Mexiletine for treatment of chronic painful diabetic neuropathy. A randomized double-blind crossover trial of intravenous lidocaine in the treatment of neuropathic cancer pain. A randomized trial of amitriptyline and mexiletine for painful neuropathy in HIV infection. AIDS Clinical Trial Group 242 Protocol Team. The analgesic effect of gabapentin and mexiletine after breast surgery for cancer. Efficacy of oral mexiletine for neuropathic pain with allodynia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Both intravenous lidocaine and morphine reduce the pain of postherpetic neuralgia. [Mexiletine in treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy]. Mexiletine for HIV-infected patients with painful peripheral neuropathy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover treatment trial. Intravenous lidocaine in central pain: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, psychophysical study. Lidocaine test in neuralgia. Systemic lidocaine in pain due to peripheral nerve injury and predictors of response. The analgesic effect of tocainide in trigeminal neuralgia. The analgesic effect of intravenous ketamine and lidocaine on pain after spinal cord injury. The effectiveness of intravenous ketamine and lidocaine on peripheral neuropathic pain. Computer-controlled lidocaine infusion for the evaluation of neuropathic pain after peripheral nerve injury. Analgesic effects of intravenous lidocaine and morphine on postamputation pain: a randomized double-blind, active placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Pain analysis in patients with fibromyalgia. Effects of intravenous morphine, lidocaine, and ketamine. Mexiletine in the symptomatic treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Response to intravenous lidocaine infusion predicts subsequent response to oral mexiletine: a prospective study. Concentration-effect relationship of intravenous lidocaine on the allodynia of complex regional pain syndrome types I and II. Effect of mexiletine on spinal cord injury dysesthetic pain. Intravenous lidocaine, amantadine, and placebo in the treatment of sciatica: a double-blind, randomized, controlled study. A trial of intravenous lidocaine on the pain and allodynia of postherpetic neuralgia. The use of oral mexiletine for the treatment of pain after peripheral nerve injury. Efficacy and safety of mexiletine in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The Mexiletine Study Group. Intravenous lidocaine infusion--a new treatment of chronic painful diabetic neuropathy?
Sixteen of nineteen patients completed a randomised double-blind crossover trial to assess the effect of oral mexiletine (10 mg/kg bodyweight daily) on the symptoms and signs of chronic painful diabetic neuropathy. The median age of the sixteen patients was 50 years (range 30-64). Assessment with a five-item clinical symptom scale showed significant improvement during the mexiletine phase compared with the placebo phase. Pain was reduced during mexiletine but not during placebo, as assessed by a visual analogue rating scale. Mexiletine treatment had no effect on tendon reflexes, vibration threshold levels, beat-to-beat variation in heart rate during deep breathing, and postural blood pressure response. Mild side-effects were seen in three of the sixteen patients during mexiletine treatment. In a randomized, double-blind, crossover study, we evaluated the effect of intravenous lidocaine (5 mg/kg body weight over 30 min) on the neuropathic pain of advanced cancer patients. Pain intensity, assessed by a visual analogue scale, did not show any significant difference between lidocaine and placebo infusion. The blinded choice of patients and investigators also suggested no significant improvement from lidocaine when given by this regimen. Intravenous lidocaine does not appear to have a significant analgesic effect on neuropathic cancer pain. Painful sensory neuropathy is a common complication of HIV infection. Based on prior uncontrolled observations, we hypothesized that amitriptyline or mexiletine would improve the pain symptoms.
                A randomized, double-blind, 10-week trial of 145 patients assigned equally to amitriptyline, mexiletine, or matching placebo. The primary outcome measure was the change in pain intensity between baseline and the final visit.
                The improvement in amitriptyline group (0.31+/-0.31 units [mean+/-SD]) and mexiletine group (0.23+/-0.41) was not significantly different from placebo (0.20+/-0.30). Both interventions were generally well tolerated.
