Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36368741›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2022

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: real-world comparison between topical treatment with lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster and oral treatments.

Michael Überall, Irmgard Bösl, Els Hollanders, Ingo Sabatschus, Mariëlle Eerdekens

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael ÜberallInstitute of Neurological Sciences, Nürnberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7165-9492
Irmgard BöslGrünenthal GmbH, Aachen, Germany.
Els HollandersGrünenthal GmbH, Aachen, Germany.
Ingo SabatschusGrünenthal GmbH, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5317-7171
Mariëlle EerdekensGrünenthal GmbH, Aachen, Germany marielle.eerdekens@grunenthal.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6198-4806
Grünenthal Group (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPainful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN), a common complication of diabetes mellitus, is challenging to treat. Efficacy and tolerability of the topical lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) and well-established first-line oral medications (OM) were compared in refractory PDPN patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsThis is a subgroup analysis of a non-interventional, retrospective 24-week cohort study using anonymized routine medical care data from the German Pain eRegistry. Propensity score matching provided 732 datasets per treatment group. Primary effectiveness endpoint was the absolute change in average 24-hour Pain Intensity Index (0-100 mm) from baseline after 4, 12 and 24 weeks of treatment and over the entire treatment period.

resultsThe majority of this multimorbid and polymedicated study population of patients with PDPN had suffered pain for more than a year and presented with a high pain burden despite a median of seven previous analgesic medications. LMP treatment resulted in significant reductions in pain intensity and improvements in daily functioning already after 4 treatment weeks. Effectiveness was maintained over the treatment period even when concomitant analgesics were reduced or discontinued and quality of life improved. Mean change in the primary effectiveness parameter over the 24-week treatment period was -30.2 mm (SE 0.38) and -17.0 mm (SE 0.51) in the LMP and OM groups, respectively. Improvements in all effectiveness parameters were significantly greater under LMP than under OM treatment (p<0.001). Significantly fewer patients under LMP than OM experienced drug-related adverse events (DRAEs; 9.6% vs 61.6%, p<0.001) and discontinued treatment due to DRAEs (4.4% vs 35.8%, p<0.001).

conclusionsLMP was effective and well tolerated in routine clinical care of patients with PDPN. The more favorable benefit/risk profile and greater reduction in intake of concomitant analgesics compared with OM suggest LMP as a useful treatment option for PDPN. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EUPAS 32826.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic NeuropathiesNeuralgia, PostherpeticAnalgesicsCohort StudiesHumansLidocaineQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesAnalgesicsLidocaineChronic PainDiabetes ComplicationsDiabetic NeuropathiesPatient Reported Outcome Measures

Identifiers

PMID36368741
PMCPMC9660555
OpenAlexW4308797588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.