Allodynic SymptomsPhase 2LiNeNCT02763592

Impact of 5% Lidocaine Medicated Plaster on Allodynic Symptoms of Localized Neuropathic Pain After Knee Surgery

A Phase 2 study testing Lidocaine in people with Allodynic Symptoms and Localized Neuropathic Pain, run by University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand at 1 site in France.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record

Search all trials

Trial summary

The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster on allodynic symptoms of localized neuropathic pain after knee surgery. Read more about this study

Who is it for?: Ages 18 to 80 years
Conditions the study is for: Allodynic Symptoms, Localized Neuropathic Pain
What is being tested?: Lidocaine
Could I receive a placebo?: Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
How many people: 37 participants
Where: 1 siteFrance
Study dates: May 2016to Apr 2017
Phase: Phase 2
Are there results?: None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

Ages 18 to 80 years
All sexes
No healthy volunteers
Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

Aged from 18 to 80 years
Male or female, for women of childbearing potential, a negative pregnancy test
Patients with PONP following knee surgery
Patients with neuropathic pain DN4 ≥ 4
Patients at least 3 months post-surgery
Patients suffering from at least the allodynic brush-induced mechanical allodynia symptom (DMA) rated as ≥ 5/10 on the numerical scale

Show all 12Show fewer

Patient with no localized neuropathic pain symptoms (DN4<4) on the contralateral knee
Intact skin besides the scar of surgery (absence of skin disease, skin irritation, inflammation or injury, such as active herpes zoster lesions, atopic dermatitis, wounds) in the area where the medicated plasters will be applied
Naive from Versatis® treatment
Treated with stable systemic analgesic and planned to remain stable all over the duration of the study
Insured by French social security
Included or agreement to be included in the national register of participants in biomedical research

Who cannot join

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

France1 site

CHU Clermont-Ferrand
Clermont-Ferrand, 63003

Other trials in France

About this study

The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster on allodynic symptoms of localized neuropathic pain after knee surgery.

Read the detailed description

This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial comparing 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (5LP) and placebo whether neuropathic pain symptoms (dynamic mechanical allodynia, pressure, hot and cold) have a different chronological improvement with 5LP compared to placebo. Pain intensity and pain relief, sleep and quality of life and osteoarthritis severity are also assessed.

Conditions: Allodynic Symptoms, Localized Neuropathic Pain
Being tested: Lidocaine, placebo plaster
Keywords: Localized Neuropathic pain, 5% lidocaine medicated plaster, Knee surgery

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

LidocaineDrug
The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster on allodynic symptoms of localized neuropathic pain after knee surgery
placebo plasterOther
This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial comparing 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (5LP) and placebo whether neuropathic pain symptoms (dynamic mechanical allodynia, pressure, hot and cold) have a different chronological improvement with 5LP compared to placebo. Pain intensity and pain relief, sleep and quality of life and osteoarthritis severity are also assessed.

Study groups in NCT02763592
Study group	Role	What they receive
Lidocaine	Experimental	This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial comparing 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (5LP) and placebo whether neuropathic pain symptoms (dynamic mechanical allodynia, pressure, hot and cold) have a different chronological improvement with 5LP compared to placebo Receives: Drug: Lidocaine
placebo	Placebo comparator	This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial comparing 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (5LP) and placebo whether neuropathic pain symptoms (dynamic mechanical allodynia, pressure, hot and cold) have a different chronological improvement with 5LP compared to placebo Receives: Other: placebo plaster

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

Time to response to treatment
Time to response to treatment defined as a 30% reduction in dynamic brush-induced mechanical allodynia on the localized pain area during the chronological period extending from inclusion to 3 months
Measured: from inclusion to 3 months

Secondary outcomes (15)