                Neither amitriptyline nor mexiletine provide significant pain relief in patients with HIV-associated painful sensory neuropathy. We investigated the analgesic efficacy of mexiletine and gabapentin on acute and chronic pain associated with cancer breast surgery in 75 patients. They were randomized to receive, in a double-blinded manner, mexiletine 600 mg/d, gabapentin 1200 mg/d, or placebo for 10 days. Anesthesia was standardized, and all patients had access to routine postoperative analgesics on demand. The visual analog scale score assessed pain at rest and after movement. Three months later, all patients were interviewed to identify intensity of chronic pain and analgesic requirements. Mexiletine and gabapentin reduced codeine consumed from the second to tenth day by 50% (P = 0.029; P = 0.018 and P = 0.035 for mexiletine versus control and gabapentin versus control comparisons, respectively). Total paracetamol consumption was also reduced during the same time (P = 0.0085; P = 0.007 and P = 0.011 for the mexiletine and gabapentin groups when compared with the control, respectively). Pain at rest and after movement was reduced by both drugs on the third postoperative day. Pain after movement also was reduced by gabapentin between the second and fifth postoperative day. Three months later, the incidence of chronic pain, its intensity, and need for analgesics were not affected by either treatment. However, burning pain was more frequent in the control group (P = 0.033).
                Patients undergoing breast surgery for cancer may develop chronic pain. We evaluated the effect of mexiletine and gabapentin on the acute and chronic pain after breast surgery for cancer. Both drugs reduced the postoperative analgesic requirements, and particularly, gabapentin reduced pain after movement. The overall incidence of chronic pain was unaffected except for burning pain. Mexiletine is an oral sodium channel antagonist that has been reported to be effective in a variety of neuropathic pain syndromes. However, recent reports question the efficacy of oral mexiletine in neuropathic pain. The objectives of this study were to examine the effect of oral mexiletine on pain, neurosensation, allodynia, and quality of life.
                Twenty subjects suffering from neuropathic pain with prominent allodynia were enrolled in a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study. Patients were titrated to a maximum dose of 900 mg/d or dose-limiting side effects, whichever occurred first. At baseline and on days 0, 4, 7, and 10, the following tests were performed: (1) Quality of Life Questionnaires; (2) pain scores; (3) area of allodynia; (4) side effects; (5) neurosensory testing; and (6) peak and trough plasma mexiletine levels.
                Peak plasma levels occurred on day 10 and were 0.54 microg/mL. There was no significant effect on any quality of life measurement. There was no significant effect on any neurosensory threshold or the area of allodynia. There was a significant effect of mexiletine on stroking-induced pain. There were no significant effects on any other pain score. Side effects were negligible.
                At doses of up to 900 mg/d, mexiletine has minimal effects on pain and allodynia of neuropathic pain. However, side effects may preclude higher doses. We studied the analgesic efficacy of an intravenous infusion of lidocaine and morphine in 19 adults with well-established postherpetic neuralgia in a three-session, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Compared with saline placebo, both lidocaine and morphine reduced pain intensity. Reductions in pain did not correlate with side effects produced by the infusions. For morphine, there was a significant correlation between reductions in pain intensity and blood level achieved. In the majority of subjects who reported definite pain relief, allodynia also disappeared. The results show that neuropathic pain can respond to opioids and to systemically administered local anesthetic drugs. The objective of this double-blind placebo controlled multicenter study was to prove the efficacy of mexiletine in painful diabetic neuropathy. Treatment was provided for in three dosages. For pain measurements a visual analogue scale (VAS) and McGill's verbal rating scale were chosen. 95 patients were included. A global assessment of the VAS showed no differences in treatment. The total evaluation (PRIT = Pain Rating Index Total) of the McGill scale just failed the level of significance. More specific exploratory evaluation of subclasses of the McGill scale, representing different qualities of pain, gave remarkable differences between mexiletine and placebo. According to types of complaints an evaluation showed substantial advantages of the mexiletine treatment with both the VAS and the McGill scale. There is strong evidence that particularly patients with stabbing or burning pain, heat sensations or formication will benefit most by mexiletine therapy. Concerning the dosage, a medium regimen of 450 mg per day seems to be appropriate in this indication. With an