The Effectiveness of Oral Corticosteroids for Management of Lumbar Radiating Pain: Randomized, Controlled Trial Study

Neurologic Approach to Radiculopathy, Back Pain, and Neck Pain

Back pain and neck pain are common in clinical practice, but significant challenges and pitfalls exist in their diagnosis, treatment, and management. From the neurologic standpoint, cervical radiculopathy and lumbosacral radiculopathy are characterized by neck pain or back pain accompanied by sensory and motor symptoms in an arm or leg. The basic neurologic examination is vital, but testing like electromyography and MRI is often needed especially in cases that fail conservative management. Oral medications, injection-based therapies, physical therapy, and surgical evaluation all have a place in the comprehensive neurologic management of back and neck pain and associated radiculopathy.

The Role of Systemic Steroids in Sciatica Due to Herniated Lumbar Disc: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the role of systemic steroids in treating patients with sciatica due to lumbar disk herniation (LDH).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The association between LDH and sciatica has been well described. The use of steroids seems logical in this context; however, their efficacy is not well described, and their use remains controversial.

METHODS

A comprehensive search on PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases (up to February 15, 2022) was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that included patients with symptoms of sciatica due to LDH that were treated with systemic steroids. The risk of bias was judged using the Cochrane risk-of-Bias2 tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to estimate the between-group effect size for pain and functional outcomes. The risk of developing adverse events (AE) was computed using relative risks. All pooled results are reported with their 95% confidence interval (CI) and certainty of evidence analyzed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Ten studies met inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 1017 participants: 540 in the treatment group and 477 in the control group. Steroid treatment was associated with a significant superior reduction of pain (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.08, weak effect, very-low certainty) and reduction in disability (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.10, weak effect, very-low certainty). Corticosteroid administration was associated with a significant increased risk of developing an AE (relative risks = 2.00, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.85, low certainty).

CONCLUSION

The use of systemic steroids in the treatment of sciatica due to LDH seems reasonable despite a 2-fold higher risk of developing mild AEs. However, the effect size is small for reducing pain in the short term and improving functional outcomes at long-term follow-up.

Systemic corticosteroids for radicular and non-radicular low back pain

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are medications with anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant properties. Systemic corticosteroids administered through the oral, intravenous, or intramuscular routes have been used to treat various types of low back pain, including radicular back pain (not due to spinal stenosis), non-radicular back pain, and spinal stenosis. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid for radicular low back pain, non-radicular low back pain, and symptomatic spinal stenosis in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was September 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials in adults of systematic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The major outcomes were pain, function, need for surgery, serious adverse effect, and presence of hyperglycemia. The minor outcomes were quality of life, successful outcomes, non-serious adverse events, and withdrawal due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials (1047 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Nine trials included participants with radicular low back pain, two trial with low back pain, and two trials with spinal stenosis. All trials blinded participants to receipt of systemic corticosteroids. Seven trials were at low risk of bias, five at unclear risk, and one at high risk of selection bias. Two trials were at high risk of attrition bias. Doses and duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy varied. Radicular low back pain For radicular low back pain, moderate-certainty evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly decrease pain versus placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.56 points better, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 0.04 on a 0 to 10 scale) and may slightly increase the likelihood of experiencing improvement in pain at short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.66; absolute effect 5% better (95% CI 5% worse to 15% better). Systemic corticosteroids may not improve function at short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.14 better; range 0.49 better to 0.21 worse) and probably increase the likelihood of improvement in function at short-term follow-up (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; absolute effect 19% better, 95% CI 8% better to 30% better). Systemic corticosteroids were associated with greater improvement in function versus placebo at long-term follow-up (MD -7.40, 95% CI -12.55 to -2.25 on the 0 to 100 Oswestry Disability Index) and greater likelihood of functional improvement (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56), based on a single trial. There was no difference in likelihood of surgery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47). Evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids (administered as a single dose or as a short course of therapy) are not associated with increased risk of any adverse event, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, or hyperglycemia, but estimates were imprecise as some trials did not report harms, and harms reporting was suboptimal in trials that did provide data. Limitations included variability across trials in interventions (e.g. corticosteroid used, dose and duration of treatment), clinical settings, and participants (e.g. duration of symptoms, methods for diagnosis); limited utility of subgroup analyses due to small numbers of trials; methodologic limitations or suboptimal reporting of methods by some trials; and too few trials to formally assess for publication bias using graphical or statistical tests for small sample effects. Non-radicular low back pain Evidence on systemic corticosteroids versus placebo for non-radicular pain was limited and suggested that systemic corticosteroids may be associated with slightly worse short-term pain but slightly better function. Spinal stenosis For spinal stenosis, limited evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids are probably no more effective than placebo for short-term pain or function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids appear to be slightly effective at improving short-term pain and function in people with radicular low back pain not due to spinal stenosis, and might slightly improve long-term function. The effects of systemic corticosteroids in people with non-radicular low back pain are unclear and systemic corticosteroids are probably ineffective for spinal stenosis. A single dose or short course of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain does not appear to cause serious harms, but evidence is limited.

Pharmacotherapy for Spine-Related Pain in Older Adults

As the population ages, spine-related pain is increasingly common in older adults. While medications play an important role in pain management, their use has limitations in geriatric patients due to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy. This review will assess the evidence basis for medications used for spine-related pain in older adults, with a focus on drug metabolism and adverse drug reactions. A PubMed/OVID search crossing common spine, neck, and back pain terms with key words for older adults and geriatrics was combined with common drug classes and common drug names and limited to clinical trials and age over 65 years. The results were then reviewed with identification of commonly used drugs and drug categories: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, corticosteroids, gabapentin and pregabalin, antispastic and antispasmodic muscle relaxants, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tramadol, and opioids. Collectively, 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were the focus of the review. The review found a variable contribution of high-quality studies examining the efficacy of medications for spine pain primarily in the geriatric population. There was strong evidence for NSAID use with adjustments for gastrointestinal and renal risk factors. Gabapentin and pregabalin had mixed evidence for neuropathic pain. SNRIs had good evidence for neuropathic pain and a more favorable safety profile than TCAs. Tramadol had some evidence in older patients, but more so in persons aged < 65 years. Rational therapeutic choices based on geriatric spine pain diagnosis are helpful, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based pain, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular pain, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies. Tramadol can be well tolerated in older patients, but has risks of cognitive and classic opioid side effects. Otherwise, opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults due to their morbidity and mortality risk and are reserved for refractory severe pain. Whenever possible, beneficial geriatric spine pain pharmacotherapy should employ the lowest therapeutic doses with consideration of polypharmacy, potentially decreased renal and hepatic metabolism, and co-morbid medical disorders.

A short-term oral corticosteroid for refractory lumbar spinal stenosis: a double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

Although epidural corticosteroids have been evaluated for the lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) as an alternative treatment, oral corticosteroids have not been considered as a possible option for the patients with constant pain who have resistant against routine treatments. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the efficacy of the short-term, low-dose oral prednisolone for refractory LSS. In this double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial, 100 participants with the refractory LSS were selected from the out-patient clinics; however, 7 of them excluded before randomization. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups with a 1:1 ratio: the intervention group that received 10 mg prednisolone per day for 1 week and the control group that received the exact placebo. The patients' severity of pain in terms of the numerical rating scale, ability to walk in meters, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were assessed and then compared to the baseline after 2 months. The baseline variables were NS between these two groups. At the 2-month follow-up, the ability to walk in meters has increased and the severity of pain and ODI have decreased in both groups. Notably, except for the walking distance, none of the differences were statistically significant. Except for the significant change in walking distance between the groups, no other significant difference was observed in any variables when comparing the delta of each variable (after-before). One-week treatment with daily 10 mg oral prednisolone was not effective on the patients with refractory LSS in the short-term follow-up.

Clinical features as predictors of histologically confirmed inflammation in patients with lumbar disc herniation with associated radiculopathy

Background

An understanding of the clinical features of inflammation in low back pain with or without leg symptoms may allow targeted evaluations of anti-inflammatory treatment in randomised-controlled-trials and clinical practice.

Purpose

This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of clinical features to predict the presence/absence of histologically confirmed inflammation in herniated disc specimens removed at surgery in patients with lumbar disc herniation and associated radiculopathy (DHR).

Study design

Cohort Study.

Methods

Disc material from patients with DHR undergoing lumbar discectomy was sampled and underwent histological/immunohistochemistry analyses. Control discs were sampled from patients undergoing surgical correction for scoliosis. Baseline assessment comprising sociodemographic factors, subjective examination, physical examination and psychosocial screening was conducted and a range of potential clinical predictors of inflammation developed based on the existing literature. Multi-variate analysis was undertaken to determine diagnostic accuracy.

Results

Forty patients with DHR and three control patients were recruited. None of the control discs had evidence of inflammation compared to 28% of patients with DHR. Predictors of the presence of histologically confirmed inflammation included back pain < 5/10, symptoms worse the next day after injury, lumbar flexion range between 0 and 30° and a positive clinical inflammation score (at least 3 of: constant symptoms, morning pain/stiffness greater than 60-min, short walking not easing symptoms and significant night symptoms). The model achieved a sensitivity of 90.9%, a specificity of 92.9%, and a predictive accuracy of 92.3%.

Conclusion

In a sample of patients with lumbar DHR a combination of clinical features predicted the presence or absence of histologically confirmed inflammation.

Clinical relevance

These clinical features may enable targeted anti-inflammatory treatment in future RCTs and in clinical practice.

A Review of Lumbar Radiculopathy, Diagnosis, and Treatment

We review the epidemiology, etiology, symptomatology, clinical presentation, anatomy, pathophysiology, workup, diagnosis, non-surgical and surgical management, postoperative care, outcomes, long-term management, and morbidity of lumbar radiculopathy. We review when outpatient conservative management is appropriate and "red flag" warning symptoms that would necessitate an emergency evaluation. Diagnostic modalities, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerized tomography (CT), contrast myelogram, electromyogram (EMG), and nerve conduction velocity (NCV), are involved in the diagnosis and decision-making are discussed. Treatment of lumbar radiculopathy requires a multimodal and multispecialty team. We review indications for the involvement of other professionals, including physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), physical and rehabilitation medicine (PMR), and pain management.

Nonsurgical treatments for patients with radicular pain from lumbosacral disc herniation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbosacral disc herniation (LDH) is one of the most frequent musculoskeletal diseases causative of sick leave in the workplace and morbidity in daily activities. Nonsurgical managements are considered as first line treatment before surgical treatment.

PURPOSE

This clinical practice guideline (CPG) is intended to provide physicians who treat patients diagnosed with LDH with a guideline supported by scientific evidence to assist in decision-making for appropriate and reasonable treatments.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Studies of human subjects written in Korean or English that met the following criteria were selected: patients aged ≥18 years, clinical presentation of low back and radicular leg pain, diagnosis of LDH on radiological evaluation including computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.

OUTCOMES MEASURES

Pain and functional evaluation scales such as visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and Oswestry disability index METHODS: The MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Review, and KoreaMed databases were searched for articles regarding non-surgical treatments for LDH published up to July 2017. Of the studies fulfilling these criteria, those investigating clinical results after non-surgical treatment including physical and behavioral therapy, medication, and interventional treatment in terms of pain control and functional improvements were chosen for this study.

RESULTS

Nonsurgical treatments were determined to be clinically effective with regards to pain reduction and functional improvement in patients with LDH. Nevertheless, the evidence level was generally not evaluated as high degree, which might be attributed to the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials. Exercise and traction were strongly recommended despite moderate level of evidence. Epidural injection was strongly recommended with high degree of evidence and transforaminal approach was more strongly recommended than caudal approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This CPG provides new and updated evidence-based recommendations for treatment of the patients with LDH, which suggested that, despite an absence of high degrees of evidence level, non-surgical treatments were clinically effective.