作为神经病理性疼痛综合征口服奥卡西平疗效预测因子的静脉注射利多卡因反应:前瞻性队列研究

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 Medicine Medical Science Monitor Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.12659/MSM.945612
Sukunya Jirachaipitak, Pramote Euasobhon, Suthanee Cenpakdee, Suratsawadee Wangnamthip, Pranee Rushatamukayanunt
{"title":"作为神经病理性疼痛综合征口服奥卡西平疗效预测因子的静脉注射利多卡因反应:前瞻性队列研究","authors":"Sukunya Jirachaipitak, Pramote Euasobhon, Suthanee Cenpakdee, Suratsawadee Wangnamthip, Pranee Rushatamukayanunt","doi":"10.12659/MSM.945612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND Providing pain relief for patients with neuropathic pain syndrome (NPS) is difficult, as sodium-channel blockers pose serious adverse events (AEs). Intravenous (i.v.) lidocaine infusion responses may identify patients likely to benefit from oral sodium channel blockers. We evaluated i.v. lidocaine responses to predict oral oxcarbazepine (OXC) efficacy in patients with NPS. MATERIAL AND METHODS This prospective cohort study administered one-time 3 mg/kg i.v. lidocaine infusion to patients with NPS. Numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores and AEs were observed. Next, OXC 150 mg was prescribed; dosages were increased by 150 mg every 3 days until ≥50% pain reduction or the maximum tolerable dose or 1800 mg/day was reached. NRS, rescue drug requirements, and AEs were evaluated by phone at 1, 3, and 5 weeks and clinic visits at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Depression, Anxiety &amp; Stress Scales 21 (DASS-21), and EuroQol-Five Dimensions-Five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires were assessed at baseline and in week 6. RESULTS Of 46 patients, 14 discontinued due to intolerable AEs, and 32 were in the final analysis. Average post-intervention NRS significantly decreased from 6.8±1.7 (baseline) to 3.8±2.0 (lidocaine) and 4.1±2.3 (OXC); P<0.001. Negative and positive predictive values for OXC efficacy were 76.2% (95% CI: 61.6-86.5%) and 54.5% (95% CI: 32-75.4%), respectively. Six weeks after OXC treatment, 20 and 11 patients achieved ≥30% pain reduction and ≥50% pain relief, respectively. EQ-5D-5L (P=0.018) and DASS-21 stress dimension (P<0.001) significantly improved. CONCLUSIONS Negative responses to i.v. lidocaine predicted a lack of oral OXC response. AEs of OXC may have obscured an analgesic effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":48888,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Monitor","volume":"30 ","pages":"e945612"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11421305/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intravenous Lidocaine Response as a Predictor for Oral Oxcarbazepine Efficacy in Neuropathic Pain Syndrome: A Prospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Sukunya Jirachaipitak, Pramote Euasobhon, Suthanee Cenpakdee, Suratsawadee Wangnamthip, Pranee Rushatamukayanunt\",\"doi\":\"10.12659/MSM.945612\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BACKGROUND Providing pain relief for patients with neuropathic pain syndrome (NPS) is difficult, as sodium-channel blockers pose serious adverse events (AEs). Intravenous (i.v.) lidocaine infusion responses may identify patients likely to benefit from oral sodium channel blockers. We evaluated i.v. lidocaine responses to predict oral oxcarbazepine (OXC) efficacy in patients with NPS. MATERIAL AND METHODS This prospective cohort study administered one-time 3 mg/kg i.v. lidocaine infusion to patients with NPS. Numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores and AEs were observed. Next, OXC 150 mg was prescribed; dosages were increased by 150 mg every 3 days until ≥50% pain reduction or the maximum tolerable dose or 1800 mg/day was reached. NRS, rescue drug requirements, and AEs were evaluated by phone at 1, 3, and 5 weeks and clinic visits at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Depression, Anxiety &amp; Stress Scales 21 (DASS-21), and EuroQol-Five Dimensions-Five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires were assessed at baseline and in week 6. RESULTS Of 46 patients, 14 discontinued due to intolerable AEs, and 32 were in the final analysis. Average post-intervention NRS significantly decreased from 6.8±1.7 (baseline) to 3.8±2.0 (lidocaine) and 4.1±2.3 (OXC); P<0.001. Negative and positive predictive values for OXC efficacy were 76.2% (95% CI: 61.6-86.5%) and 54.5% (95% CI: 32-75.4%), respectively. Six weeks after OXC treatment, 20 and 11 patients achieved ≥30% pain reduction and ≥50% pain relief, respectively. EQ-5D-5L (P=0.018) and DASS-21 stress dimension (P<0.001) significantly improved. CONCLUSIONS Negative responses to i.v. lidocaine predicted a lack of oral OXC response. AEs of OXC may have obscured an analgesic effect.