increase in dosage the efficacy does not rise proportionally. Mexiletine proved a very safe therapy with negligible side effects at the medium dose range, even less than placebo. There were no cardiovascular side effects. Further investigations should pay more attention to the variety of the complaints and include the quality of life. Although mexiletine, an antiarrhythmic with local anesthetic properties, has been reported to relieve discomfort in diabetic neuropathy, its usefulness in the treatment of HIV-related painful peripheral neuropathy (PPN) has not been determined. The tolerance and effectiveness of mexiletine in HIV-related PPN were assessed in 22 patients who were randomized to receive mexiletine (maximum dose, 600 mg/day) or placebo for 6 weeks, followed by the alternative intervention for 6 weeks after a 1-week washout period. The daily pain response was assessed using a visual analogue scale card in 19 patients who received at least 2 weeks of the drug, 16 of whom were crossed-over to receive the alternate agent. No statistically significant difference was found between the mean daily pain scores for patients receiving mexiletine versus placebo, irrespective of the order in which the agents were received. Comparing the mean individual daily pain scores for each phase of study, 5 patients (31%) had significantly less pain while receiving mexiletine compared with their response to placebo, 5 patients (31%) had significantly less pain while receiving placebo, and no difference was noted in 6 patients (38%). Crossover and multivariate analyses for repeated measures showed no apparent difference in the response to mexiletine versus placebo. Dose-limiting adverse events occurred in 39% of those receiving mexiletine, but only 1 patient (5%) discontinued placebo. Mexiletine was only modestly well tolerated despite its relatively brief period of administration, and no evidence was found to support its benefit in HIV-related PPN. Although a first-drug effect was not demonstrated, a powerful placebo effect was seen in some patients. To investigate the effects of systemic administration of lidocaine on different components of neuropathic central pains by quantitative sensory testing.
                The efficacy of systemic lidocaine (5 mg/kg IV over 30 minutes) was evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, and cross-over fashion, on both spontaneous ongoing pain and evoked pains (allodynia and hyperalgesia) in 16 patients with chronic poststroke (n = 6) or spinal cord injury (n = 10) related pain.
                Lidocaine was significantly superior to the placebo (saline) in reducing the intensity of spontaneous ongoing pain for up to 45 minutes after the injection: 10 of 16 patients (62.5%) receiving lidocaine showed a significant reduction in spontaneous pain, whereas only six patients showed this after the placebo. Lidocaine also significantly reduced the intensity of brush-induced allodynia and mechanical hyperalgesia, but was no better than the placebo against thermal allodynia and hyperalgesia. In general, the side effects were moderate and consisted mainly of lightheadedness (44%).
                Systemic lidocaine can induce a significant and selective reduction of several components of pain caused by CNS injuries. The observed preferential antihyperalgesic and antiallodynic effects of this drug suggest a selective central action on the mechanisms underlying these evoked pains. Ten patients with organic nerve injury causing chronic neuropathic pain were tested for the effects of intravenous lidocaine versus saline upon psychophysical somatosensory variables. The variables assessed were the subjective magnitude of pain, area of mechanical hyperalgesia and presence and magnitude of thermal heat/cold hyperalgesia. The study methods applied to evaluate these conditions were the conventional testing of somatosensory submodalities with area mapping and the subjective magnitude estimation of spontaneous pain. It was found that spontaneous pain and mechanical hyperalgesia were consistently improved, transiently, by intravenous administration of lidocaine in all 10 patients; areas of hyperalgesia which extended beyond the territory of the nerve also improved transiently. Spontaneous pain and mechanical hyperalgesia, but not hypoesthesia, were transiently improved by injection of saline in only 1 of the 10 patients. This outcome is probably due to a placebo effect. This improvement is in keeping with the inhibition of anomalous neural impulses which can be generated anywhere along the sensory channels responsible for generating spontaneous pain and hyperalgesia. Thus, intravenous lidocaine is proposed as a diagnostic aid in the examination of patients complaining of complex sensory disorders associated with nerve injury. The transient pain relief may allow a fuller identification of the area of sensory loss. To investigate the effects of IV lidocaine on spontaneous and evoked pain (allodynia and hyperalgesia) due to peripheral nerve injury (postherpetic neuralgia or nerve trauma) using quantitative sensory testing.