- Kinetics of evolution over time of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with brush-induced Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia (DMA) in both groups (Placebo and 5LP)
Kinetics of evolution over time of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with brush-induced Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia (DMA) in both groups (Placebo and 5LP)
Measured: from inclusion to 3 months
- Kinetics of evolution over time of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with Mechanical Detection Threshold (MDT) in both groups (Placebo and 5LP)
- Kinetics of evolution over time of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with Mechanical Detection Threshold (MDT) in both groups (Placebo and 5LP)
Measured: at inclusion
- Kinetics of evolution over time of Cold Detection Threshold (CDT) and Warm Detection Threshold (WDT) in both groups (Placebo and 5LP)
- Kinetics of evolution over time of Cold Detection Threshold (CDT) and Warm Detection Threshold (WDT) in both groups (Placebo and 5LP)
Measured: at inclusion
Pain evaluated with numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10
Pain evaluated with numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10
Measured: at inclusion
Pathophysiology of neuropathic characteristics with DN4 questionnaire
Pathophysiology of neuropathic characteristics with DN4 questionnaire
Measured: at inclusion
Evolution of the size of the allodynic area
Measured: at inclusion
- Responder rate, defined as 30% and 50% reduction over time on pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with brush-induced Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia (DMA)
- Responder rate, defined as 30% and 50% reduction over time on pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with brush-induced Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia (DMA)
Measured: at 3 months
- Responder rate, defined as 30% and 50% reduction over time on pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with Mechanical Detection Threshold (MDT)
- Responder rate, defined as 30% and 50% reduction over time on pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with Mechanical Detection Threshold (MDT)
Measured: at 3 months
- Responder rate, defined as 30% and 50% reduction over time on Cold Detection Threshold (CDT) and Warm Detection Threshold (WDT)
- Responder rate, defined as 30% and 50% reduction over time on Cold Detection Threshold (CDT) and Warm Detection Threshold (WDT)
Measured: at 3 months
- Comparison of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with brush-induced Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia (DMA) between painful knee and contralateral knee on the same anatomic location.
- Comparison of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with brush-induced Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia (DMA) between painful knee and contralateral knee on the same anatomic location.
Measured: at 3 months
- Comparison of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with Mechanical Detection Threshold (MDT) between painful knee and contralateral knee on the same anatomic location
- Comparison of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with Mechanical Detection Threshold (MDT) between painful knee and contralateral knee on the same anatomic location
Measured: at 3 months
- Comparison of Cold Detection Threshold (CDT) and Warm Detection Threshold (WDT) between painful knee and contralateral knee on the same anatomic location.
- Comparison of Cold Detection Threshold (CDT) and Warm Detection Threshold (WDT) between painful knee and contralateral knee on the same anatomic location.
Measured: at 3 months
Evolution of sleep by Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PGIC) questionnaire.
Evolution of sleep by Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PGIC) questionnaire.
Measured: at 3 months
Evolution of quality of life by Short-Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire.
Evolution of quality of life by Short-Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire.
Measured: at 3 months
Evolution of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) questionnaire
Evolution of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) questionnaire
Measured: at 3 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

May 2016Apr 2017

First posted5 May 2016 (estimated)
Study startMay 2016
Primary completionMar 2017
Study completionApr 2017

Resources

Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
Other trials for Allodynic SymptomsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
More trials run by University Hospital, Clermont-FerrandThe sponsor's other registered studies.
What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design

Study type: Interventional
Phase: Phase 2
Primary purpose: Treatment
Allocation: Randomised
Intervention model: Parallel groups
Masking: Double blind
Who is masked: Participant, Investigator
Enrolment: 37 participants (actual)

IDs, dates and publications

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02763592
Sponsor's protocol ID: CHU-0261
Other IDs: RBHP 2015 PICKERING 4
Acronym: LiNe
Status last verified: Mar 2017
First submitted: 11 Apr 2016
Last updated: 4 Apr 2017
Results posted: No

Publications

Pickering G, Voute M, Macian N, Ganry H, Pereira B. Effectiveness and safety of 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster on localized neuropathic pain after knee surgery: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Pain. 2019 May;160(5):1186-1195. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001502.
PubMed 31009419

Study at a glance

From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Apr 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.

Official title: Impact of 5% Lidocaine Medicated Plaster on Allodynic Symptoms of Localized Neuropathic Pain After Knee Surgery
ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02763592
Acronym / sponsor ID: LiNe / CHU-0261
Conditions: Allodynic Symptoms, Localized Neuropathic Pain
Keywords: Localized Neuropathic pain, 5% lidocaine medicated plaster, Knee surgery
Phase: Phase 2
Study type: Interventional
Recruitment status: Completed
Enrolment: 37 participants (actual)
Lead sponsor: University Hospital, Clermont-FerrandUniversity, hospital or other
Study start: May 2016 (actual)
Primary completion: Mar 2017 (actual)
Study completion: Apr 2017 (actual)
First posted: 5 May 2016 (estimated)
Results: Not posted in the source record

Clinical summary

The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster on allodynic symptoms of localized neuropathic pain after knee surgery.

