A Comparison of the Efficacy and Tolerability of the Treatments for Sciatica: A Network Meta-Analysis

Surgical vs. Conservative Management of Chronic Sciatica (>3 Months) Due to Lumbar Disc Herniation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sciatica, characterized by leg or back symptoms along the sciatic nerve pathway, often manifests as a chronic condition lasting over 12 weeks. Decision-making between nonoperative treatment and immediate microdiscectomy for chronic sciatica remains challenging, due to the complex relationship between symptom duration, severity, and lumbar discectomy outcomes. In this systematic review, we conducted a comprehensive search across Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, identifying relevant two-arm clinical trials up to September 2023. Rigorous screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers, with study quality evaluated using the risk of bias 2 (RoB) tool. This meta-analysis incorporated four studies comprising 352 participants. Our analysis revealed that conservative treatment was associated with a significant reduction in leg pain and improvement in, SF mental, and physical scores compared to surgical intervention. However surgical treatment demonstrated significant improvement in back pain. In conclusion, our findings suggest that surgical intervention may be more effective than non-surgical treatment for chronic sciatica-related back pain. Conservative treatment significantly reduces leg pain while improving mental and physical health outcomes. Ultimately, our findings support conservative as the initial approach unless surgery is warranted, particularly in cases with neurological deficits or cauda equina syndrome.

Comparative efficacy of acupuncture-related therapy for migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Migraine is a worldwide disabling chronic brain disorder, some studies suggest acupuncture-related therapy plays an important role in raising efficiency rates and reducing migraine attacks. However, clinical trials comparing the efficacy of different interventions for migraine are limited and controversial. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to review all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of acupuncture-related therapy for migraine.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture-related therapy for migraine were searched in the following databases from the date of database inception to March 31, 2022, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database, Wanfang Database, and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM). The primary endpoint was visual analog scale (VAS) scores. The secondary endpoints were the number of migraine days, duration of migraine, and frequency of migraine attacks. We used Cochrane risk of bias to assess the quality of evidence for outcomes.

Results

Thirty-nine studies involving 4379 patients with 13 different acupuncture-related methods were evaluated. According to surface under the cumulative ranking curve value, acupoint injection was ranked the highest (98.0%) in VAS scores, followed by acupoint implantation (79.0%); electroacupuncture was the optimal intervention method (82.4%) in the number of migraine days, followed by embedding needle therapy (73.1%); embedding needle therapy ranked first (99.9%) in the duration of migraine, followed by acupoint injection (77.4%); acupoint injection was the best intervention (99.3%) in the frequency of migraine attacks, followed by conventional acupuncture plus massage (73.8%).

Conclusion

These results provide preliminary evidence that acupuncture-related therapy could be recommended as one of the effective treatments for migraine. Conventional acupuncture has significant effects on improving VAS scores, the number of migraine days, duration of migraine, and frequency of migraine attacks. However, more high-quality studies should be carried out to verify this finding.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/, identifier: INPLASY202110035.

Network meta-analysis for comparative effectiveness of treatments for chronic low back pain disorders: systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Six electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

Interventional treatments for chronic, axial or radicular, non-cancer, spinal pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

INTRODUCTION

Chronic, non-cancer, axial or radicular spinal pain is a common condition associated with considerable socioeconomic burden. Clinicians frequently offer patients various interventional procedures for the treatment of chronic spine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness and safety of available procedures remains uncertain.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that explores the effectiveness and harms of interventional procedures for the management of axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain. We will identify eligible studies through a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception without language restrictions. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol primarily adult patients (≥18 years old) with axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain, (2) randomise patients to different, currently available, interventional procedures or to an interventional procedure and a placebo/sham procedure or usual care, and (3) measure outcomes at least 1 month after randomisation.Pairs of reviewers will independently screen articles identified through searches and extract information and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. We will use frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses to assess the relative effects of interventional procedures, and five a priori hypotheses to explore between studies subgroup effects. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome, including direct, indirect and network estimates.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations, and our review will support development of a BMJ Rapid Recommendations providing contextualised clinical guidance based on this body of evidence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020170667.

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Interspinous Process Device for the Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Literature Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a condition affecting a growing number of individuals resulting in significant disability and pain. Traditionally, treatment options have consisted of conservative measures such as physical therapy, medication management, epidural injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis, or surgery. There exists a treatment gap for patients failing conservative measures who are not candidates for surgery. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD®) and interspinous process device (IPD) with Superion® represent minimally invasive novel treatment options that may help fill this gap in management. We performed a literature review to separately evaluate these procedures and assess the effectiveness and safety.

RECENT FINDINGS

The available evidence for MILD and Superion has been continuously debated. Overall, it is considered that while the procedures are safe, there is only modest evidence for effectiveness. For both procedures, we have reviewed 13 studies. Based on the available evidence, MILD and Superion are safe and modestly effective minimally invasive procedures for patients with symptomatic LSS. It is our recommendation that these procedures may be incorporated as part of the continuum of treatment options for patients meeting clinical criteria.

Transforaminal epidural injection versus continued conservative care in acute sciatica (TEIAS trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Sciatica is a condition that is characterised by radicular pain in the leg and primarily caused by a herniated lumbar intervertebral disk. In addition to leg pain, patients can experience back pain, leg numbness and leg weakness resulting in decreased productivity and social activity. The majority of sciatica cases recovers spontaneously and therefore patients are initially treated conservatively with oral pain medication. However, some patients experience intractable pain that severely impedes them and no consensus exists on the optimal conservative treatment to reduce this discomfort in the acute phase of sciatica. The aim of the TEIAS trial is to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and predictive capability on patient outcome of transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) compared to treatment with standard pain medication.