                The authors randomized 22 patients to receive lidocaine 5 mg/kg IV during 30 minutes or placebo in a double-blind crossover design and 16 patients subsequently received mexiletine on an open basis titrated from 400 to 1,000 mg per day (mean 737 mg/day).
                Lidocaine induced a significant decrease in ongoing pain for up to 6 hours with a peak effect 60 to 120 minutes postinjection. The drug also decreased mechanical dynamic allodynia and static (punctate) mechanical allodynia/hyperalgesia, but not thermal allodynia and hyperalgesia. The effects of lidocaine and mexiletine on spontaneous pain intensity were significantly higher in patients with concomitant mechanical allodynia in comparison with those without allodynia.
                These data indicate modality-specific antihyperalgesic effects of IV lidocaine in patients with peripheral nerve injury. Patients with mechanical allodynia may be good candidates for treatment with local anesthetic-like drugs and possibly with other sodium-channel blockers. Tocainide is a derivative of lidocaine with anti-arrhythmic action and, unlike lidocaine, can be used for oral treatment. Tocainide was alternatively with carbamazepine given to 12 patients with trigeminal neuralgia in a double-blind cross-over study for 2 weeks. The analgesic effect was estimated each day by the patients using a 0-10-point scale summarizing the frequency and severity of the attacks. The similarity in analgesic effect of the two drugs was striking. A possible analgesic mechanism could be that tocainide blocks the sodium channels in the hyperexcitable nerve membranes in the pain-producing foci in trigeminal neuralgia. Pain following spinal cord injury (SCI) is a therapeutic challenge. Only a few treatments have been assessed in randomized, controlled trials. The primary objective of the present study was to examine the analgesic effect of ketamine and lidocaine in a group of patients with neuropathic pain below the level of spinal cord injury. We also wanted to assess sensory abnormalities to see if this could help us to identify responders and if treatments resulted in changes of sensibility.
                Ten patients with spinal cord injury and neuropathic pain below the level of injury were included. The analgesic effect of ketamine 0.4 mg kg(-1) and lidocaine 2.5 mg kg(-1) was investigated. Saline was used as placebo. The drugs were infused over 40 min. A randomized, double-blind, three-period, three-treatment, cross-over design was used. Systemic plasma concentrations of ketamine and lidocaine were assessed. Pain rating was performed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Sensory function was assessed with a combination of traditional sensory tests and quantitative measurement of temperature thresholds.
                Response to treatment, defined as 50% reduction in VAS-score during infusion, was recorded in 5/10 in the ketamine, 1/10 in the lidocaine and 0/10 in the placebo groups. Neither ketamine nor lidocaine changed temperature thresholds or assessments of mechanical; dynamic and static sensibility. Nor could these sensory assessments predict response to treatment in this setting. Lidocaine and particularly ketamine were associated with frequent side-effects.
                Ketamine but not lidocaine showed a significant analgesic effect in patients with neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. The pain relief was not associated with altered temperature thresholds or other changes of sensory function. Neuropathic pain is often severe and resistant to pharmacological treatment. The aims of the present study were to assess the analgesic effect of ketamine and lidocaine and to investigate if measurement of different variables of sensibility could be used to identify responders. We also wanted to study if treatment resulted in changes of sensibility.
                Twelve patients with long-lasting peripheral neuropathic pain of traumatic origin were included. The effects of ketamine hydrochloride (Ketalar, Parke Davis) 0.4 mg/kg and lidocaine hydrochloride (Xylocain, Astra) 2.5 mg/kg were investigated. Saline was used as placebo. The intensity of continuous pain was measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS). Warm and cold perception as well as heat and cold pain thresholds were assessed. Sensibility to touch was also tested. Systemic plasma concentrations of lidocaine and ketamine were assessed.
                The mean reduction in VAS-scores was 55%, 34% and 22% for ketamine, lidocaine and placebo, respectively. A significant difference was registered between ketamine and placebo (P = 0.009). Response to treatment (50% reduction in VAS-score during infusion) was recorded in 7/12 in the ketamine, 4/12 in the lidocaine and 2/12 in the placebo group. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) of thermal sensitivity and sensory tests for mechanical stimuli could not separate responders from non-responders and neither were the results from these assessments changed by the infusion of the drugs. Lidocaine and particularly ketamine were associated with frequent side-effects, the most common being somnolence and dizziness.
