Derry Sheena, Wiffen Philip J, Moore R Andrew, Quinlan Jane
Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics), University of Oxford, Pain Research Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 7LE.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 24;2014(7):CD010958. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010958.pub2.
Lidocaine is a local anaesthetic that is sometimes used on the skin to treat neuropathic pain.
To assess the analgesic efficacy of topical lidocaine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and to assess the associated adverse events.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 1 July 2014, together with the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal to identify additional published or unpublished data.
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing any formulation of topical lidocaine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles.
Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.
We included 12 studies (508 participants) in comparisons with placebo or an active control. Six studies enrolled participants with moderate or severe postherpetic neuralgia, and the remaining studies enrolled different, or mixed, neuropathic pain conditions, including trigeminal neuralgia and postsurgical or post-traumatic neuralgia. Four different formulations were used: 5% medicated patch, 5% cream, 5% gel, and 8% spray. Most studies used a cross-over design, and two used a parallel-group design. Two studies used enriched enrolment with randomised withdrawal. Seven studies used multiple doses, with one to four-week treatment periods, and five used single applications. We judged all of the studies at high risk of bias because of small size or incomplete outcome assessment, or both.There was no first or second tier evidence, and no pooling of data was possible for efficacy outcomes. Only one multiple-dose study reported our primary outcome of participants with ≥ 50% or ≥ 30% pain intensity reduction. Three single-dose studies reported participants who were pain-free at a particular time point, or had a 2-point (of 10) reduction in pain intensity. The two enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal studies reported time to loss of efficacy. In all but one study, third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated that lidocaine was better than placebo for some measure of pain relief. Pooling multiple-dose studies across conditions demonstrated no clear evidence of an effect of lidocaine on the incidence of adverse events or withdrawals, but there were few events and the withdrawal phase of enriched enrolment designs is not suitable to assess the true impact of adverse events (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence from good quality randomised controlled studies to support the use of topical lidocaine to treat neuropathic pain, although individual studies indicated that it was effective for relief of pain. Clinical experience also supports efficacy in some patients. Several large ongoing studies, of adequate duration, with clinically useful outcomes should provide more robust conclusions about both efficacy and harm.
利多卡因是一种局部麻醉剂,有时用于皮肤治疗神经性疼痛。
评估外用利多卡因治疗成人慢性神经性疼痛的镇痛效果,并评估相关不良事件。
我们检索了截至2014年7月1日的CENTRAL、MEDLINE和EMBASE,以及检索到的论文和其他综述的参考文献列表。我们还检索了ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)搜索门户,以识别其他已发表或未发表的数据。
我们纳入了至少为期两周的随机、双盲研究,比较外用利多卡因的任何剂型与安慰剂或其他积极治疗用于慢性神经性疼痛的效果。参与者为18岁及以上的成年人。我们仅纳入完整的期刊发表文章。
两位综述作者独立提取疗效和不良事件数据,并检查研究质量问题。我们使用三级证据进行分析。一级证据来自符合当前最佳标准且偏倚风险最小的数据(结果相当于疼痛强度大幅降低,意向性分析不填补失访数据;比较组中至少有200名参与者,为期8至12周,平行设计);二级证据来自未满足这些标准中的一项或多项且我们认为存在一定偏倚风险但比较组中有足够数量参与者的数据;三级证据来自涉及少量参与者的数据,我们认为这些数据很可能存在偏倚或使用的临床效用有限的结果,或两者皆有。
我们纳入了12项与安慰剂或积极对照进行比较的研究(508名参与者)。6项研究纳入了中度或重度带状疱疹后神经痛的参与者;其余研究纳入了不同的或混合的神经性疼痛情况,包括三叉神经痛以及手术后或创伤后神经痛。使用了4种不同剂型:5%药用贴剂、5%乳膏、5%凝胶和8%喷雾剂。大多数研究采用交叉设计,2项采用平行组设计。2项研究采用富集入组和随机撤药设计。7项研究使用多剂量,治疗期为1至4周,5项使用单次给药。由于样本量小或结局评估不完整,或两者皆有,我们判定所有研究存在高偏倚风险。没有一级或二级证据,且无法对疗效结局进行数据合并。只有一项多剂量研究报告了疼痛强度降低≥50%或≥30%的参与者这一主要结局。三项单剂量研究报告了在特定时间点无痛的参与者,或疼痛强度降低2分(满分10分)的参与者。两项富集入组、随机撤药研究报告了疗效丧失时间。除一项研究外,在所有研究中,三级(极低质量)证据表明利多卡因在某种疼痛缓解指标上优于安慰剂。合并不同情况的多剂量研究未显示利多卡因对不良事件或撤药发生率有明显影响的证据,但不良事件很少,且富集入组设计的撤药阶段不适合评估不良事件的真正影响(极低质量证据)。
本综述未发现高质量随机对照研究的证据支持外用利多卡因治疗神经性疼痛,尽管个别研究表明其对缓解疼痛有效。临床经验也支持其对部分患者有效。几项正在进行的、持续时间足够长且有临床实用结局的大型研究应能就疗效和危害得出更可靠的结论。