4.5 Article

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of NGX-4010, capsaicin 8% patch, in an open-label study of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain

Journal

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 93, Issue 2, Pages 187-197

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.04.010

Keywords

Peripheral neuropathic pain; Painful diabetic neuropathy; Postherpetic neuralgia; Capsaicin patch

Funding

  1. NeurogesX Inc.
  2. Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To assess efficacy, safety, and tolerability of NGX-4010, capsaicin 8% patch, in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain. Methods: This open-label, uncontrolled, 12-week study enrolled 25 patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), one with HIV-distal sensory polyneuropathy, and 91 with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). Patients received pre-treatment with one of three 4% lidocaine topical anesthetics (L.M.X.4(1), Topicaine Gel(2), or Betacaine Enhanced Gel 4(3)) followed by a single 60- or 90-min NGX-4010 application. The primary efficacy variable was the percentage change in Numeric Pain Rating Scale scores from baseline to Weeks 2-12. Adverse events (AEs), laboratory parameters, vital signs, neurosensory examinations, dermal assessments, treatment-related pain scores, and medication use for treatment-related pain were collected. Results: PDN and PHN patients achieved a 31% and 28% mean pain decrease from baseline during Weeks 2-12, respectively, and 47% and 44%, respectively, were responders (>= 30% pain decrease). Mild or moderate treatment-site-related burning and pain were the most common AEs and there was no evidence of impaired neurosensory function. Conclusions: NGX-4010 in conjunction with any of the three topical anesthetics tested was generally safe and well tolerated and reduced pain over a 12-week period in patients with PDN and PHN. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available