Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The prescription of lidocaine patches in osteoarthritis—a complete audit cycle

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Nationally, 5% of the population have been prescribed topical lidocaine patches (TLPs). These patches cost €77–230 per month. The only licensed indication for TLP is post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). It has not proven to be effective for any other indication including musculoskeletal and post-surgical pain. It is estimated that only 5–10% of patients on TLP have PHN. The aim of this study was to audit the number of inpatients currently prescribed TLP—appropriately and inappropriately—and to examine the prescribing patterns.

Methods

The acute inpatient population was audited in August 2017 to determine TLP prevalence. Demographics, indication, prescriber grade, and whether TLP was commenced during the current admission were recorded. Education was given surrounding indications and licensed usage of TLP. The acute inpatient population was subsequently re-audited in February 2018.

Results

There were 304 patients included in the initial study and 300 in the repeat study. The most common indication was musculoskeletal pain in each study, 75 and 77.78%, respectively. The number of inpatients on TLP fell from 17.1% (n = 52) to 6% (n = 18) after the intervention. The potential savings between the study periods are therefore €31,418–93,840 in total and €23,100–69,000 in musculoskeletal patients.

Conclusion

A large proportion of inpatients are inappropriately prescribed TLP predominantly for musculoskeletal pain, resulting in substantial avoidable cost to the hospital. Education of prescribers and implementation of policies is required to limit inappropriate prescribing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. French HP, Galvin R, Horgan NF, Kenny RA (2016) Prevalence and burden of osteoarthritis amongst older people in Ireland: findings from The Irish LongituDinal Study on Ageing (TILDA). Eur J Pub Health 26(1):192–198 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26105959

  2. Osteoarthritis: care and management. Clinical guideline Y Your responsibility our responsibility. 2014 [cited 2018 Mar 2]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg177/resources/osteoarthritis-care-and-management-pdf-35109757272517

  3. Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, Abramson S, Altman RD, Arden N, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Brandt KD, Croft P, Doherty M, Dougados M, Hochberg M, Hunter DJ, Kwoh K, Lohmander LS, Tugwell P (2008) OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines. Osteoarthr Cartil 16(2):137–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S, Price AJ, Arden NK, Judge A, Beard DJ (2012) Knee replacement. Lancet 379(9823):1331–1340 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22398175

  5. Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA (2012) Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 380(9855):1768–1777 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23021846

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Coventry MB, Beckenbaugh RD, Nolan DR, Ilstrup DM (1974) 2,012 total hip arthroplasties. A study of postoperative course and early complications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56(2):273–284 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4452686

  7. Mujica-Mota RE, Watson LK, Tarricone R, Jäger M (2017) Cost-effectiveness of timelyversusdelayed primary total hip replacement in Germany: a social health insurance perspective. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 9(3):7161 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29071040

  8. Mújica Mota RE (2013) Cost-effectiveness analysis of early versus late total hip replacement in Italy. Value Health 16(2):267–279 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23538178

  9. Ibrahim T, Bloch B, Esler CN, Abrams KR, Harper WM (2010) Temporal trends in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty surgery: results from a UK regional joint register, 1991–2004. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92(3):231–235. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588410X12628812458572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tian W, DeJong G, Brown M, Hsieh C-H, Zamfirov ZP, Horn SD (2009) Looking upstream: factors shaping the demand for postacute joint replacement rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90(8):1260–1268 Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003999309003062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lidocaine 5% medicated plaster (Versatis®) prescribing and cost guidance. (2017) [cited 2018 Mar 22]; Available from: https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/publications/clinical-strategy-and-programmes/lidocaine-versatis-prescribing-cost-summary.pdf

  12. Varadkar defends HSE restriction of versatis patches [Internet]. [cited 2018 Apr 9]. Available from: https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0221/942390-versatis-patches-varadkar/

  13. Jacoby A, Smith M, Eccles M (2003) A qualitative study to explore influences on general practitioners’ decisions to prescribe new drugs. Br J Gen Pract 53:120–125 Available from: http://bjgp.org.libgate.library.nuigalway.ie/content/bjgp/53/487/120.full.pdf

  14. Goff SL, Mazor KM, Meterko V, Dodd K, Sabin J (2008) Patients’ beliefs and preferences regarding doctors’ medication recommendations. J Gen Intern Med 23(3):236–241

