4.4 Article

Treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain by topical capsaicin: Impact of pre-existing pain in the QUEPP-study

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages 671-679

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00415.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Astellas Pharma GmbH, Munich, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background This study evaluates the impact of the duration of pre-existing peripheral neuropathic pain on the therapeutic response to the capsaicin 8% cutaneous patch. Methods The non-interventional QUEPP (QUTENZA - safety and effectiveness in peripheral neuropathic pain) study evaluated the effectiveness of Qutenza(TM) in 1044 non-diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathic pain, who received a single application. Follow-up visits were scheduled at weeks 1-2, 4, 8 and 12. A pre-defined co-analysis of changes in average pain intensity was performed based on the duration of pre-existing pain. Results In patients with pre-existing pain for <6 months, the mean relative change of the numeric pain rating scale score on days 7-14 to week 12 versus baseline was -36.6% [4.6 standard error of the mean (SEM); n = 105], -25.1% (1.9 SEM; n = 311) in patients with pain duration of 6 months to 2 years, -22.3% (1.6 SEM; n = 391) in patients with pain for >2-10 years, and -19.2% (2.6 SEM; n = 99) in patients with pain for >10 years. Thirty percent and 50% responder rates were 61.7% and 39.3% in patients with pre-existing pain for <6 months, 42.3% and 23.3% in patients with pain for 6 months to 2 years, 40.9% and 21.6% in patients with pain for >2-10 years, and 32.3% and 14.1% in patients with pain for >10 years. Conclusions The highest treatment response to the capsaicin 8% cutaneous patch was observed in patients with a history of pre-existing peripheral neuropathic pain of less than 6 months, suggesting that early initiation of topical treatment might be indicated.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available