Jian-Rong Guo1, Xiao-Ju Jin2, Hua-Chun Shen3, Huan Wang1, Xun Zhou1, Xiao-Qian Liu1, Na-Na Zhu1. 1. 1 Gongli Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. 2. 2 Yijishan Hospital, Wannan Medical College, Wuhu, People's Republic of China. 3. 3 Ningbo No. 2 Hospital, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There remains a lack of a systematic summary of the efficacy and safety of various medicines for sciatica, and discrepancies among these exist. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to comprehensively assess the efficacy of and tolerance to several medical options for the treatment of sciatica. METHODS: We performed a network meta-analysis and illustrated the results by the mean difference or odds ratio. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used for indicating the preferable treatments. All data analyses and graphs were achieved via R 3.3.2 and Stata 13.0. RESULTS: The subcutaneous anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) was superior to the epidural steroid + anesthetic in reducing lumbar pain in both acute + chronic sciatica patients and acute sciatica patients. The epidural steroid demonstrated a better ability regarding the Oswestry disability score (ODI) compared to the subcutaneous anti-TNF-α. In addition, for total pain relief, the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs was inferior to the epidural steroid + anesthetic. The epidural anesthetic and epidural steroid + anesthetic both demonstrated superiority over the epidural steroid and intramuscular steroid. The intravenous anti-TNF-α ranked first in leg pain relief, while the subcutaneous anti-TNF-α ranked first in lumbar pain relief, and the epidural steroid ranked first in the ODI on the basis of SUCRA. In addition, their safety outcome (withdrawal) rankings were all medium to high. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous and subcutaneous anti-TNF-α were identified as the optimal treatments for both acute + chronic sciatica patients and acute sciatica patients. In addition, the epidural steroid was also recommended as a good intervention due to its superiority in reducing ODI.
BACKGROUND: There remains a lack of a systematic summary of the efficacy and safety of various medicines for sciatica, and discrepancies among these exist. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to comprehensively assess the efficacy of and tolerance to several medical options for the treatment of sciatica. METHODS: We performed a network meta-analysis and illustrated the results by the mean difference or odds ratio. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used for indicating the preferable treatments. All data analyses and graphs were achieved via R 3.3.2 and Stata 13.0. RESULTS: The subcutaneous anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) was superior to the epidural steroid + anesthetic in reducing lumbar pain in both acute + chronic sciatica patients and acute sciaticapatients. The epidural steroid demonstrated a better ability regarding the Oswestry disability score (ODI) compared to the subcutaneous anti-TNF-α. In addition, for total pain relief, the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs was inferior to the epidural steroid + anesthetic. The epidural anesthetic and epidural steroid + anesthetic both demonstrated superiority over the epidural steroid and intramuscular steroid. The intravenous anti-TNF-α ranked first in leg pain relief, while the subcutaneous anti-TNF-α ranked first in lumbar pain relief, and the epidural steroid ranked first in the ODI on the basis of SUCRA. In addition, their safety outcome (withdrawal) rankings were all medium to high. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous and subcutaneous anti-TNF-α were identified as the optimal treatments for both acute + chronic sciatica patients and acute sciaticapatients. In addition, the epidural steroid was also recommended as a good intervention due to its superiority in reducing ODI.
Authors: Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Nebojsa Nick Knezevic; Allan Parr; Alan D Kaye; Mahendra Sanapati; Joshua A Hirsch Journal: Curr Pain Headache Rep Date: 2020-04-25
Authors: Eduard Verheijen; Alexander G Munts; Oscar van Haagen; Dirk de Vries; Olaf Dekkers; Wilbert van den Hout; Carmen Vleggeert-Lankamp Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Daniel L Belavy; Ashish D Diwan; Jon Ford; Clint T Miller; Andrew J Hahne; Niamh Mundell; Scott Tagliaferri; Steven Bowe; Hugo Pedder; Tobias Saueressig; Xiaohui Zhao; Xiaolong Chen; Arun Prasad Balasundaram; Nitin Kumar Arora; Patrick J Owen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Xiaoqin Wang; Grace Martin; Behnam Sadeghirad; Andrea J Darzi; Rachel J Couban; Ivan D Florez; Holly N Crandon; Elena Kum; Yaping Chang; Meisam Abdar Esfahani; Laxsanaa Sivananthan; Fatemeh Mehrabi; Neil K Sengupta; Preksha Rathod; Rami Z Morsi; D Norman Buckley; Gordon H Guyatt; Y Raja Rampersaud; Christopher J Standaert; Thomas Agoritsas; Jason W Busse Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 2.692