- Email: [email protected]
A lidocaine 7% and tetracaine 7% peel for dermal anesthesia before laser-assisted hair removal in adults
P506
P508
LIDOCAINE 7% AND TETRACAINE 7% PEEL FOR LOCAL ANESTHESIA BEFORE VASCULAR ACCESS PROCEDURES IN ADULTS Toivo Rist, MD, Dermatology Associates of Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, United States
A LIDOCAINE 7% AND TETRACAINE 7% PEEL FOR DERMAL ANESTHESIA BEFORE LASER-ASSISTED TATTOO REMOVAL IN ADULTS Roy Geronemus, MD, Laser and Skin Surgery Center of New York, New York, NY, United States; Jerome M. Garden, MD, Abnoeal D. Bakus, MD, Dina Yaghmai, MD, Department of Clinical Dermatology Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States Objective: The lidocaine 7% and tetracaine 7% (LT) peel is a self-occlusive topical local anesthesic that has been studied for a variety of dermatologic procedures. The LT peel applies as a cream and, when exposed to air, dries and forms a flexible membrane that can be easily peeled off. This study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of LT peel in providing topical local dermal anesthesia before laserassisted tattoo removal in adults.
Introduction: The lidocaine 7% and tetracaine 7% (LT) peel is a self-occlusive topical local anesthetic that has been studied for a variety of dermatologic procedures. The LT peel applies as a cream and, when exposed to air, dries and forms a flexible membrane that can be easily peeled off. The clinical effectiveness and safety of the LT peel were evaluated for induction of local anesthesia before vascular access procedures in adults. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adult volunteers (N = 23; mean age 34.7 years) received concurrent 30-minute applications of the LT peel and the placebo peel on randomized right and left antecubital surfaces (15 cm2). After peel removal, vascular access procedures (blood draw) were performed with a 21-gauge needle. The primary measure of efficacy was the subject’s evaluation of pain using the 100-mm (0 mm = no pain; 100 mm = worst pain) Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Results: All enrolled subjects were evaluable. The median VAS score was lower with the LT peel compared with the placebo peel (9 vs. 18 mm; P = .027). More subjects reported that they had no pain with the LT peel compared with the placebo peel (57% vs. 17%; P = .013). One subject treated with the LT peel experienced very slight erythema compared with 5 subjects (22%) with the placebo peel (P = .219). No edema or blanching was seen. No subject experienced a severe dermal reaction to the peel. Conclusion: A 30-minute application of the LT peel before vascular access procedures was effective in providing clinically useful local anesthesia in adults. Nothing to disclose.
Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adult patients (N = 30; mean age 28.0 years) received concurrent 60-minute applications of LT peel and placebo peel randomized to the top/right or bottom/left side of the treatment surface. After peel removal, laser-assisted tattoo procedures were then performed on the designated treatment spots (4-6 mm). The primary measure of efficacy was the subject’s evaluation of pain using the 100-mm (0 mm = no pain; 100 mm = worst pain) Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Results: Mean VAS scores were significantly lower with LT peel compared with the placebo peel (42.5 vs. 66.3 mm; P = .001). Significantly more patients reported adequate pain relief with LT peel than with placebo (53% vs. 10%; P = .002). Significantly more patients reported that they would use LT peel again compared with placebo (47% vs. 10%; P = .005). The investigator rated significantly more patients receiving adequate anesthesia with LT peel versus placebo (70% vs. 10%; P\.001). LT peel was well tolerated. Three patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event (eg, erythema, pruritus) of mild to moderate severity during the study that resolved within 24 hours. Conclusion: LT peel was effective in providing clinically useful local dermal anesthesia for laser-assisted tattoo removal in adults. Adverse events were infrequent and were of mild to moderate severity. 100% supported by Zars Corporation
P507 A LIDOCAINE 7% AND TETRACAINE 7% PEEL FOR DERMAL ANESTHESIA BEFORE LASER-ASSISTED HAIR REMOVAL IN ADULTS Tina Alster, MD, Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery, Washington, DC, United States; Marta Rendon, MD, The Dermatology and Aesthetic Center, Boca Raton, FL, United States; Jeffrey Adelglass, MD, Research Across America, Dallas, TX, United States Objective: The lidocaine 7% and tetracaine 7% (LT) peel is a self-occlusive topical local anesthesic that has been studied for a variety of dermatologic procedures. The LT peel applies as a cream and, when exposed to air, dries and forms a flexible membrane that can be easily peeled off. This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LT peel to provide local dermal anesthesia before laserassisted hair removal in adults. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adults undergoing laser-assisted hair removal who had provided informed consent were included in the study. Adults (N = 50; mean age 38.7 years) received concurrent 30minute applications of LT peel and placebo peel randomized to the top/right or bottom/left side of the treatment surface. After study drug removal, laser-assisted hair removal procedures were performed on the designated treatment areas. The primary measure of efficacy was the subject’s evaluation of pain using the 100-mm (0 mm = no pain; 100 mm = worst pain) Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Results: Mean VAS scores were significantly lower with LT peel compared with placebo peel (23.0 vs. 31.7 mm; P = .017). Significantly more patients reported adequate anesthesia with LT peel compared with placebo peel (76% vs. 54%; P = .034). More patients would use LT peel again compared with placebo peel (80% vs. 52%; P = .006). The investigator rated significantly more patients as receiving adequate anesthesia with LT peel versus placebo peel (82% vs. 62%; P = .033). The LT peel was well tolerated. All adverse events were considered unrelated to the study drug by the investigator and were attributed to the laser procedure performed. Conclusion: The LT peel was effective in providing clinically useful local dermal anesthesia for laser-assisted hair removal in adults and was well tolerated. 25% of the research supported by Zars Corporation
