, may be accompanied by pain, paresthesia, allodynia and alloknesis. There is a paucity of data in the NP literature about the use of lidocaine 5% medicated plaster. This case involves a 75-year-old woman with NP and a history of many unsuccessful local or systemic treatments. The patient was treated with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, while other therapies were progressively retired. After 11 weeks of therapy, a significant reduction in the intensity of itching was achieved and the itching area was reduced. The patient also reported an associated improvement in her quality-of-life throughout therapy. In conclusion, lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was successful in relieving itching and other symptoms in this case of NP.

Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a nerve disorder characterized by itching on the upper back. Sometimes the itch is so painful and intense that it can make it difficult to sleep, work and socialize, affecting quality-of-life. There are different treatments for NP and not everyone will have the same response to treatment. In this case, a woman with long-standing NP, after several unsuccessful therapies, were treated with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, which can be applied to the skin where it hurts. After 11 weeks of therapy, an important reduction in the intensity of itching was achieved and the itching area was reduced. The patient also reported an improvement in her quality-of-life throughout therapy. In conclusion, lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was successful in relieving severe itch in this NP case.

Short-term clinical effectiveness of 5% lidocaine patch after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: study protocol for a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) often causes unbearable postoperative pain, even more severe than before surgery. Opioids are the drugs of choice for temporary postoperative analgesia. However, this conventional approach also has some side effects and potential for drug abuse. The aims of this study are expected to verify the effect of 5% lidocaine patch (LP5) on the intensity of early postoperative pain, functional recovery and quality of life in patients undergoing ARCR. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trial, a total of 102 postoperative patients undergoing ARCR will be randomly assigned to either the LP5 group, receiving topical lidocaine analgesia, or the placebo control group. The primary outcome measure will be the change in the American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons score from pre-operation to 90 days post-operation. Secondary outcomes will include pain scores, range of motion, opioid use, safety indicators, blinding assessment and several shoulder function score questionnaires. The effect of the allocated treatment will be assessed at preoperative baseline and at 7-, 14-, 30- and 90-day postoperatively. DISCUSSION: In this study, the efficacy and safety of the 5% lidocaine patch will be evaluated in terms of short-term clinical symptoms in patients undergoing ARCR. The results of this study will help determine whether LP5 is effective in early functional recovery in ARCR and whether it relieves pain and reduces opioid consumption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn ) ChiCTR2200060108. Registered on 19 May 2022.

Open-Label Adhesion Performance Studies of a New Lidocaine Topical System 1.8% versus Lidocaine Patches 5% and Lidocaine Medicated Plaster 5% in Healthy Subjects.

PURPOSE: The primary objective was to evaluate adhesion performance of the lidocaine topical system 1.8% for 12 hours in healthy human subjects in three studies: as a single product (Study 1) and versus other lidocaine topical products (lidocaine patch 5% and lidocaine medicated plaster 5% [Study 2] and generic lidocaine patch 5% [Study 3]). Safety of the lidocaine topical system 1.8%, with a skin irritation focus, was a secondary objective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All three studies were open-label, randomized, Phase 1 adhesion performance studies in healthy adult volunteers (N=125). Lidocaine topical products were applied for 12 hours per test, per study arm. Adhesion of all test products was scored at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours post-application. Skin irritation was scored after product removal or when a product detached. RESULTS: Overall, the majority (≥75%) of subjects treated with the lidocaine topical system 1.8% demonstrated ≥90% adhesion (FDA adhesion score 0) throughout the 12-hour administration period versus 13.6% of subjects treated with lidocaine patch 5%, 15.9% of subjects treated with lidocaine medicated plaster 5%, and 0% of subjects treated with the generic lidocaine patch 5%. There were no complete detachments with the lidocaine topical system 1.8%, whereas 4.5% of lidocaine patch 5% and lidocaine medicated plaster 5% detached, and 29% of generic lidocaine patch 5% detached. Minimal skin irritation was observed with each lidocaine topical product. CONCLUSION: Across three studies, lidocaine topical system 1.8% demonstrated superior adhesion performance versus the three other products tested. Skin irritation was minimal across products and studies. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT04312750, NCT04320173, NCT04319926.

Do Lidocaine Patches Reduce Opioid Use in Acute Rib Fractures?

