search
Back to results

Comparison of Prescription Lidocaine Patch to Over the Counter Lidocaine Patch and Placebo for Back Pain and Arthritis

Primary Purpose

Back Pain, Arthritis

Status
Unknown status
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
lidocaine 5% patch
lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25%
Placebo
Sponsored by
J.A.R. Laboratories
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Back Pain

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Diagnosis of back pain
  • Diagnosis of arthritis

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Pregnancy or expected pregnancy in the next three months
  • Allergic to any lidocaine, menthol and methylparaben
  • No reliable access to the internet
  • Baseline average pain intensity of 1,2,9 or 10 on a scale of 0-to 10.
  • Pain on the area of the body not conducive to patch therapy (eg fingers, toes etc)

Sites / Locations

  • Advocate Good Sheppard HospitalRecruiting

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Placebo Comparator

Arm Label

Lidocaine5% v Lidocaine3.6%,Menthol1.25%

Lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% v placebo

Arm Description

Daily patch Q12 followed by Q12 of no patch

Daily patch Q12 followed by Q12 of no patch

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Efficacy comparison of lidocaine 5% and lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% as measured by VAS numeric 0-10 pain scale
Endpoint is a non-inferiority statistical comparison. Comparison is based off of analysis of identical questionnaires administered at baseline and day ten

Secondary Outcome Measures

Quality of life comparison of placebo and lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% as measured by VAS numeric 0-10 pain scale
Statistical superiority sought for lidocaine 3.6%,menthol 1.25% compared to placebo. Comparison is based off of analysis of identical questionnaires administered at baseline and day ten.
Efficacy comparison of placebo and lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% as measured by VAS numeric 0-10 pain scale
Statistical superiority sought for lidocaine 3.6%,menthol 1.25% compared to placebo. Comparison is based off of analysis of identical questionnaires administered at baseline and day ten.
Side effect comparison of placebo and lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% as measured by VAS numeric 0-10 pain scale
Endpoint is a non-inferiority statistical comparison. Comparison is based off of analysis of identical questionnaires administered at baseline and day ten.
Side effect comparison of lidocaine 5% and lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% as measured by VAS numeric 0-10 pain scale
Endpoint is a non-inferiority statistical comparison. Comparison is based off of analysis of identical questionnaires administered at baseline and day ten.

Full Information

First Posted
April 18, 2016
Last Updated
April 19, 2016
Sponsor
J.A.R. Laboratories
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT02749123
Brief Title
Comparison of Prescription Lidocaine Patch to Over the Counter Lidocaine Patch and Placebo for Back Pain and Arthritis
Official Title
Comparison of Prescription Lidocaine Patch to Over the Counter Lidocaine Patch and Placebo for Back Pain and Arthritis
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
April 2016
Overall Recruitment Status
Unknown status
Study Start Date
April 2016 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
May 2016 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
May 2016 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
J.A.R. Laboratories

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
A comparison of transdermal patches for efficacy, side effects and quality of life for patients with back pain and arthritis. The three arms in the trial were; prescription strength lidocaine 5%, over the counter lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% and placebo.
Detailed Description
In this comparison of; lidocaine 5%, lidocaine/menthol 1.25% and placebo for patients with back pain and arthritis, subjects had to qualify by meeting various inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subjects signed an informed consent and were randomized in a double blinded fashion to one of the three arms. After randomization subjects completed a baseline questionnaire regarding how pain affects their lives. Then they began therapy with their blinded product. This same questionnaire was administered after the second day of therapy and after the final day on day 10. Responses at the day two and ten endpoints were compared to baseline to access the response of each arm.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Back Pain, Arthritis

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
ParticipantCare ProviderInvestigatorOutcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
100 (Anticipated)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Lidocaine5% v Lidocaine3.6%,Menthol1.25%
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Daily patch Q12 followed by Q12 of no patch
Arm Title
Lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% v placebo
Arm Type
Placebo Comparator
Arm Description
Daily patch Q12 followed by Q12 of no patch
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
lidocaine 5% patch
Other Intervention Name(s)
Lidoderm
Intervention Description
10cmx 14 cm transdermal patch sealed in its own pouch
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25%
Other Intervention Name(s)
LidoPatch
Intervention Description
10cmx 14 cm transdermal patch sealed in its own pouch
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Placebo
Intervention Description
patch with no active manufactured to have the same look and feel as Lidoderm 10cmx 14 cm transdermal patch sealed in its own pouch
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Efficacy comparison of lidocaine 5% and lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% as measured by VAS numeric 0-10 pain scale
Description
Endpoint is a non-inferiority statistical comparison. Comparison is based off of analysis of identical questionnaires administered at baseline and day ten
Time Frame
Day ten
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Quality of life comparison of placebo and lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% as measured by VAS numeric 0-10 pain scale
Description
Statistical superiority sought for lidocaine 3.6%,menthol 1.25% compared to placebo. Comparison is based off of analysis of identical questionnaires administered at baseline and day ten.
Time Frame
Day ten
Title
Efficacy comparison of placebo and lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% as measured by VAS numeric 0-10 pain scale
Description
Statistical superiority sought for lidocaine 3.6%,menthol 1.25% compared to placebo. Comparison is based off of analysis of identical questionnaires administered at baseline and day ten.
Time Frame
Day 10
Title
Side effect comparison of placebo and lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% as measured by VAS numeric 0-10 pain scale
Description
Endpoint is a non-inferiority statistical comparison. Comparison is based off of analysis of identical questionnaires administered at baseline and day ten.
Time Frame
Day 10
Title
Side effect comparison of lidocaine 5% and lidocaine 3.6%, menthol 1.25% as measured by VAS numeric 0-10 pain scale
Description
Endpoint is a non-inferiority statistical comparison. Comparison is based off of analysis of identical questionnaires administered at baseline and day ten.
Time Frame
Day 10

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Diagnosis of back pain Diagnosis of arthritis Exclusion Criteria: Pregnancy or expected pregnancy in the next three months Allergic to any lidocaine, menthol and methylparaben No reliable access to the internet Baseline average pain intensity of 1,2,9 or 10 on a scale of 0-to 10. Pain on the area of the body not conducive to patch therapy (eg fingers, toes etc)
Central Contact Person:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
James J Ciullo, MBA
Phone
6302512873
Email
jay@lidopatch.com
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Eric Castro, MD
Phone
773-771-4160
Email
jedc269@yahoo.com
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Advocate Good Sheppard Hospital
City
Barrington
State/Province
Illinois
ZIP/Postal Code
60010
Country
United States
Individual Site Status
Recruiting
Facility Contact:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Eric Castro, MD
Phone
773-771-4160
Email
jedc269@yahoo.com

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No
IPD Sharing Plan Description
Investigators plan to share the study results as a whole but no plans to share individual results.

Learn more about this trial

Comparison of Prescription Lidocaine Patch to Over the Counter Lidocaine Patch and Placebo for Back Pain and Arthritis

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs