Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety profile of capsaicin 8% patch versus 5% Lidocaine patch in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled study of south Asian male patients.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy affects up to 60% of individuals and often leads to foot ulceration and eventual amputation. When oral therapy has failed to achieve pain relief, the first line local treatment is the 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster which provides local relief. Capsaicin 8% patch is considered a promising topical treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. The present study investigated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of capsaicin 8% patch vs 5% lidocaine patch treatments over 24 weeks in South Asian male diabetic patients with established peripheral diabetic neuropathy.

Methods

Analgesic effectiveness was assessed by observing any change in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (BPI-DPN question 4) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). All patients received 4% lidocaine gel/cream for 60 min prior to patch application. The trial was probably underpowered, taking into account the smaller than expected number of participants from the calculated 350 sample size required for the whole study. Two hundred ninety-one individuals were divided into three groups based on treatment regimen; Group LL (Lidocaine + Lidocaine), Group LP (Lidocaine + Placebo), Group LC (Lidocaine + Capsaicin). The treatment procedure was conducted once initially and then repeated once at 12 weeks. The patients were followed up on alternate weeks till 24 weeks after the initial treatment.

Results

Group LC experienced a more significant reduction in the average pain intensity (p < 0.05) during the last twenty-four hours. Group LC showed more significant reduction of pain compared to control (p < 0.01), a baseline score of 5.4 ± 1.2 dropped to 3.2 ± 1.5 by week 24 of treatment. The change in mean daily pain intensity was - 2.2 ± 1.5 [95% CI: -2.45, -1.5]. Group LL and LC experienced a significant overall improvement (slightly, much or very much) in the health status during the study. After the second week of the treatment, patient satisfaction scores were 2.1 ± 1.1 in Group LL which increased to 3.2 ± 1.2 by week 24 of treatment. The capsaicin 8% patch appears to be reasonably well tolerated since there were no discontinuations because of serious drug-related treatment emergent adverse event (TEAEs).

Conclusions

The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the 8% capsaicin patch in patients with established painful diabetic neuropathy. There was a sustained treatment response to the initial and repeat treatment of the capsaicin 8% patch over the 24 weeks. The study population was very specific so further studies are required to investigate the generalizability of the results for patients experiencing painful diabetic neuropathy. The patch could be considered as an effective long-term treatment option in individuals with painful diabetic neuropathy, particularly those experiencing inadequate pain relief or side effects from systemic therapies.

SUBMITTER: Hussain N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8212319 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/purposeNGX-4010 (QUTENZA(™); NeurogesX Inc, San Mateo, CA), a capsaicin 8% dermal patch, is licensed in the European Union for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) in nondiabetic adults and in the United States for the treatment of neuropathic pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). While NGX-4010 treatment is associated with a low risk of systemic adverse events, patch application-related pain is common and may be managed with local cooling and/or oral analgesics. This article characterizes the tolerability of NGX-4010 and will help to guide any pain management.MethodsThis integrated analysis of tolerability data collected from the NGX-4010 clinical study program included 1696 patients with PNP. Patch application-related pain on the treatment day was captured as Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) "pain now" scores while "average pain for the past 24 hours" NPRS scores were analyzed for 7 days following treatment. Other tolerability assessments included the percentage of patients completing ≥90% of the intended treatment duration and patients using medication for patch application-related pain.ResultsThe mean maximum change in "pain now" NPRS scores from pretreatment levels during and after patch application was 2.6 for all patients. This pain was transient and resolved following patch removal. Mean "average pain for the past 24 hours" NPRS scores returned to baseline by the evening of the treatment day for patients with PHN, and the evening of day 2 for patients with human immunodeficiency virus-associated distal sensory polyneuropathy or painful diabetic neuropathy. Repeated NGX-4010 applications did not affect the intensity of patch application-related pain. Almost all patients (≥98%) completed ≥90% of the full treatment duration, regardless of the number of treatments received.ConclusionTransient patch application-related pain with NGX-4010 can be managed with local cooling and/or oral analgesics in nearly all cases. Patient adherence to the full intended treatment duration indicated that patch application-related pain was not a barrier to NGX-4010 use.

Project description:We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of capsaicin 8% patch (QUTENZA™) versus pregabalin in patients with PNP from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal and Social Services in Scotland, UK. A decision-tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for non-diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) who were pregabalin-naïve and had not achieved adequate pain relief or tolerated conventional first- or second-line treatments. Patients entering the model received either a single application of capsaicin 8% patch or titrated daily dosing with pregabalin; after 8 weeks patients were classified as responders, non-responders, or were assumed to discontinue treatment due to intolerable adverse events. Responders continued to receive baseline treatment at intervals observed in clinical practice. Non-responders and those who discontinued treatment were assumed to receive last-line therapy (duloxetine). The base-case time horizon was 2 years. Model inputs for effectiveness, discontinuations and health-state utilities were taken from a head-to-head non-inferiority study (ELEVATE, NCT01713426). Other inputs were obtained from published sources or clinical expert opinion. Costs were expressed in GBP 2013/14. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), i.e. cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Model assumptions were tested with scenario analyses. Parameter uncertainty was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with dose-optimized pregabalin, capsaicin 8% patch was the dominant treatment strategy (total cost difference, -£11; total QALY gain, 0.049). Capsaicin 8% patch was also the dominant treatment strategy versus pregabalin in 6 out of 7 scenario analyses. The model was most sensitive to variation in time to capsaicin 8% patch retreatment (maximum ICER, £7,951/QALY at lower-bound 95% confidence interval). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, the probability of capsaicin 8% patch being cost-effective versus pregabalin was 97%. Capsaicin 8% patch is a cost-effective treatment option compared with dose-optimized pregabalin in patients with PNP who have failed one or more previous systemic treatments.

Project description:IntroductionAlmost one-quarter of Asian patients with diabetes experience diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP), which may be associated with moderate or severe levels of pain, insomnia, mood disorders, and worsened quality of life. Current treatments are generally ineffective and may be poorly tolerated. We evaluated mirogabalin as a treatment for DPNP in Asian subjects.MethodsThis phase 2, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Subjects (n = 450) with DPNP were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) to treatment with 5, 10, or 15 mg twice-daily (BID) mirogabalin, 150 mg BID pregabalin, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in average daily pain score (ADPS) at week 7; secondary endpoints included responder rates, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), average daily sleep-interference score (ADSIS), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsA greater improvement was noted for each mirogabalin treatment group for change from baseline in ADPS at week 7 compared with both placebo and with pregabalin, although these improvements were not statistically significant. The percentage of 30, 50, and 75% responders and subjects with PGIC improvements was greater in each mirogabalin group versus placebo. Mirogabalin 15 mg BID significantly improved the SF-MPQ sensory (p = 0.0313) and visual analog scale scores (p = 0.0093), and ADSIS (p = 0.0002), versus placebo. Treatment was generally well tolerated; the most frequently reported TEAEs in the mirogabalin groups were somnolence (14.7%) and dizziness (11.0%), and most AEs were mild or moderate even at the highest dose.ConclusionsIn Asian subjects with DPNP, mirogabalin (5, 10, and 15 mg BID) was well tolerated. Although no significant differences were observed in the primary endpoint, there was a tendency toward improvement of pain with mirogabalin treatment, and this trend was also observed in the secondary endpoints.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01504412.