BACKGROUND: Pain control is an important aspect of rib fracture management. With a rise in multimodal care approaches, we hypothesized that transdermal lidocaine patches reduce opioid utilization in hospitalized patients with acute rib fractures not requiring continuous opioid infusion. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of adult trauma patients with acute rib fractures admitted to the Trauma Service from January 2011 to October 2018. We compared patients who received transdermal lidocaine patches to those who did not and evaluated cumulative opioid consumption, expressed in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). Secondary outcomes included the rate of pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Of the 21 190 trauma admissions, 3927 (18.5%) had rib fractures. Overall, 1555 patients who received continuous opioid infusion were excluded. Of the remaining 2372 patients, 725 (30.6%) patients received lidocaine patches. The mean total MME of patients who received lidocaine patches was 55.7 MME (30.7 MME on multivariate analysis) and was lower than that of patients who did not receive lidocaine patches (P ≤ .01). There was no difference in hospital length of stay (no lidocaine patches vs received lidocaine patches: 6.2 days vs 6.5 days, P = .34) or pulmonary complications (1.7% vs 2.8%, P = .08). DISCUSSION: In admitted trauma patients with acute rib fractures not requiring continuous intravenous opiates, lidocaine patch use was associated with a significant decrease in opiate utilization during the patients' hospital course.

Utility of lidocaine as a topical analgesic and improvements in patch delivery systems.

Interest in and use of topical analgesics has been increasing, presumably due to their potential utility for relief of acute and chronic pain. Topically applied agents with analgesic properties can target peripheral nociceptive pathways while minimizing absorption into the plasma that leads to potential systemic adverse effects.Clinical trials have found 5% lidocaine patches to be effective and well tolerated for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) with a minimal risk of toxicity or drug-drug interactions. With this patch formulation, the penetration of lidocaine into the skin produces an analgesic effect without producing a complete sensory block. Use of topical lidocaine is supported by clinical practice guidelines, including first-line treatment by the American Academy of Neurology (guidelines retired 2018), the European Federation of Neurological Societies and second-line by the Canadian Pain Society.FDA approved 5% lidocaine patches in 1999, and a 1.8% topical lidocaine system in 2018 - both indicated for the treatment of pain secondary to PHN. The 1.8% system offers a more efficient delivery of lidocaine that is bioequivalent to 5% lidocaine patches, but with a 19-fold decrease in drug load (i.e., 36 mg versus 700 mg) as well as superior adhesion that allows the patch to maintain contact with the skin during the 12-h administration period.Although topical lidocaine formulations have advanced over time and play an important role in the treatment of PHN, a variety of other conditions that respond to topical lidocaine have been reported in the literature including PHN, lower back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and osteoarthritis joint pain. Other neuropathic or nociceptive pain syndromes may respond to topical lidocaine in select cases and warrant further study. Clinicians should consider local anesthetics and other topical agents as part of their multimodal treatments of acute and chronic pain.

The prescription of lidocaine patches in osteoarthritis-a complete audit cycle.

OBJECTIVES: Nationally, 5% of the population have been prescribed topical lidocaine patches (TLPs). These patches cost €77-230 per month. The only licensed indication for TLP is post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). It has not proven to be effective for any other indication including musculoskeletal and post-surgical pain. It is estimated that only 5-10% of patients on TLP have PHN. The aim of this study was to audit the number of inpatients currently prescribed TLP-appropriately and inappropriately-and to examine the prescribing patterns. METHODS: The acute inpatient population was audited in August 2017 to determine TLP prevalence. Demographics, indication, prescriber grade, and whether TLP was commenced during the current admission were recorded. Education was given surrounding indications and licensed usage of TLP. The acute inpatient population was subsequently re-audited in February 2018. RESULTS: There were 304 patients included in the initial study and 300 in the repeat study. The most common indication was musculoskeletal pain in each study, 75 and 77.78%, respectively. The number of inpatients on TLP fell from 17.1% (n = 52) to 6% (n = 18) after the intervention. The potential savings between the study periods are therefore €31,418-93,840 in total and €23,100-69,000 in musculoskeletal patients. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of inpatients are inappropriately prescribed TLP predominantly for musculoskeletal pain, resulting in substantial avoidable cost to the hospital. Education of prescribers and implementation of policies is required to limit inappropriate prescribing.