Detailed description

Study design

Primary purpose: Treatment
Allocation: Randomised
Intervention model: Parallel groups
Masking: Double blind (participant, investigator)
Number of arms: 2

Arm	Type	Receives
Lidocaine	Experimental	Drug: LidocaineThis is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial comparing 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (5LP) and placebo whether neuropathic pain symptoms (dynamic mechanical allodynia, pressure, hot and cold) have a different chronological improvement with 5LP compared to placebo
placebo	Placebo comparator	Other: placebo plasterThis is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial comparing 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (5LP) and placebo whether neuropathic pain symptoms (dynamic mechanical allodynia, pressure, hot and cold) have a different chronological improvement with 5LP compared to placebo

Who may qualify

Ages: 18 to 80 years
Sex: All
Healthy volunteers: Not accepted
Age groups: Adult, Older adult

Key inclusion criteria (12 listed)

Aged from 18 to 80 years
Male or female, for women of childbearing potential, a negative pregnancy test
Patients with PONP following knee surgery
Patients with neuropathic pain DN4 ≥ 4
Patients at least 3 months post-surgery

Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)

Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Interventions

Intervention	Type	Arms
LidocaineThe aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster on allodynic symptoms of localized neuropathic pain after knee surgery	Drug	Lidocaine
placebo plasterThis is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial comparing 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (5LP) and placebo whether neuropathic pain symptoms (dynamic mechanical allodynia, pressure, hot and cold) have a different chronological improvement with 5LP compared to placebo. Pain intensity and pain relief, sleep and quality of life and osteoarthritis severity are also assessed.	Other	placebo

Primary outcome

Time to response to treatment
Time frame: from inclusion to 3 months
Time to response to treatment defined as a 30% reduction in dynamic brush-induced mechanical allodynia on the localized pain area during the chronological period extending from inclusion to 3 months

15 secondary outcomes

- Kinetics of evolution over time of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with brush-induced Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia (DMA) in both groups (Placebo and 5LP)
Time frame: from inclusion to 3 months
- Kinetics of evolution over time of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with Mechanical Detection Threshold (MDT) in both groups (Placebo and 5LP)
Time frame: at inclusion
- Kinetics of evolution over time of Cold Detection Threshold (CDT) and Warm Detection Threshold (WDT) in both groups (Placebo and 5LP)
Time frame: at inclusion
Pain evaluated with numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10
Time frame: at inclusion
Pathophysiology of neuropathic characteristics with DN4 questionnaire
Time frame: at inclusion
Evolution of the size of the allodynic area
Time frame: at inclusion
- Responder rate, defined as 30% and 50% reduction over time on pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with brush-induced Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia (DMA)
Time frame: at 3 months
- Responder rate, defined as 30% and 50% reduction over time on pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with Mechanical Detection Threshold (MDT)
Time frame: at 3 months
- Responder rate, defined as 30% and 50% reduction over time on Cold Detection Threshold (CDT) and Warm Detection Threshold (WDT)
Time frame: at 3 months
- Comparison of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with brush-induced Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia (DMA) between painful knee and contralateral knee on the same anatomic location.
Time frame: at 3 months
- Comparison of pain evaluated by numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10 with Mechanical Detection Threshold (MDT) between painful knee and contralateral knee on the same anatomic location
Time frame: at 3 months
- Comparison of Cold Detection Threshold (CDT) and Warm Detection Threshold (WDT) between painful knee and contralateral knee on the same anatomic location.
Time frame: at 3 months
Evolution of sleep by Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PGIC) questionnaire.
Time frame: at 3 months
Evolution of quality of life by Short-Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire.
Time frame: at 3 months
Evolution of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) questionnaire
Time frame: at 3 months

Results and safety

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

Research links

Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Apr 2017.
Derived from this study: PubMed 31009419Pickering G, Voute M, Macian N, Ganry H, Pereira B. Effectiveness and safety of 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster on localized neuropathic pain after knee surgery: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Pain. 2019 May;160(5):1186-1195. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001502.

Referral and contact

AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.

Gisèle PICKERING principal investigator

University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand

1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 2 study testing Lidocaine in people with Allodynic Symptoms and Localized Neuropathic Pain, run by University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand at 1 site in France.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 12 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Apr 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in France. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Time to response to treatment (time frame: from inclusion to 3 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02763592, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Apr 2017; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 8 Nov 2026.