A Trial of Lidocaine Patch for Lower Limb Amputation Pain
Primary Purpose
Phantom Limb Pain (PLP), Primary/Secondary Scar Hyperalgesia
Status
Withdrawn
Phase
Phase 2
Locations
Belgium
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Lidocaine
Sham
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional treatment trial for Phantom Limb Pain (PLP) focused on measuring lidocaine, phantom limb pain (PLP), Primary/secondary scar hyperalgesia
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- All above or below knee amputations , two months or more after surgery, after complete wound healing (no clips, no stitches, no seepage)
Exclusion Criteria:
- History of central nervous system disease
- History of major psychiatric disease (MMS<23/30, HADS>8/21)
- Pregnancy
- Known hypersensitivity to local anesthetics (lidocaine, bupivacaine, etidocaine, mepivacaine, prilocaine)
- skin irritation on the stump
Sites / Locations
- CHU Brugmann - Queen Astrid
- Erasme -CTR
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Experimental
Sham Comparator
Arm Label
Lidocaine
Sham
Arm Description
During a period of six weeks, a lidocaine patch will be applied around the wound (cut in two parts, 1cm above and below the wound, without direct contact with the scar) for a total of twelve hours per day, during night time.
During a period of six weeks, a visually identical patch (sham) will be applied around the wound (cut in two parts, 1cm above and below the wound, without direct contact with the scar) for a total of twelve hours per day, during night time.
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Patient-reported overall daily pain intensity
The overall daily pain intensity (stump, scar and phantom pain combined) will be rated on a 0 to 100 visual analogue scale with anchors of 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain ever experienced).
Secondary Outcome Measures
Neuropathic Pain (DN4)
Screening for neuropathic pain, by using the DN4 questionnaire
Neuropathic pain
Rated with the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory
Neuropathic pain
Rated with the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory
Neuropathic pain
Rated with the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory
Neuropathic pain
Rated with the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory
Pain (McGill)
Rated by the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, sensitive to the effects of pain treatment.
Pain (McGill)
Rated by the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, sensitive to the effects of pain treatment.
Pain (McGill)
Rated by the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, sensitive to the effects of pain treatment.
Quality of life
Rated by the SF36 questionnaire
Quality of life
Will be rated by the SF36 questionnaire
Quality of life
Will be rated by the SF36 questionnaire
Sleep quality
will be assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality index
Sleep quality
will be assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality index
Sleep quality
will be assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality index
Delay of dress of provisory prosthesis
Number of days between surgery and delivery of temporary prosthesis
Delay of dress of provisory prosthesis
Number of days between inclusion in the research protocol and delivery of temporary prosthesis
Cumulative analgesic consumption (morphine equivalents)
Rated by the cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS)
Cumulative analgesic consumption (morphine equivalents)
Rated by the cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS)
Cumulative analgesic consumption (morphine equivalents)
Rated by the cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS)
Phantom Limb Pain occurence
occurence of phantom limb pain
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT02696720
First Posted
February 26, 2016
Last Updated
January 18, 2018
Sponsor
Brugmann University Hospital
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT02696720
Brief Title
A Trial of Lidocaine Patch for Lower Limb Amputation Pain
Official Title
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Lidocaine Patch for Lower Limb Amputation Pain
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
January 2018
Overall Recruitment Status
Withdrawn
Why Stopped
Lack of recruitment
Study Start Date
May 13, 2016 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
June 13, 2017 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
June 13, 2017 (Actual)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Brugmann University Hospital
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
Phantom limb pain (PLP) and scar hyperalgesia (SH) are frequent problems after amputation; in particular most persons who undergo limb amputation will experience phantom pain. The neuropathic nature of PLP suggests the involvement of both peripheral and central neurological mechanisms, including neuroplastic changes in the central nervous system. PLP as other central nervous system-related pain syndromes remains a challenge for treatment. Scar hyperalgesia involves peripheral mechanisms and results frim the production of substances liberated by damaged skin cells. These inflammatory substances lower the pain threshold by altering the chemical environment of skin nerve endings. Scan hyperalgesia is associated with secondary mechanical hyperalgesia in the skin area around the scar.
