Lidocaine patch for treatment of acute localized pain in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE European Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-10 DOI:10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001158
Abdullah Felemban, Salsabeel Allan, Elias Youssef, Rajesh Verma, Shahriar Zehtabchi
{"title":"Lidocaine patch for treatment of acute localized pain in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Abdullah Felemban, Salsabeel Allan, Elias Youssef, Rajesh Verma, Shahriar Zehtabchi","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Lidocaine patches are commonly prescribed for acute localized pain. Most of the existing evidence is, however, derived from postoperative or chronic pain. The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of lidocaine patch compared to placebo patch or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for acute localized pain. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials randomizing patients with acute localized pain to lidocaine patch versus placebo patch or NSAIDs. The outcomes were change in pain score (any validated scale) from baseline to a specific time endpoint (primary efficacy); adverse events (primary harm), and time to exit the study due to reaching a pain relief target (secondary). We used Cochrane revised tool to assess the risk of bias and GRADE to rate the quality of evidence. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and Cochrane Q test for heterogeneity. Data were summarized as risk ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CI). We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other major databases, identifying 10 randomized controlled trials with a total of 523 patients. These trials collectively found that lidocaine patches were more effective in controlling both musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain compared to placebo patches. Due to heterogeneity among the studies, we did not pool the efficacy data. The risk of adverse events was similar between the groups (risk ratio: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.48-1.67; moderate-quality evidence). In the two trials comparing lidocaine patches with NSAIDs, there was no statistically significant difference in pain relief between the treatments. Low to moderate-quality evidence from small trials supports the efficacy and safety of lidocaine patch for the treatment of acute localized pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001158","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lidocaine patches are commonly prescribed for acute localized pain. Most of the existing evidence is, however, derived from postoperative or chronic pain. The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of lidocaine patch compared to placebo patch or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for acute localized pain. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials randomizing patients with acute localized pain to lidocaine patch versus placebo patch or NSAIDs. The outcomes were change in pain score (any validated scale) from baseline to a specific time endpoint (primary efficacy); adverse events (primary harm), and time to exit the study due to reaching a pain relief target (secondary). We used Cochrane revised tool to assess the risk of bias and GRADE to rate the quality of evidence. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and Cochrane Q test for heterogeneity. Data were summarized as risk ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CI). We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other major databases, identifying 10 randomized controlled trials with a total of 523 patients. These trials collectively found that lidocaine patches were more effective in controlling both musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain compared to placebo patches. Due to heterogeneity among the studies, we did not pool the efficacy data. The risk of adverse events was similar between the groups (risk ratio: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.48-1.67; moderate-quality evidence). In the two trials comparing lidocaine patches with NSAIDs, there was no statistically significant difference in pain relief between the treatments. Low to moderate-quality evidence from small trials supports the efficacy and safety of lidocaine patch for the treatment of acute localized pain.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利多卡因贴片治疗急诊科急性局部疼痛:系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的:利多卡因贴片是治疗急性局部疼痛的常用处方药。然而,现有证据大多来自术后或慢性疼痛。本研究旨在评估利多卡因贴片与安慰剂贴片或非类固醇消炎药(NSAIDs)相比,对急性局部疼痛的疗效和安全性:对急性局部疼痛患者随机接受利多卡因贴剂与安慰剂贴剂或非甾体抗炎药的试验进行系统回顾和荟萃分析:结果:从基线到特定时间终点的疼痛评分变化(任何有效量表)(主要疗效);不良事件(主要危害);因达到疼痛缓解目标而退出研究的时间(次要)。我们使用 Cochrane 修订工具评估偏倚风险,并使用 GRADE 评定证据质量。荟萃分析采用随机效应模型和异质性 Cochrane Q 检验。数据总结为风险比和加权平均差及 95% 置信区间 (CI):我们对 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和其他主要数据库进行了全面检索,确定了 10 项随机对照试验,共涉及 523 名患者。这些试验共同发现,与安慰剂贴片相比,利多卡因贴片能更有效地控制肌肉骨骼痛和神经病理性疼痛。由于各研究之间存在异质性,我们没有对疗效数据进行汇总。两组的不良事件风险相似(风险比:0.90;95% CI:0.48-1.67;中等质量证据)。在比较利多卡因贴片与非甾类抗炎药的两项试验中,两种疗法在缓解疼痛方面没有显著的统计学差异:来自小型试验的中低质量证据支持利多卡因贴片治疗急性局部疼痛的有效性和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
27.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field. Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool. ​
期刊最新文献
Lidocaine patch for treatment of acute localized pain in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex and gender need to be integrated into emergency medicine: recommendations for research and clinical practice. Hospital vulnerabilities to a changing climate: extreme heat, droughts, and wildfires. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure related to suspected or confirmed acute heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Hospital vulnerabilities to a changing climate: flood risks and devastating winds.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1