Una E Makris1, Todd C Edwards2, Danielle C Lavallee3, Zoya Bauer4,5, Bryan A Comstock6, Jeffrey G Jarvik2,4,5, Donald L Patrick2, Mahshid Lotfi7, Janna L Friedly8,5. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatic Diseases, UT Southwestern Medical Center and Dallas VAMC, Dallas, TX. 2. Department of Health Services, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of Surgery, Seattle, WA. 4. Department of Radiology, Seattle, WA. 5. Comparative Effectiveness, Cost and Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Seattle, WA. 7. Patient Advisor, CERTAIN Patient Voices, Seattle, WA. 8. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of lumbar epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis randomized controlled trial data. OBJECTIVE: To reevaluate whether outcomes for older adults receiving epidural steroid injections with or without corticosteroid improve after using patient-prioritized Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) items. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms, despite limited evidence for their effectiveness in clinical trials. It is unclear whether evaluating patient-prioritized outcomes would alter results of a large clinical trial. METHODS: Outcomes from the trial of lumbar epidural corticosteroid injections for spinal stenosis (LESS) trial were reanalyzed using RDQ, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) weights assigned to the RDQ items, and patient-prioritized RDQ items. Differences between corticosteroid + lidocaine versus lidocaine-alone groups and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using analysis of covariance with adjustment for baseline values of the RDQ and recruitment site. RESULTS: At 6 weeks, both the corticosteroid + lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group had improvement in the RDQ scores (RDQ, RDQ using SIP weights, patient-prioritized RDQ) as compared with baseline scores (corticosteroid + lidocaine: -4.2 points, -4.1 points, -4.2; lidocaine-alone: -3.1 points, -2.9 points, and -3.1 points, respectively). However, there was no significant between-group difference in the RDQ or patient-prioritized RDQ (average treatment effect -1.0 points, 95% CI -2.1 to 0.1, P = 0.07; -1.0 points, 95% CI -2.0 to 0.1, P = 0.08, respectively). Although the between-group difference of RDQ using SIP weights was statistically significant (average treatment effect -1.1, 95% CI -2.2 to -0.1, P = 0.04), this was not clinically important. CONCLUSION: Results of the LESS trial did not substantively differ based on reanalysis of data using RDQ with SIP weights or patient-prioritized RDQ outcomes. This provides additional evidence that epidural injection of corticosteroid + lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone for older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of lumbar epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis randomized controlled trial data. OBJECTIVE: To reevaluate whether outcomes for older adults receiving epidural steroid injections with or without corticosteroid improve after using patient-prioritized Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) items. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms, despite limited evidence for their effectiveness in clinical trials. It is unclear whether evaluating patient-prioritized outcomes would alter results of a large clinical trial. METHODS: Outcomes from the trial of lumbar epidural corticosteroid injections for spinal stenosis (LESS) trial were reanalyzed using RDQ, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) weights assigned to the RDQ items, and patient-prioritized RDQ items. Differences between corticosteroid + lidocaine versus lidocaine-alone groups and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using analysis of covariance with adjustment for baseline values of the RDQ and recruitment site. RESULTS: At 6 weeks, both the corticosteroid + lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group had improvement in the RDQ scores (RDQ, RDQ using SIP weights, patient-prioritized RDQ) as compared with baseline scores (corticosteroid + lidocaine: -4.2 points, -4.1 points, -4.2; lidocaine-alone: -3.1 points, -2.9 points, and -3.1 points, respectively). However, there was no significant between-group difference in the RDQ or patient-prioritized RDQ (average treatment effect -1.0 points, 95% CI -2.1 to 0.1, P = 0.07; -1.0 points, 95% CI -2.0 to 0.1, P = 0.08, respectively). Although the between-group difference of RDQ using SIP weights was statistically significant (average treatment effect -1.1, 95% CI -2.2 to -0.1, P = 0.04), this was not clinically important. CONCLUSION: Results of the LESS trial did not substantively differ based on reanalysis of data using RDQ with SIP weights or patient-prioritized RDQ outcomes. This provides additional evidence that epidural injection of corticosteroid + lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone for older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Authors: Jens R Chapman; Daniel C Norvell; Jeffrey T Hermsmeyer; Richard J Bransford; John DeVine; Matthew J McGirt; Michael J Lee Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Richard A Deyo; Samuel F Dworkin; Dagmar Amtmann; Gunnar Andersson; David Borenstein; Eugene Carragee; John A Carrino; John Carrino; Roger Chou; Karon Cook; Anthony DeLitto; Christine Goertz; Partap Khalsa; John Loeser; Sean Mackey; James Panagis; James Rainville; Tor Tosteson; Dennis Turk; Michael Von Korff; Debra K Weiner Journal: Spine J Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Tatjana Paeck; Manuela L Ferreira; Clive Sun; Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Anne Tiedemann; Chris G Maher Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Carlo Ammendolia; Kent Stuber; Linda K de Bruin; Andrea D Furlan; Carol A Kennedy; Yoga Raja Rampersaud; Ivan A Steenstra; Victoria Pennick Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Raymond W J G Ostelo; Rick A Deyo; P Stratford; Gordon Waddell; Peter Croft; Michael Von Korff; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C de Vet Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Roger Chou; Robin Hashimoto; Janna Friedly; Rongwei Fu; Christina Bougatsos; Tracy Dana; Sean D Sullivan; Jeffrey Jarvik Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Janna L Friedly; Brian W Bresnahan; Bryan Comstock; Judith A Turner; Richard A Deyo; Sean D Sullivan; Patrick Heagerty; Zoya Bauer; Srdjan S Nedeljkovic; Andrew L Avins; David Nerenz; Jeffrey G Jarvik Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2012-03-29 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Massimiliano Carassiti; Giuseppe Pascarella; Alessandro Strumia; Fabrizio Russo; Giuseppe Francesco Papalia; Rita Cataldo; Francesca Gargano; Fabio Costa; Michelangelo Pierri; Francesca De Tommasi; Carlo Massaroni; Emiliano Schena; Felice Eugenio Agrò Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Carlo Ammendolia; Corey Hofkirchner; Joshua Plener; André Bussières; Michael J Schneider; James J Young; Andrea D Furlan; Kent Stuber; Aksa Ahmed; Carol Cancelliere; Aleisha Adeboyejo; Joseph Ornelas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 2.692