Lidocaine patch 5% for carpal tunnel syndrome: How it compares with injections: A pilot study

,

Original Research

Lidocaine patch 5% for carpal tunnel syndrome: How it compares with injections: A pilot study

J Fam Pract. 2006 March;55(3):209-214

PDF Download

References

1. Viera AJ. Management of carpal tunnel syndrome. Am Fam Physician 2003;68:265-272.

2. Marshall S, Tardif G, Ashworth N. Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;4:CD001554.-

3. Ly-Pen D, Andréu J-L, de Blas G, Sánchez-Olaso A, Millán I. Surgical decompression versus local steroid injection in carpal tunnel syndrome: a one-year, prospective, randomized, open, controlled, clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:612-619.

4. Kasten SJ, Louis DS. Carpal tunnel syndrome: a case of median nerve injection injury and a safe and effective method for injecting the carpal tunnel. J Fam Pract 1996;43:79-82.

5. Frederick HA, Carter PR, Littler JW. Injection injuries to the median and ulnar nerves at the wrist. J Hand Surg [Am] 1992;17:645-647.

6. Tavares SP, Giddins GE. Nerve injury following steroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome. A report of two cases. J Hand Surg [Br] 1996;21:208-209.

7. Katz JN, Simmons BP. Clinical practice. Carpal tunnel syndrome. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1807-1812.

8. Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B. What can family physicians offer patients with carpal tunnel syndrome other than surgery? A systematic review of nonsurgical management. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:267-273.

9. Gold MS. Sodium channels and pain therapy. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2000;13:565-572.

10. Gold MS, Weinreich D, Kim C-S, et al. Redistribution of NaV1.8 in uninjured axons enables neuropathic pain. J Neurosci 2003;23:158-166.

11. Galer BS, Sheldon E, Patel N, et al. Topical lidocaine patch 5% may target a novel underlying pain mechanism in osteoarthritis. Curr Med Res Opinion 2004;20:1455-1458.

12. Gammaitoni AR, Alvarez NA, Galer BS. Safety and tolerability of the lidocaine patch 5%, a targeted peripheral analgesic: a review of the literature. J Clin Pharmacol 2003;43:111-117.

13. Barbano RL, Herrmann DN, Hart-Gouleau S, et al. Effectiveness, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of the 5% lidocaine patch in diabetic polyneuropathy. Arch Neurol 2004;61:914-918.

14. Meier T, Wasner G, Faust M, et al. Efficacy of lidocaine patch 5% in the treatment of focal peripheral neuropathic pain syndromes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Pain 2003;106:151-158.

15. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, and American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Practice parameter for electrodiagnostic studies in carpal tunnel syndrome: summary statement. Muscle Nerve 2002;25:918-922.

16. Tan G, Jensen MP, Thornby JI, Shanti BF. Validation of the Brief Pain Inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain 2004;5:133-137

TABLE 1
Patient demographics and baseline characteristics

PARAMETER	LIDOCAINE PATCH (N=20)	INJECTION (N=20)
Age (mean years±SD)	48.4±10.3	47.5±13.9
Gender (%)
Male	35	25
Female	65	75
Average pain intensity at baseline (mean±SD)	5.3±1.9	4.8±2.5
Clinical Global Impression of Severity at Baseline (%)
Mild	55	45
Moderate	45	55

TABLE 2
Impact of treatments on Clinicians’ Global Impression of Change and Global Assessment of Treatment Satisfaction scales

PARAMETER	LIDOCAINE PATCH	INJECTION
Clinician Global Impression of Change (%)
Improved	88	74
No Change	12	26
Worse	0	0
Patient satisfaction
Patients satisfied or very satisfied (%)	80	59

Discussion

The lidocaine patch 5%, a noninvasive, targeted peripheral analgesic, effectively relieved the intensity of localized pain reported by patients with CTS. The efficacy of the lidocaine patch 5% in reducing pain and improving symptoms was comparable to that of the more invasive anesthetic/corticosteroid injection. The lidocaine patch 5% significantly reduced CTS-related pain, thereby reducing the pain’s interference with QOL and resulting in a high level of treatment satisfaction. In addition, the lidocaine patch 5% was well tolerated with no reported systemic adverse effects.

These preliminary data from this small, open-label, pilot investigation suggest the possibility that the lidocaine patch 5% may be a useful option for some patients.

FAST TRACK

The patch may be suitable when conservative measures fail or surgery is planned

Study limitations. Since it was a pilot study, the number of patients included in the trial was small and the duration was short. Moreover, allocation was not concealed and the study was not blinded. Further controlled trials are needed to confirm the effects reported in this pilot study.

The lidocaine patch 5% targets localized damaged or dysfunctional nociceptors while reducing the risk of drug interactions and systemic side effects. Since this noninvasive treatment appears to relieve CTS-related pain with minimal risks, the lidocaine patch 5% may be a reasonable therapeutic option for patients with new-onset CTS who do not respond to more conservative options and who are unable or unwilling to receive more invasive therapies. Moreover, it affords clinicians a possible alternative to corticosteroid injections in patients awaiting surgery and eliminates the risk of adhesions due to injection.

CORRESPONDENCE
Srinivas Nalamachu, MD, 4601 W 109th St, Suite 302, Mid-America Physiatrists, PA, Overland Park, KS 66211. E-mail: nalamachu@sbcglobal.net