                Ketamine showed a significant analgesic effect. The clinical usefulness is, however, limited by disturbing side-effects. Systemic lidocaine has been reported to be effective in treating several neuropathic pain syndromes. Few reports relate plasma lidocaine concentration to analgesia and the available studies have been complicated by labile plasma lidocaine concentrations. We used a computer-controlled infusion pump (CCIP) to target and maintain stable plasma lidocaine concentrations and study the effect of intravenous lidocaine on (1) pain scores, (2) current perception thresholds, (3) side effects, and (4) pain distribution in patients suffering from peripheral nerve injury pain.
                This study used a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled design. Eleven patients suffering from neuropathic pain after peripheral nerve injury received both a lidocaine and saline infusion in separate study sessions. The order of the study sessions was randomized and separated from each other by 1 week. The CCIP was programmed to target plasma lidocaine concentrations of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 micrograms/ml, each held for 10 min. Pain scores and pain distribution were assessed in the painful area, and electrical current perception thresholds (CPT) of the ring finger were measured using a cutaneous perception threshold neurometer (Neurometer CPT, Neurotron, Baltimore, MD). Side effects were recorded at fixed intervals. Plasma lidocaine concentrations were measured at 4 and 9 min after each step increase in infusion and correlated with the observed effects.
                Saline infusion had no effect. However, with lidocaine there was a significant plasma concentration-dependent decrease in pain scores starting at 1.5 micrograms/ml. This effect typically corresponded with a decrease in the size of the receptive field to which the pain was referred. For the electrical stimulus, there was no significant effect on cutaneous perception at 2000-Hz stimulation at the highest concentration examined; however, there was a significant increase in thresholds at 250-Hz (starting at 1.5 micrograms/ml) and 5-Hz (starting at 1.0 micrograms/ml) stimulation. There were no serious side effects. In all, 54.5% of patients reported lightheadedness (average plasma lidocaine concentration: 1.5 micrograms/ml) and one patient reported nausea (2.3 micrograms/ml).
                The computer-controlled delivery of intravenous lidocaine results in relatively stable plasma concentrations which allows a more thorough evaluation of the relationship between plasma concentration and patient response. This administration methodology for intravenous lidocaine may prove to be a valuable clinical and research tool. Phantom and stump pains, common sequelae of limb amputations, are significant impediments to rehabilitation of amputees. The pathophysiology and optimal treatment of postamputation pain states are unclear. While stump pain may result from neuromas in the stump, phantom pain is thought to be related to cortical reorganization. The authors hypothesized that morphine and lidocaine may have differential effectiveness on stump and phantom pains.
                The authors conducted a randomized double-blind, active-placebo-controlled, crossover trial to compare the analgesic effects of intravenous morphine and lidocaine on postamputation stump and phantom pains. An intravenous bolus followed by an intravenous infusion of morphine (0.05 mg/kg bolus + 0.2 mg/kg infusion over 40 min), lidocaine (1 mg/kg bolus + 4 mg/kg infusion) and the active placebo, diphenhydramine (10 mg bolus + 40 mg infusion), were performed on three consecutive days. Phantom and stump pain ratings and sedation scores were recorded at 5-min intervals using a 0-100 visual analog scale. Pain measures were initiated 30 min before drug infusion and continued until 30 min after the end of infusion. Subjects' self-reported pain relief and satisfaction were assessed at the end of each infusion.