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Carthy P, Harvey I, Brawn R, Watkins C (2000) A study of factors associated with cost and variation in prescribing among GPs. Fam Pract 17(1):36–41 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10673486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim D-S, Bae G, Yoo SY, Kang M (2015) Between government policy, clinical autonomy, and market demands: a qualitative study of the impact of the Prescribing Analysis System on behavior of physicians in South Korea. BMC Health Serv Res 15(1):397. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1059-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Watkins C, Timm A, Gooberman-Hill R, Harvey I, Haines A, Donovan J (2004) Factors affecting feasibility and acceptability of a practice-based educational intervention to support evidence-based prescribing: a qualitative study. Fam Pract 21(6):661–669. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmh614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Goggin K, Bradley-Ewing A, Myers AL, Lee BR, Hurley EA, Delay KB et al (2018) Protocol for a randomised trial of higher versus lower intensity patient-provider communication interventions to reduce antibiotic misuse in two paediatric ambulatory clinics in the USA. BMJ Open 8(5):e020981 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29743330

  19. Reuter CH, Palac HL, Kociolek LK, Zheng XT, Chao YY, Patel R et al (2018) Ideal and actual impact of rapid diagnostic testing and antibiotic stewardship on antibiotic prescribing and clinical outcomes in children with positive blood cultures. Pediatr Infect Dis J. https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000002102 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29750765

  20. Caris MG, Sikkens JJ, Kusurkar RA, van Agtmael MA (2018) E-learning on antibiotic prescribing—the role of autonomous motivation in participation: a prospective cohort study. J Antimicrob Chemother. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dky169 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29757387

  21. Zuker A, Heart T, Parmet Y, Pliskin N, Pliskin JS (2011) Electronic notifications about drug substitutes can change physician prescription habits: a cross-sectional observational study. Med Decis Mak 31(3):395–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10385848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Himmel W, Kochen MM, Sorns U, Hummers-Pradier E (2004) Drug changes at the interface between primary and secondary care. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 42(2):103–109 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180171

  23. Viktil KK, Blix HS, Eek AK, Davies MN, Moger TA, Reikvam A (2012) How are drug regimen changes during hospitalisation handled after discharge: a cohort study. BMJ Open 2(6):e001461 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23166124

  24. 5% lidocaine-medicated plasters in localized pain. [cited 2018 Feb 21]; Available from: http://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/4228-4235-5-lidocaine-medicated-plasters-in-localized-pain.pdf

  25. Product availability date. 2008 [cited 2018 Feb 26]; Available from: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/lidocaine_5_per_cent_medicated_plaster__Versatis__Resubmission_FINAL_July_2008.doc_for_website.pdf

  26. Burch F, Codding C, Patel N, Sheldon E (2004) Lidocaine patch 5% improves pain, stiffness, and physical function in osteoarthritis pain patients A prospective, multicenter, open-label effectiveness trial. Osteoarthr Cartil 12:253–255 Available from: http://www.oarsijournal.com/article/S1063-4584(03)00272-3/pdf

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gammaitoni AR, Galer BS, Onawola R, Jensen MP, Argoff CE (2004) Lidocaine patch 5% and its positive impact on pain qualities in osteoarthritis: results of a pilot 2-week, open-label study using the Neuropathic Pain Scale. Curr Med Res Opin 20(sup2):S13–S19. https://doi.org/10.1185/030079904X12951

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee evidence-based guideline 2nd edition. 2013 [cited 2018 Jul 5]; Available from: https://www.aaos.org/cc_files/aaosorg/research/guidelines/treatmentofosteoarthritisofthekneeguideline.pdf

  29. Bruyère O, Cooper C, Pelletier J-P, Maheu E, Rannou F, Branco J et al (2016) A consensus statement on the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis—from evidence-based medicine to the real-life setting. Semin Arthritis Rheum 45:S3–S11 Available from: https://ac-els-cdn-com.libgate.library.nuigalway.ie/S0049017215002887/1-s2.0-S0049017215002887-main.pdf?_tid=7cae41c3-7310-42e8-945a-0df480ea7b24&acdnat=1520431840_71f395a90544d163ec78fbf6d2c128ab

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Orthopaedics, Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin 24, Ireland

    Rosie Mc Colgan, David M. Dalton, Hugh P. O’Sullivan & James A. Sproule

Authors
  1. Rosie Mc Colgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David M. Dalton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hugh P. O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James A. Sproule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosie Mc Colgan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mc Colgan, R., Dalton, D.M., O’Sullivan, H.P. et al. The prescription of lidocaine patches in osteoarthritis—a complete audit cycle. Ir J Med Sci 188, 525–530 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1878-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1878-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation