TY - JOUR
T1 - Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Crossover Trial Evaluating Topical Lidocaine for Mechanical Cervical Pain
AU - Cohen, Steven P.
AU - Larkin, Thomas M.
AU - Weitzner, Aidan S.
AU - Dolomisiewicz, Edward
AU - Wang, Eric J.
AU - Hsu, Annie
AU - Anderson-White, Mirinda
AU - Smith, Marin S.
AU - Zhao, Zirong
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/3/1
Y1 - 2024/3/1
N2 - Background: There are few efficacious treatments for mechanical neck pain, with controlled trials suggesting efficacy for muscle relaxants and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Although studies evaluating topical lidocaine for back pain have been disappointing, the more superficial location of the cervical musculature suggests a possible role for topical local anesthetics. Methods: This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial performed at four U.S. military, Veterans Administration, academic, and private practice sites, in which 76 patients were randomized to receive either placebo followed by lidocaine patch for 4-week intervals (group 1) or a lidocaine-then-placebo patch sequence. The primary outcome measure was mean reduction in average neck pain, with a positive categorical outcome designated as a reduction of at least 2 points in average neck pain coupled with at least a 5-point score of 7 points on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at the 4-week endpoint. Results: For the primary outcome, the median reduction in average neck pain score was -1.0 (interquartile range, -2.0, 0.0) for the lidocaine phase versus -0.5 (interquartile range, -2.0, 0.0) for placebo treatment (P = 0.17). During lidocaine treatment, 27.7% of patients experienced a positive outcome versus 14.9% during the placebo phase (P = 0.073). There were no significant differences between treatments for secondary outcomes, although a carryover effect on pain pressure threshold was observed for the lidocaine phase (P = 0.015). A total of 27.5% of patients in the lidocaine group and 20.5% in the placebo group experienced minor reactions, the most common of which was pruritis (P = 0.36). Conclusions: The differences favoring lidocaine were small and nonsignificant, but the trend toward superiority of lidocaine suggests more aggressive phenotyping and applying formulations with greater penetrance may provide clinically meaningful benefit.
AB - Background: There are few efficacious treatments for mechanical neck pain, with controlled trials suggesting efficacy for muscle relaxants and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Although studies evaluating topical lidocaine for back pain have been disappointing, the more superficial location of the cervical musculature suggests a possible role for topical local anesthetics. Methods: This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial performed at four U.S. military, Veterans Administration, academic, and private practice sites, in which 76 patients were randomized to receive either placebo followed by lidocaine patch for 4-week intervals (group 1) or a lidocaine-then-placebo patch sequence. The primary outcome measure was mean reduction in average neck pain, with a positive categorical outcome designated as a reduction of at least 2 points in average neck pain coupled with at least a 5-point score of 7 points on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at the 4-week endpoint. Results: For the primary outcome, the median reduction in average neck pain score was -1.0 (interquartile range, -2.0, 0.0) for the lidocaine phase versus -0.5 (interquartile range, -2.0, 0.0) for placebo treatment (P = 0.17). During lidocaine treatment, 27.7% of patients experienced a positive outcome versus 14.9% during the placebo phase (P = 0.073). There were no significant differences between treatments for secondary outcomes, although a carryover effect on pain pressure threshold was observed for the lidocaine phase (P = 0.015). A total of 27.5% of patients in the lidocaine group and 20.5% in the placebo group experienced minor reactions, the most common of which was pruritis (P = 0.36). Conclusions: The differences favoring lidocaine were small and nonsignificant, but the trend toward superiority of lidocaine suggests more aggressive phenotyping and applying formulations with greater penetrance may provide clinically meaningful benefit.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85185002521&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85185002521&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004857
DO - 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004857
M3 - Article
C2 - 38079112
AN - SCOPUS:85185002521
SN - 0003-3022
VL - 140
SP - 513
EP - 523
JO - Anesthesiology
JF - Anesthesiology
IS - 3
ER -