Disclaimer:
The CASPAR study explored outcomes associated with capsaicin 8% topical system (here referred to as high-concentration capsaicin topical system [HCCTS]) in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) of the feet. The study examined outcomes beyond pain relief, including sleep, affective distress, quality of life, and concomitant pain medication use. While these outcomes were evaluated in the CASPAR study, HCCTS is not FDA-approved for these outcomes, and its safety and efficacy for them have not been established in phase 3 randomized trials. HCCTS is indicated in adults for neuropathic pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) or diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) of the feet. Consult the Important Safety Information and Full Prescribing Information for complete details on approved indications, safety, and risks.
---
Diabetic peripheral neuropathy affects up to half of individuals living with diabetes, with painful pathology developing in 30–50% of cases. Pain associated with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) can significantly impair sleep, mood, and health-related quality of life (QOL).
The capsaicin 8% topical system, referred to here as high-concentration capsaicin topical system (HCCTS), is approved in the USA for topical treatment for PDPN of the feet.
The CASPAR study was a retrospective, non-interventional, multi-cohort study using real-world data from the German Pain e-Registry. It included a subpopulation of 365 patients with PDPN of the feet who received between one and four HCCTS treatments and were followed up for 12 months (1 HCCTS: n=94, 2 HCCTS: n=88, 3 HCCTS: n=75, 4 HCCTS: n=108). The analysis aimed to assess the effects of repeated HCCTS treatments on pain, sleep, affective distress, QOL, and use of concomitant pain medication. Tolerability was also evaluated.
Study limitations:
CASPAR is a real-world study, limited by its retrospective, non-randomized observational design. The non-interventional nature may have introduced selection bias among patients who were selected or voluntarily participated in the registry. The lack of a placebo potentially limits the interpretation. Causality cannot be established from the results of this study, and reverse causality (patients who received the most benefit being those who persisted) cannot be ruled out. In addition, this registry did not collect data on confounding factors such as glycemic control, alcohol or tobacco use, or nutritional status, which limits the interpretation of the results.