Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

Clinicaltrials.gov

NCT04312750, NCT04320173, NCT04319926.

SUBMITTER: Gudin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7914064 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis study was designed to characterize drug delivery with lidocaine topical system 1.8% vs lidocaine patch 5% through 2 PK studies.Patients and methodsTwo 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionBioequivalence 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.ClinicaltrialsgovNCT04144192, NCT04149938.

Project description:PurposeThis study compares the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile, adhesion, and safety of lidocaine topical system 1.8%, a novel lidocaine topical system approved to treat postherpetic neuralgia, under conditions of heat and exercise vs normal conditions.Materials and methodsThis open-label, 3-period, 3-treatment crossover study randomized 12 healthy adults to receive three lidocaine topical systems 1.8% during each of three treatment periods, with 7-day washouts between treatments. The product was applied to the mid-lower back and was removed after 12 hours. During Treatment A, subjects exercised on a bicycle for 30 minutes at 0, 2.5, 5.5, and 8.5 hours. During Treatment B, heat (temperature set at 36.7-40.3°C) was applied at 0 and 8.5 hours. Treatment C was normal conditions. The PK profile of each subject under exercise and heat conditions was compared to normal conditions. Skin irritation, adhesion, and adverse events were assessed.ResultsTwelve subjects completed the study. Exposure to external heat resulted in increased peak plasma concentration of lidocaine with a mean Cmax of 160.3±100.1 ng/mL vs 97.6±36.9 ng/mL under normal conditions, with no effect on the extent of exposure (AUC). Concentrations returned to normal within 4 hours after the heat was removed. No clinically relevant differences in absorption were observed under exercise conditions with a mean Cmax of 90.5±25.4 ng/mL and no effect on the extent (AUC) of lidocaine exposure was observed relative to normal conditions. No systems detached during the study. Adverse events were mild, with none leading to discontinuation.ConclusionTransient heat exposure resulted in increased lidocaine plasma concentrations compared to normal conditions, whereas exercise had no effect. The effects of heat appear to be immediate, reversible, and below systemic therapeutic threshold in antiarrhythmic treatment (1000-1500 ng/mL), and well below the safe systemic threshold of 5000 ng/mL. Lidocaine topical system 1.8% remained adhered to the skin and was well tolerated under all conditions. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04150536.

Project description:BackgroundPatients frequently fail to receive adequate pain relief from, or are intolerant of, first-line therapies prescribed for neuropathic pain (NeP). This refractory chronic pain causes psychological distress and impacts patient quality of life. Published literature for treatment in refractory patients is sparse and often published as conference abstracts only. The aim of this study was to identify published data for three pharmacological treatments: pregabalin, lidocaine plaster, and duloxetine, which are typically used at 2(nd) line or later in UK patients with neuropathic pain.MethodsA systematic review of the literature databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CCTR was carried out and supplemented with extensive conference and grey literature searching. Studies of any design (except single patient case studies) that enrolled adult patients with refractory NeP were included in the review and qualitatively assessed.ResultsSeventeen studies were included in the review: nine of pregabalin, seven of the lidocaine plaster, and one of duloxetine. No head-to-head studies of these treatments were identified. Only six studies included treatments within UK licensed indications and dose ranges. Reported efficacy outcomes were not consistent between studies. Pain scores were most commonly assessed in studies including pregabalin; trials of pregabalin and the lidocaine plaster reported the proportion of responders. Significant improvements in the total, sensory and affective scores of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and in function interference, sleep interference and pain associated distress, were associated with pregabalin treatment; limited or no quality of life data were available for the other two interventions. Limitations to the review are the small number of included studies, which are generally small, of poor quality and heterogeneous in patient population and study design.ConclusionsLittle evidence is available relevant to the treatment of refractory neuropathic pain despite the clinical need. There is a notable lack of high-quality comparative studies. It is evident that there is a need for future, high quality trials, particularly "gold-standard" RCTs in this refractory patient population.