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Science Monitor\",\"volume\":\"30 \",\"pages\":\"e945612\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11421305/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Science Monitor\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.945612\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Monitor","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.945612","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 为神经病理性疼痛综合征(NPS)患者提供止痛治疗非常困难,因为钠通道阻滞剂会带来严重的不良反应(AEs)。静脉(i.v.)利多卡因输注反应可识别出可能从口服钠通道阻滞剂中获益的患者。我们评估了利多卡因静脉注射反应,以预测口服奥卡西平 (OXC) 对 NPS 患者的疗效。材料和方法 这项前瞻性队列研究对 NPS 患者进行一次性 3 毫克/千克利多卡因静脉注射。观察数字评分量表(NRS)疼痛评分和AEs。然后,处方 OXC 150 毫克;剂量每 3 天增加 150 毫克,直至疼痛减轻≥50% 或达到最大耐受剂量或 1800 毫克/天。1、3、5 周时通过电话对 NRS、抢救药物需求量和 AEs 进行评估,2、4、6 周时通过门诊对 NRS、抢救药物需求量和 AEs 进行评估。在基线和第 6 周时对抑郁、焦虑和应激量表 21 (DASS-21) 和欧洲量表五维度五级 (EQ-5D-5L) 问卷进行评估。结果 在 46 名患者中,14 人因不能耐受的 AE 而中止治疗,32 人进入最终分析。干预后平均 NRS 从 6.8±1.7(基线)明显降低至 3.8±2.0(利多卡因)和 4.1±2.3(OXC);P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Intravenous Lidocaine Response as a Predictor for Oral Oxcarbazepine Efficacy in Neuropathic Pain Syndrome: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND Providing pain relief for patients with neuropathic pain syndrome (NPS) is difficult, as sodium-channel blockers pose serious adverse events (AEs). Intravenous (i.v.) lidocaine infusion responses may identify patients likely to benefit from oral sodium channel blockers. We evaluated i.v. lidocaine responses to predict oral oxcarbazepine (OXC) efficacy in patients with NPS. MATERIAL AND METHODS This prospective cohort study administered one-time 3 mg/kg i.v. lidocaine infusion to patients with NPS. Numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores and AEs were observed. Next, OXC 150 mg was prescribed; dosages were increased by 150 mg every 3 days until ≥50% pain reduction or the maximum tolerable dose or 1800 mg/day was reached. NRS, rescue drug requirements, and AEs were evaluated by phone at 1, 3, and 5 weeks and clinic visits at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Depression, Anxiety & Stress Scales 21 (DASS-21), and EuroQol-Five Dimensions-Five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires were assessed at baseline and in week 6. RESULTS Of 46 patients, 14 discontinued due to intolerable AEs, and 32 were in the final analysis. Average post-intervention NRS significantly decreased from 6.8±1.7 (baseline) to 3.8±2.0 (lidocaine) and 4.1±2.3 (OXC); P<0.001. Negative and positive predictive values for OXC efficacy were 76.2% (95% CI: 61.6-86.5%) and 54.5% (95% CI: 32-75.4%), respectively. Six weeks after OXC treatment, 20 and 11 patients achieved ≥30% pain reduction and ≥50% pain relief, respectively. EQ-5D-5L (P=0.018) and DASS-21 stress dimension (P<0.001) significantly improved. CONCLUSIONS Negative responses to i.v. lidocaine predicted a lack of oral OXC response. AEs of OXC may have obscured an analgesic effect.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Science Monitor
Medical Science Monitor MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
514
审稿时长
3.0 months
期刊介绍: Medical Science Monitor (MSM) established in 1995 is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal which publishes original articles in Clinical Medicine and related disciplines such as Epidemiology and Population Studies, Product Investigations, Development of Laboratory Techniques :: Diagnostics and Medical Technology which enable presentation of research or review works in overlapping areas of medicine and technology such us (but not limited to): medical diagnostics, medical imaging systems, computer simulation of health and disease processes, new medical devices, etc. Reviews and Special Reports - papers may be accepted on the basis that they provide a systematic, critical and up-to-date overview of literature pertaining to research or clinical topics. Meta-analyses are considered as reviews. A special attention will be paid to a teaching value of a review paper. Medical Science Monitor is internationally indexed in Thomson-Reuters Web of Science, Journals Citation Report (JCR), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI), Index Medicus MEDLINE, PubMed, PMC, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Chemical Abstracts CAS and Index Copernicus.
期刊最新文献
A Review of Emerging Viral Pathogens and Current Concerns for Vertical Transmission of Infection. Echocardiographic and Impedance Cardiography Analysis of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function in Acromegaly Patients. Decreased RSPO3 and β-Catenin in Preeclampsia: Correlation with Blood Pressure and Pregnancy Outcomes. Computed Tomography Parameters for Prognosis Prediction in Non-Occlusive Mesenteric Ischemia. Optimizing Anesthetic Management for Laparoscopic Surgery: A Comprehensive Review.
×
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