MARCH 2005
P509 A LIDOCAINE 7% AND TETRACAINE 7% PEEL FOR INDUCTION OF LOCAL DERMAL ANESTHESIA FOR COLLAGEN INJECTIONS ON THE FACE Macrene Alexiades-Armenakas, MD, PhD, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States; Angela Bowers, MD, Southlake Dermatology, Southlake, TX, United States; Jeffrey Adelglass, MD, Research Across America, Dallas, TX, United States Introduction: The lidocaine 7% and tetracaine 7% (LT) peel is a self-occlusive topical local anesthetic that has been studied for a variety of dermatologic procedures. The LT peel applies as a cream and, when exposed to air, dries and forms a flexible membrane that can be easily peeled off. The efficacy and safety of the LT peel for local dermal anesthesia for collagen injection on the face were evaluated in a doubleblind, placebo-controlled study of 52 adults. Methods: Patients received the LT peel and a placebo peel, concurrently applied in a randomized fashion to either the top/right or bottom/left treatment area. After 30 minutes, the drugs were removed and the collagen injections were performed. The primary efficacy measure was the patient’s evaluation of procedural pain using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Results: Overall median VAS scores were significantly lower with the LT peel compared with the placebo peel (16.0 vs. 35.5 mm; P \.001). Significantly more patients reported adequate pain relief with the LT peel than with the placebo peel (75% vs. 42%, P = .002). The investigator and an independent observer rated significantly more patients as having no pain or slight pain with the LT peel versus the placebo peel (P \.001). One patient experienced a moderate application site reaction related to study treatment that resolved with topical corticosteroid treatment. The incidence of very slight or well-defined erythema was higher with the LT peel than with the placebo (P = .013); however, no severe dermal reactions to the peel were reported. Conclusion: The LT peel was effective in providing clinically useful local anesthesia for collagen injections in adults; the treatment was well tolerated. Sponsored by Zars Corporation at the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of New York
J AM ACAD DERMATOL
P43
P508
LIDOCAINE 7% AND TETRACAINE 7% PEEL FOR LOCAL ANESTHESIA BEFORE VASCULAR ACCESS PROCEDURES IN ADULTS Toivo Rist, MD, Dermatology Associates of Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, United States
A LIDOCAINE 7% AND TETRACAINE 7% PEEL FOR DERMAL ANESTHESIA BEFORE LASER-ASSISTED TATTOO REMOVAL IN ADULTS Roy Geronemus, MD, Laser and Skin Surgery Center of New York, New York, NY, United States; Jerome M. Garden, MD, Abnoeal D. Bakus, MD, Dina Yaghmai, MD, Department of Clinical Dermatology Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States Objective: The lidocaine 7% and tetracaine 7% (LT) peel is a self-occlusive topical local anesthesic that has been studied for a variety of dermatologic procedures. The LT peel applies as a cream and, when exposed to air, dries and forms a flexible membrane that can be easily peeled off. This study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of LT peel in providing topical local dermal anesthesia before laserassisted tattoo removal in adults.
Introduction: The lidocaine 7% and tetracaine 7% (LT) peel is a self-occlusive topical local anesthetic that has been studied for a variety of dermatologic procedures. The LT peel applies as a cream and, when exposed to air, dries and forms a flexible membrane that can be easily peeled off. The clinical effectiveness and safety of the LT peel were evaluated for induction of local anesthesia before vascular access procedures in adults. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adult volunteers (N = 23; mean age 34.7 years) received concurrent 30-minute applications of the LT peel and the placebo peel on randomized right and left antecubital surfaces (15 cm2). After peel removal, vascular access procedures (blood draw) were performed with a 21-gauge needle. The primary measure of efficacy was the subject’s evaluation of pain using the 100-mm (0 mm = no pain; 100 mm = worst pain) Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Results: All enrolled subjects were evaluable. The median VAS score was lower with the LT peel compared with the placebo peel (9 vs. 18 mm; P = .027). More subjects reported that they had no pain with the LT peel compared with the placebo peel (57% vs. 17%; P = .013). One subject treated with the LT peel experienced very slight erythema compared with 5 subjects (22%) with the placebo peel (P = .219). No edema or blanching was seen. No subject experienced a severe dermal reaction to the peel. Conclusion: A 30-minute application of the LT peel before vascular access procedures was effective in providing clinically useful local anesthesia in adults. Nothing to disclose.
Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adult patients (N = 30; mean age 28.0 years) received concurrent 60-minute applications of LT peel and placebo peel randomized to the top/right or bottom/left side of the treatment surface. After peel removal, laser-assisted tattoo procedures were then performed on the designated treatment spots (4-6 mm). The primary measure of efficacy was the subject’s evaluation of pain using the 100-mm (0 mm = no pain; 100 mm = worst pain) Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Results: Mean VAS scores were significantly lower with LT peel compared with the placebo peel (42.5 vs. 66.3 mm; P = .001). Significantly more patients reported adequate pain relief with LT peel than with placebo (53% vs. 10%; P = .002). Significantly more patients reported that they would use LT peel again compared with placebo (47% vs. 10%; P = .005). The investigator rated significantly more patients receiving adequate anesthesia with LT peel versus placebo (70% vs. 10%; P\.001). LT peel was well tolerated. Three patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event (eg, erythema, pruritus) of mild to moderate severity during the study that resolved within 24 hours. Conclusion: LT peel was effective in providing clinically useful local dermal anesthesia for laser-assisted tattoo removal in adults. Adverse events were infrequent and were of mild to moderate severity. 100% supported by Zars Corporation
P507 A LIDOCAINE 7% AND TETRACAINE 7% PEEL FOR DERMAL ANESTHESIA BEFORE LASER-ASSISTED HAIR REMOVAL IN ADULTS Tina Alster, MD, Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery, Washington, DC, United States; Marta Rendon, MD, The Dermatology and Aesthetic Center, Boca Raton, FL, United States; Jeffrey Adelglass, MD, Research Across America, Dallas, TX, United States Objective: The lidocaine 7% and tetracaine 7% (LT) peel is a self-occlusive topical local anesthesic that has been studied for a variety of dermatologic procedures. The LT peel applies as a cream and, when exposed to air, dries and forms a flexible membrane that can be easily peeled off. This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LT peel to provide local dermal anesthesia before laserassisted hair removal in adults. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adults undergoing laser-assisted hair removal who had provided informed consent were included in the study. Adults (N = 50; mean age 38.7 years) received concurrent 30minute applications of LT peel and placebo peel randomized to the top/right or bottom/left side of the treatment surface. After study drug removal, laser-assisted hair removal procedures were performed on the designated treatment areas. The primary measure of efficacy was the subject’s evaluation of pain using the 100-mm (0 mm = no pain; 100 mm = worst pain) Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Results: Mean VAS scores were significantly lower with LT peel compared with placebo peel (23.0 vs. 31.7 mm; P = .017). Significantly more patients reported adequate anesthesia with LT peel compared with placebo peel (76% vs. 54%; P = .034). More patients would use LT peel again compared with placebo peel (80% vs. 52%; P = .006). The investigator rated significantly more patients as receiving adequate anesthesia with LT peel versus placebo peel (82% vs. 62%; P = .033). The LT peel was well tolerated. All adverse events were considered unrelated to the study drug by the investigator and were attributed to the laser procedure performed. Conclusion: The LT peel was effective in providing clinically useful local dermal anesthesia for laser-assisted hair removal in adults and was well tolerated. 25% of the research supported by Zars Corporation
MARCH 2005
P509 A LIDOCAINE 7% AND TETRACAINE 7% PEEL FOR INDUCTION OF LOCAL DERMAL ANESTHESIA FOR COLLAGEN INJECTIONS ON THE FACE Macrene Alexiades-Armenakas, MD, PhD, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States; Angela Bowers, MD, Southlake Dermatology, Southlake, TX, United States; Jeffrey Adelglass, MD, Research Across America, Dallas, TX, United States Introduction: The lidocaine 7% and tetracaine 7% (LT) peel is a self-occlusive topical local anesthetic that has been studied for a variety of dermatologic procedures. The LT peel applies as a cream and, when exposed to air, dries and forms a flexible membrane that can be easily peeled off. The efficacy and safety of the LT peel for local dermal anesthesia for collagen injection on the face were evaluated in a doubleblind, placebo-controlled study of 52 adults. Methods: Patients received the LT peel and a placebo peel, concurrently applied in a randomized fashion to either the top/right or bottom/left treatment area. After 30 minutes, the drugs were removed and the collagen injections were performed. The primary efficacy measure was the patient’s evaluation of procedural pain using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Results: Overall median VAS scores were significantly lower with the LT peel compared with the placebo peel (16.0 vs. 35.5 mm; P \.001). Significantly more patients reported adequate pain relief with the LT peel than with the placebo peel (75% vs. 42%, P = .002). The investigator and an independent observer rated significantly more patients as having no pain or slight pain with the LT peel versus the placebo peel (P \.001). One patient experienced a moderate application site reaction related to study treatment that resolved with topical corticosteroid treatment. The incidence of very slight or well-defined erythema was higher with the LT peel than with the placebo (P = .013); however, no severe dermal reactions to the peel were reported. Conclusion: The LT peel was effective in providing clinically useful local anesthesia for collagen injections in adults; the treatment was well tolerated. Sponsored by Zars Corporation at the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of New York
J AM ACAD DERMATOL
P43