                Thirty-one of 32 subjects enrolled completed the study. Eleven subjects had both stump and phantom pains, 11 and 9 subjects had stump and phantom pain alone, respectively. Baseline pain scores were similar in the three drug groups. Compared with placebo, morphine reduced both stump and phantom pains significantly (P < 0.01). In contrast, lidocaine decreased stump (P < 0.01), but not phantom pain. The changes in sedation scores for morphine and lidocaine were not significantly different from placebo. Compared with placebo, self-reported stump pain relief was significantly greater for lidocaine (P < 0.05) and morphine (P < 0.01), while phantom pain relief was greater only for morphine (P < 0.01). Satisfaction scores were significantly higher for lidocaine (mean +/- SD: 39.3 +/- 37.8, P < 0.01) and morphine (45.9 +/- 35.5, P < 0.01) when compared with placebo (9.6 +/- 21.0).
                Stump pain was diminished both by morphine and lidocaine, while phantom pain was diminished only by morphine, suggesting that the mechanisms and pharmacological sensitivity of stump and phantom pains are different. Pain intensity, muscle strength, static muscle endurance, pressure pain threshold, and pain tolerance at tender points and control points were assessed in 31 patients with fibromyalgia (FM), before and after intravenous administration of morphine (9 patients), lidocaine (11 patients), and ketamine (11 patients). The three different studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled. The patients were classified as placebo-responders, responders (decrease in pain intensity by > 50%) and non-responders. The morphine test did not show any significant changes. The lidocaine test showed a pain decrease during and after the infusion. The ketamine test showed a significant reduction in pain intensity during and after the test period. Tenderness at tender points decreased and endurance increased significantly, while muscle strength remained unchanged. The present results support the hypothesis that the NMDA receptors are involved in pain mechanisms in fibromyalgia. These findings also suggest that central sensitization is present in FM and that tender points represent secondary hyperalgesia. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mexiletine in the symptomatic treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).
                In this prospective, double-blind study, 29 patients were randomized to receive mexiletine 600 mg/d or matching placebo for 3 weeks. A four-item symptom score (FIS), which rated pain, dysesthesias, paresthesias, and nightly exacerbations of symptoms, and a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), which rated pain intensity, were completed by patients before and after treatment. At the end of treatment independent patient and investigator global assessments were made. Patients reported adverse effects after 1 and 3 weeks of treatment.
                Treatment groups were similar at baseline. The difference between the median changes in FIS scores (mexiletine = 5.5, placebo = 2) was not statistically significant. Overall symptom response was similar in both treatment groups as demonstrated by both global assessments (p = 0.19). The mean change in VAS score from baseline to posttreatment was determined for both groups and the difference between these mean scores was 16.5 mm (95% CI, -7.1 to 40.2 mm) (p = 0.16). Inadequate statistical power (1-beta = 0.40) may have resulted from small sample size, small magnitude of effect, or variability in the measured effect. Adverse effects were more common in the mexiletine group, though not statistically significant. One patient receiving mexiletine was hospitalized for palpitations.
                Because of conflicting reports of mexiletine's efficacy in the treatment of symptomatic DPN, this drug should be reserved for patients unresponsive or intolerant to standard therapy, without evidence of heart disease, and with sensations of burning heat, formication, or stabbing pain. The local anesthetic sodium-channel blockers lidocaine and mexiletine reduce spontaneous and evoked activity in experimental neuroma models and have been reported to relieve a variety of clinical neuropathic pain conditions. The predictive value of relief from an intravenous lidocaine infusion (IVL) for subsequent relief from a 4-week trial of oral mexiletine was assessed in a prospective study of nine subjects with chronic neuropathic pain of peripheral origin. Subjects received IVL, 2 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg, over 45 min during separate sessions in random order under double-blind conditions. One week later, a 4-week titrating trial of oral mexiletine was initiated. Both doses of IVL significantly reduced pain visual analogue scores (VAS) scores. Although IVL 5 mg/kg produced significantly higher pain relief scores than IVL 2 mg/kg, subjects responded in a highly consistent manner to the two IVL. Subsequent response to oral mexiletine was significantly correlated with the average response to the two IVL. Mexiletine dose and blood levels were not correlated with pain relief. The results suggest that IVL may be a valuable tool in selecting patients for oral therapy with analogous drugs. Several lines of evidence suggest that neuropathic pain (including Complex Regional Pain Syndrome [CRPS] I and CRPS II) is mediated in part by an increase in the density of voltage-sensitive sodium channels in injured axons and the dorsal root ganglion of injured axons. This study sought to characterize the effects of intravenous lidocaine (a sodium channel blocker) on acute sensory thresholds within the painful area and the size of the painful area in patients suffering from CRPS I and II.