The lidocaine patch 5% is a topical analgesic acting by blocking sodium channels of peripheral nerve endings and by inhibiting ectopic discharges in sensitized and hyperactive cutaneous nociceptors. The patch is noninvasive, with minimal systemic absorption resulting in a reduced risk of drug-drug interaction. In addition, a central analgesic effect of lidocaine has been suggested. The lidocaine patch 5% is currently licensed for the treatment of symptomatic postherpetic neuralgia. It also has been successfully used in patients with other neuropathic pain states, such as entrapment neuropathies, painful idiopathic distal sensory polyneuropathies and postoperative/post traumatic neuropathic chronic cutaneous pain. The lidocaine patch has not been studied for the management and prevention of phantom limb pain.
The aim of the present research is to investigate if a lidocaine patch 5% is effective for reducing PLP and primary/secondary scar hyperalgesia. The hypothesis is that persistent peripheral nociceptive input from the stump after surgery may drive maladaptive cortical reorganization leading to chronic central pain and thus promote chronic phantom limb pain. Treating scar hyperalgesia on the stump with topical lidocaine may reduce the activity of peripheral nociceptive afferents and thus decrease the likelihood of developing persistent phantom limb pain.
This study is designed as a randomized controlled multicentric double blind trial, in which the effectiveness of applying a 5% lidocaine patch for 6 weeks will be compared with a sham.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Phantom Limb Pain (PLP), Primary/Secondary Scar Hyperalgesia
Keywords
lidocaine, phantom limb pain (PLP), Primary/secondary scar hyperalgesia
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Phase 2
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
ParticipantInvestigator
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
0 (Actual)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
Lidocaine
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
During a period of six weeks, a lidocaine patch will be applied around the wound (cut in two parts, 1cm above and below the wound, without direct contact with the scar) for a total of twelve hours per day, during night time.
Arm Title
Sham
Arm Type
Sham Comparator
Arm Description
During a period of six weeks, a visually identical patch (sham) will be applied around the wound (cut in two parts, 1cm above and below the wound, without direct contact with the scar) for a total of twelve hours per day, during night time.
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Lidocaine
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Sham
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Patient-reported overall daily pain intensity
Description
The overall daily pain intensity (stump, scar and phantom pain combined) will be rated on a 0 to 100 visual analogue scale with anchors of 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain ever experienced).
Time Frame
Daily, starting seven days before patch placement (baseline) till six weeks after patch placement
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Neuropathic Pain (DN4)
Description
Screening for neuropathic pain, by using the DN4 questionnaire
Time Frame
at baseline - 7 days before patch placement
Title
Neuropathic pain
Description
Rated with the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory
Time Frame
at baseline - 7 days before patch placement
Title
Neuropathic pain
Description
Rated with the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory
Time Frame
One day after patch placement
Title
Neuropathic pain
Description
Rated with the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory
Time Frame
6 weeks after patch placement
Title
Neuropathic pain
Description
Rated with the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory
Time Frame
6 months after patch placement
Title
Pain (McGill)
Description
Rated by the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, sensitive to the effects of pain treatment.
Time Frame
at baseline - 7 days before patch placement
Title
Pain (McGill)
Description
Rated by the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, sensitive to the effects of pain treatment.
Time Frame
One day after patch placement
Title
Pain (McGill)
Description
Rated by the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, sensitive to the effects of pain treatment.