METHODS

This study is designed as a prospective, open-label, mono-centered, randomized controlled trial. Patients that visit their general practitioner with complaints of radicular leg pain and meet the selection criteria are asked to participate in this study. Eligible patients will be randomized to treatment with TEI or to treatment with standard oral pain medication. Treatment of TEI will comprise lidocaine with methylprednisolone acetate for L3 and below and lidocaine with dexamethasone above L3. A total of 142 patients will be recruited and follow-up will occur after 1, 2, 4, 10 and 21 weeks for assessment of pain, functionality, patient received recovery and cost-effectiveness. The primary outcome will be the average score for leg pain at 2 weeks. For this outcome we defined a clinically relevant difference as 1.5 on the 11-point NRS scale.

DISCUSSION

Adequate conservative treatment in the acute phase of sciatica is lacking, particularly for patients with severe symptoms. Focusing on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and predictive capability on patient outcome of TEI will produce useful information allowing for more lucid decision making in the conservative treatment of sciatica in the acute phase.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database under registry number NCT03924791 on April 23, 2019.

Comparative efficacy and safety of surgical and invasive treatments for adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a network meta-analysis and systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Surgical and invasive procedures are widely used in adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis when conservative treatments fail. However, little is known about the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions. To address this, we will perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of surgical and invasive procedures for adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include randomised controlled trials assessing surgical and invasive treatments for adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. We will search AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE. Only English studies will be included and no restriction will be set for publication status. For efficacy, our primary outcome will be physical function. Secondary outcomes will include pain intensity, health-related quality of life, global impression of recovery, work absenteeism and mobility. For safety, our primary outcome will be all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes will include adverse events (number of events or number of people with an event) and treatment withdrawal due to adverse effect. Two reviewers will independently select studies, extract data and assess the risk of bias (Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials) of included studies. The quality of the evidence will be evaluated through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Random-effects NMA will be performed to combine all the evidence under the frequentist framework and the ranking results will be presented through the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and mean rank. All analyses will be performed in Stata and R.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018094180.

Nonsurgical medical treatment in the management of pain due to lumbar disc prolapse: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment strategies for patients with pain due to lumbar disc prolapse (LDP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database were searched through September 2017. Randomized controlled trials on LDP reporting on pain intensity and/or global pain effects which compared included treatments head-to-head, against placebo, and/or against conventional care were included. Study data were independently double-extracted and data on patient traits and outcomes were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Separate Bayesian network meta-analyses were undertaken to synthesize direct and indirect, short-term and long-term outcomes, summarized as odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% credible intervals (CI) as well as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

58 studies in global effects and 74 studies in pain intensity analysis were included. Thirty-eight (65.5%) of these studies reported a possible elevated risk of bias. Autonomic drugs and transforminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (86.7 and 83.5 respectively), while Cytokines/Immunomodulators and TESI had the highest SUCRA values at long-term-follow-up in the global effect's analysis (86.6 and 80.9 respectively). Caudal steroid injections and TESIs had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (79.4 and 75.9 respectively), while at long-term follow-up biological agents and manipulation had the highest SUCRA scores (86.4 and 68.5 respectively) for pain intensity. Some treatments had few studies and/or no associated placebo-controlled trials. Studies often did not report on co-interventions, systematically differed, and reported an overall elevated risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

No treatment stands out as superior when compared on multiple outcomes and time periods but TESIs show promise as an effective short-term treatment. High quality studies are needed to confirm many nodes of this network meta-analysis.

Lessons learnt from a discontinued randomised controlled trial: adalimumab injection compared with placebo for patients receiving physiotherapy treatment for sciatica (Subcutaneous Injection of Adalimumab Trial compared with Control: SCIATiC)

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab, a biological treatment targeting tumour necrosis factor α, might be useful in sciatica. This paper describes the challenges faced when developing a new treatment pathway for a randomised controlled trial of adalimumab for people with sciatica, as well as the reasons why the trial discussed was stopped early.

METHODS

A pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial with blinded (masked) participants, clinicians, outcome assessment and statistical analysis was conducted in six UK sites. Participants were identified and recruited from general practices, musculoskeletal services and outpatient physiotherapy clinics. They were adults with persistent symptoms of sciatica of 1 to 6 months' duration with moderate to high level of disability. Eligibility was assessed by research physiotherapists according to clinical criteria, and participants were randomised to receive two doses of adalimumab (80 mg then 40 mg 2 weeks later) or saline placebo subcutaneous injections in the posterior lateral thigh. Both groups were referred for a course of physiotherapy. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6-week, 6-month and 12-month follow-up. The main outcome measure was disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Index. The planned sample size was 332, with the first 50 in an internal pilot phase.

RESULTS

The internal pilot phase was discontinued after 10 months from opening owing to low recruitment (two of the six sites active, eight participants recruited). There were several challenges: contractual delays; one site did not complete contract negotiations, and two sites signed contracts shortly before trial closure; site withdrawal owing to patient safety concerns; difficulties obtaining excess treatment costs; and in the two sites that did recruit, recruitment was slower than planned because of operational issues and low uptake by potential participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved patient care requires robust clinical research within contexts in which treatments can realistically be provided. Step changes in treatment, such as the introduction of biologic treatments for severe sciatica, raise complex issues that can delay trial initiation and retard recruitment. Additional preparatory work might be required before testing novel treatments. A randomised controlled trial of tumour necrosis factor-α blockade is still needed to determine its cost-effectiveness in severe sciatica.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN14569274 . Registered on 15 December 2014.