                This study used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design in 16 subjects suffering from CRPS I and II with a prominent allodynia. Each subject received an intravenous infusion of lidocaine and diphenhydramine separated by 1 week. A computer-controlled infusion pump targeted stair-step increases in plasma levels of lidocaine of 1, 2, and 3 microg/ml. At baseline and at each plasma level, spontaneous and evoked pain scores and neurosensory testing within the painful area were measured. The neurosensory testing consisted of thermal thresholds, tactile thresholds and the area of allodynia to punctate, and stroking and thermal stimuli.
                Intravenous lidocaine and diphenhydramine had no significant effect on the cool, warm, or cold pain thresholds. However, lidocaine caused a significant elevation of the hot pain thresholds in the painful area. Intravenous lidocaine caused a significantly decreased response to stroking and cool stimuli in the allodynic area. There was also a significant decrease in pain scores to cool stimuli at all plasma levels and the spontaneous pain at the highest plasma level.
                This study demonstrates that intravenous lidocaine affects pain in response to cool stimuli more than mechanical pain in subjects with neuropathic pain. There is a lesser effect on spontaneous pain and pain induced by stroking stimuli and no effect on the pain induced by punctate stimuli. Severe pain occurs in 5-30% of the spinal cord-injured (SCI) population and is difficult to treat. Subarachnoid lidocaine has been used in selected patients with some success. Mexiletine, an analog of lidocaine that acts at Na+/K+ channels in the peripheral nerve, has been found effective in persons with diabetic dysesthetic neuropathy. The effect of mexiletine in the treatment of spinal cord dysesthetic pain was examined in this study. Fifteen patients were enrolled, and 11 patients completed the prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover design trial. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were carefully defined. A 1-wk washout period was followed by a 4-wk drug trial of either mexiletine (450 mg/day) or placebo. This was repeated for the second medication in the second arm of the study. Patients were followed weekly with McGill and visual analog pain scales. Baseline, midpoint, and endpoint Barthel function scores were recorded. The Wilcoxon's signed-rank test and paired t test were used for statistical analysis. Results showed no significant effect of mexiletine on SCI dysesthetic pain scales or Barthel index. In conclusion, in this trial, mexiletine did not appear to decrease spinal cord injury-related dysesthetic pain. Sciatica is a neuropathic pain syndrome caused by compression and/or inflammation of spinal nerve roots by herniated disc material, and its treatment is therefore usually aimed at reducing compression and inflammation. Studies have shown that both systemic local anesthetics and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists may produce analgesia in a variety of neuropathic pain syndromes. The present study evaluated the analgesic efficacy of i.v. infusions of the local anesthetic lidocaine, the NMDA receptor antagonist amantadine, and a placebo in sciatica.
                Thirty patients with sciatica, as confirmed by physical examination and imaging studies, were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, three-arm crossover trial. Infusions of amantadine (2.5 mg/kg), lidocaine (5 mg/kg), and a placebo were administered over a 2-hour period, 2-7 days apart from each other. Spontaneous pain (visual analog scale) and evoked pain (straight leg raise) were measured every 30 minutes for 3 hours.
                Lidocaine reduced spontaneous pain as compared with amantadine and with the placebo for all measurements and at a significant level at the 30 (P < .05), 120, and 180 (P < .01) minute time points. Maximal pain reduction from the baseline was 62 +/- 7% for lidocaine, 43 +/- 7% for amantadine, and 47 +/- 7% for the placebo. Straight leg raise test also significantly improved with lidocaine (from 30 to 37 degrees; P < .05), as compared to amantadine (34-36 degrees) and to the placebo (32-34 degrees). All three treatments were relatively well tolerated.
                Intravenous lidocaine, rather than amantadine, reduces both spontaneous and evoked sciatic pain. This study investigated the effect of intravenous lidocaine at two doses (1 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg over 2 hours) and an intravenous saline placebo on the pain and allodynia of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Twenty-four patients were studied using a randomized, double-blind, within-patient crossover design. Each patient received normal saline, lidocaine 0.5 mg/kg/h, and lidocaine 2.5 mg/kg/h for a 2-h period. The McGill Pain Questionnaire Short Form, visual analogue scores (VAS), and area of allodynia were measured at intervals during the infusions. Free plasma lidocaine levels were also measured. The results were statistically analyzed using Student's t-test for paired data. The VAS for ongoing pain showed a significant reduction after all the infusions (P < 0.05). For dynamic pressure-provoked pain, the VAS was unaffected by placebo but showed a reduction at an equal level of significance with both lidocaine infusions (P < 0.05). The area of allodynia of PHN, as mapped by brush stroke, declined in association with intravenous lidocaine (0.5 mg/kg/h = P < 0.05; 2.5 mg/kg/h = P < 0.001). Placebo had no significant effect on the area of allodynia. These findings demonstrate a positive effect on pain and allodynia following a brief intravenous infusion of lidocaine. The higher dose infusion may produce plasma levels in the toxic range, with no significant clinical increase in response. Neuropathic pain is often a difficult condition to treat. Clinical and laboratory studies using intravenously administered local anesthetics or antiarrhythmic agents support the use of these drugs for the treatment of neuropathic pain. The availability of the oral antiarrhythmic medication, mexiletine, has made it possible to study the effects of an orally administered medication on chronic neuropathic pain. The study used a double-blind placebo-controlled design to examine 11 subjects in whom treatment with conventional pain medications had been unsuccessful. Subjects had a history of peripheral nerve injury or dysfunction, and all complained of symptoms consistent with neuropathic pain. After baseline pain measurements, mexiletine or placebo was given in gradually increasing doses to a maximum daily dose of 750 mg mexiletine. After 1 month at steady state, the subject received the alternative medication. Mexiletine was found to produce a statistically significant reduction in reported pain when compared to baseline or placebo. Pain scores were rated on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain). Median pain scores prior to mexiletine were 7, after placebo treatment 7, and while receiving mexiletine (750 mg/day) 4. Side effects were mild and well-tolerated. Mexiletine may be effective in reducing neuropathic pain for patients in whom alternative pain medications have been unsatisfactory. To investigate the efficacy and safety of mexiletine in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.
                A total of 216 insulin-treated diabetes patients with painful diabetic neuropathy were randomly allocated to three dosages of mexiletine or placebo. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain/discomfort was scored each day during daytime and nighttime, and sleeping disturbances were also recorded by the patients. Plasma levels of mexiletine and 24-h electrocardiogram (ECG) mapping were assessed before and during the 3-week study period.
                A significant reduction in sleep disturbances and pain during nighttime was observed in the group of patients taking the highest dosages (675 mg/day) of mexiletine compared with the other groups. No significant correlation was found between plasma concentration of mexiletine and the therapeutic effect or adverse events. No serious adverse events were seen. The 24-h ECG mapping did not disclose onset of significant arrhythmias in any patient.
                Mexiletine in a dosage of 675 mg daily can reduce pain caused by diabetic neuropathy, and the effect of this drug appears to have a rapid onset. In a randomized double-blind, cross-over study the effect of intravenous lidocaine (5 mg/kg body weight) on the symptoms and signs of painful diabetic neuropathy of more than 6 months duration has been evaluated. Using a clinical symptom scale, there was significant beneficial effect 1 and 8 days after lidocaine infusion compared to after saline infusion (P less than 0.05 and P less than 0.02, respectively). The duration of the individual effect ranged from 3 to 21 days. Lidocaine infusion had no effect on the objective measurements of neuropathy. Intravenous lidocaine infusion seems to be a new alternative treatment of chronic painful diabetic neuropathy.
Lidocaine and oral analogs were safe drugs in controlled clinical trials for neuropathic pain, were better than placebo, and were as effective as other analgesics. Future trials should enroll specific diseases and test novel lidocaine analogs with better toxicity profiles. More emphasis is necessary on outcomes measuring patient satisfaction to assess if statistically significant pain relief is clinically meaningful.