Time Frame
6 weeks after patch placement
Title
Quality of life
Description
Rated by the SF36 questionnaire
Time Frame
at baseline -7 days before patch placement
Title
Quality of life
Description
Will be rated by the SF36 questionnaire
Time Frame
six weeks after patch placement
Title
Quality of life
Description
Will be rated by the SF36 questionnaire
Time Frame
six months after patch placement
Title
Sleep quality
Description
will be assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality index
Time Frame
baseline -7 days before patch placement
Title
Sleep quality
Description
will be assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality index
Time Frame
6 weeks after patch placement
Title
Sleep quality
Description
will be assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality index
Time Frame
6 months after patch placement
Title
Delay of dress of provisory prosthesis
Description
Number of days between surgery and delivery of temporary prosthesis
Time Frame
From the day of the surgery till the day of the delivery of temporary prosthesis, for a maximum of 6 months
Title
Delay of dress of provisory prosthesis
Description
Number of days between inclusion in the research protocol and delivery of temporary prosthesis
Time Frame
From the day of patient inclusion in the research protocol till the day of the delivery of temporary prosthesis, for a maximum of 6 months
Title
Cumulative analgesic consumption (morphine equivalents)
Description
Rated by the cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS)
Time Frame
baseline -7 days before patch placement
Title
Cumulative analgesic consumption (morphine equivalents)
Description
Rated by the cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS)
Time Frame
1 day after patch placement
Title
Cumulative analgesic consumption (morphine equivalents)
Description
Rated by the cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS)
Time Frame
6 weeks after patch placement
Title
Phantom Limb Pain occurence
Description
occurence of phantom limb pain
Time Frame
6 months after patch placement
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
All above or below knee amputations , two months or more after surgery, after complete wound healing (no clips, no stitches, no seepage)
Exclusion Criteria:
History of central nervous system disease
History of major psychiatric disease (MMS<23/30, HADS>8/21)
Pregnancy
Known hypersensitivity to local anesthetics (lidocaine, bupivacaine, etidocaine, mepivacaine, prilocaine)
skin irritation on the stump
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Samar Hatem, MD
Organizational Affiliation
CHU Brugmann
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Simone Brienza, MD
Organizational Affiliation
CHU Brugmann
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Valérie Gangji, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Erasme
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
CHU Brugmann - Queen Astrid
City
Brussels
Country
Belgium
Facility Name
Erasme -CTR
City
Brussels
Country
Belgium
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
14970960
Citation
Robinson LR, Czerniecki JM, Ehde DM, Edwards WT, Judish DA, Goldberg ML, Campbell KM, Smith DG, Jensen MP. Trial of amitriptyline for relief of pain in amputees: results of a randomized controlled study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Jan;85(1):1-6. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00476-3.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15399521
Citation
HARDY JD, WOLFF HG, GOODELL H. Experimental evidence on the nature of cutaneous hyperalgesia. J Clin Invest. 1950 Jan;29(1):115-40. doi: 10.1172/JCI102227. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12616661
Citation
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 Feb;43(2):111-7. doi: 10.1177/0091270002239817.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
10692621
Citation
Koppert W, Ostermeier N, Sittl R, Weidner C, Schmelz M. Low-dose lidocaine reduces secondary hyperalgesia by a central mode of action. Pain. 2000 Mar;85(1-2):217-24. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00268-7.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17406167
Citation
Nalamachu S, Crockett RS, Gammaitoni AR, Gould EM. A comparison of the lidocaine patch 5% vs naproxen 500 mg twice daily for the relief of pain associated with carpal tunnel syndrome: a 6-week, randomized, parallel-group study. MedGenMed. 2006 Aug 9;8(3):33.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16266359
Citation
Herrmann DN, Barbano RL, Hart-Gouleau S, Pennella-Vaughan J, Dworkin RH. An open-label study of the lidocaine patch 5% in painful idiopathic sensory polyneuropathy. Pain Med. 2005 Sep-Oct;6(5):379-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2005.00058.x.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
19788351
Citation
Hans G, Joukes E, Verhulst J, Vercauteren M. Management of neuropathic pain after surgical and non-surgical trauma with lidocaine 5% patches: study of 40 consecutive cases. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009 Nov;25(11):2737-43. doi: 10.1185/03007990903282297.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15733628
Citation
Bouhassira D, Attal N, Alchaar H, Boureau F, Brochet B, Bruxelle J, Cunin G, Fermanian J, Ginies P, Grun-Overdyking A, Jafari-Schluep H, Lanteri-Minet M, Laurent B, Mick G, Serrie A, Valade D, Vicaut E. Comparison of pain syndromes associated with nervous or somatic lesions and development of a new neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4). Pain. 2005 Mar;114(1-2):29-36. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.12.010. Epub 2005 Jan 26.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15030944
Citation
Bouhassira D, Attal N, Fermanian J, Alchaar H, Gautron M, Masquelier E, Rostaing S, Lanteri-Minet M, Collin E, Grisart J, Boureau F. Development and validation of the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory. Pain. 2004 Apr;108(3):248-257. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2003.12.024.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
3670870
Citation
Melzack R. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain. 1987 Aug;30(2):191-197. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(87)91074-8.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
2748771
Citation
Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF 3rd, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res. 1989 May;28(2):193-213. doi: 10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4.
Results Reference
background
Learn more about this trial
A Trial of Lidocaine Patch for Lower Limb Amputation Pain
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs