Relias Media - Continuing Medical Education Publishing

The trusted source for

healthcare information and

CONTINUING EDUCATION.

  • Sign In
  • Sign Out
  • MyAHC
    • Home
      • Home
      • Newsletters
      • Blogs
      • Archives
      • CME/CE Map
      • Shop
    • Emergency
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Hospital
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Clinical
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • All Access
      • Subscribe Now
      • My Subscription
    • My Account
      • My Subscriptions
      • My Content
      • My Orders
      • My CME/CE
      • My Transcript
    Home » Are Epidural Steroid Injections Cost-Effective?
    ABSTRACT & COMMENTARY

    Are Epidural Steroid Injections Cost-Effective?

    March 1, 2020
    No Comments
    Reprints
    Facebook Twitter Linkedin Share Share

    Related Articles

    Are Epidural Steroid Injections Cost-Effective?

    Fungal meningitis and arthritis from epidural, paraspinal and intra-articular injections with contaminated corticosteroid. Early status.

    Predicting Outcome after Epidural Steroid Injection

    Related Products

    Is Early MRI Warranted for Back Pain in the Elderly?

    Update in Treating Neuropathic Pain

    Keywords

    Steroids

    lumbar

    pain

    injection

    epidural

    radiculopathy

    By Michael Rubin, MD

    Professor of Clinical Neurology, Weill Cornell Medical College

    Dr. Rubin reports he is a consultant for Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

    SYNOPSIS: In a retrospective review of patients treated for low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy at the Cleveland Clinic, at three- and six-month follow-up, epidural steroid injections were no better than conservative therapies in quality of life measures or overall cost of medical care.

    SOURCE: Pennington Z, Swanson MA, Lubelski D, et al. Comparing the short-term cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injections and medical management alone for discogenic lumbar radiculopathy. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2020; Jan. 13. [Online ahead of print].

    Among the 85% of the population who will experience low back pain at some point in their lives, it will be nonspecific in 85% and not attributable to any specific pathology. Return to work will occur within a month, with further improvement by three months, after which pain and disability levels will remain constant. Nonsurgical treatment modalities, often recommended despite the absence of clinical evidence of benefit, include intradiscal glucocorticoid injection, local or trigger point injection using a local anesthetic with or without a corticosteroid, facet joint injection and medial branch block, sacroiliac joint injection, and electrodermal and radiofrequency denervation. Despite the possibility of serious adverse events, including blindness, stroke, paralysis, and death, epidural steroid injection (ESI) is used for nonspecific low back pain, spinal stenosis, and radiculopathy, with the best benefit, albeit short-term, demonstrated for radiculopathy due to disc herniation. Is ESI cost-effective and does it produce improvement in long-term quality of life (QOL)?

    Pennington et al undertook a retrospective electronic medical record (EMR) review of patients seen between 2009-2015 for low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Spine Health. Exclusionary criteria included prior lumbar spine surgery or non-epidural steroid injection, such as facet-joint, medial branch block, or caudal injections; evidence of other neurologic disease, such as multiple sclerosis; non-spondylotic causes of radicular pain, such as infection or tumor; or concomitant workers compensation claim. QOL scores included the Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and the EuroQOL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), all obtained via the institutional Knowledge Program, an integral component of the EMR in which all patients had been enrolled prospectively. Direct costs were defined as all hospital charges to the patient undergoing the procedure, with Medicare national payment amounts used to estimate all direct cost data, and Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) and CPT code-associated costs recorded in the year of surgery adjusted for inflation to 2015 dollars. Pharmaceutical costs were estimated from the 2007 Red Book for Medications. Statistical analysis used the mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and proportions for categorical or dichotomous variables, student’s t-test for continuous variables, and Fisher’s exact tests, with 0.05 used as the threshold for statistical significance.

    Among 810 patients screened, 141 met inclusion criteria, of which 52 underwent conservative management alone, and 89 received, in addition, ESI. Overall, 61% were male, average age was 68.5 years, mean body mass index was 29.7 kg.m2, and the most common diagnoses were spinal stenosis (41.8%), spondylosis (24.1%), and degenerative disc disease (21.3%). At three months, relative to baseline, both groups showed significant improvements on only the EQ-5D but not on any of the other patient-related outcomes (PROs), and no differences were found between cohorts with respect to any of the PROs. At six-month follow-up, no significant differences were detected on any of the collected PROs between groups or within groups, and sub-analysis of the ESI group failed to demonstrate any significant differences in the three- or six-month outcomes between patients receiving transforaminal ESI and those receiving interlaminar ESI. At three months, total costs incurred by the ESI cohort patients were $2,190.39, compared to $1,772.22 for the conservative cohort, a nonsignificant difference. At three and six months, no significant differences were noted between groups in terms of direct, indirect, or total costs. The number of missed days was similar in both groups. Significant increases in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for both the ESI and conservative groups were identified, but no differences were noted between the two groups. All QALY improvement was lost by the six-month follow-up relative to baseline. The investigators concluded that ESI is not cost-effective at either the three- or six-month follow-up period, it is not better than medical management at three months, and neither ESI nor medical management provides significant QOL improvement over baseline at six months.

    COMMENTARY

    Chronic low back pain persisting for more than 12 weeks is best treated conservatively. For patients without disabling symptoms, participation in an independent or structured regular exercise program is central. When symptoms are disabling, the goals of care comprise pain management, functional improvement, and maximizing coping skills, for which multiple modalities, including exercise therapy, psychological and/or mind-body interventions, and pharmacologic therapy often are required.

    Post a comment to this article

    Report Abusive Comment

    www.reliasmedia.com

    Neurology Alert

    View PDF
    Neurology Alert (Vol. 39, No. 7) - March 2020
    March 1, 2020

    Table Of Contents

    Neurofilament Light Correlates With Postoperative Delirium Severity

    Rituximab for the Treatment of MOG and AQP4 Antibody Diseases

    Intravenous Immunoglobulin for Treatment of Autoimmune Epilepsies

    Cavum Septum Pellucidum and Cavum Vergae: Markers of Chronic Brain Injury?

    Are Epidural Steroid Injections Cost-Effective?

    Begin Test

    Buy this Issue/Course

    Financial Disclosure: Neurology Alert’s Editor in Chief Matthew Fink, MD; Peer Reviewer M. Flint Beal, MD; Editorial Group Manager Leslie Coplin; Editor Jason Schneider; Executive Editor Shelly Morrow Mark; and Accreditations Manager Amy M. Johnson, MSN, RN, CPN, report no financial relationships relevant to this field of study.

    Shop Now: Search Products

    • Subscription Publications
    • Books & Study Guides
    • Webinars
    • Group & Site
      Licenses
    • State CME/CE
      Requirements

    Webinars And Events

    View All Events
    • Home
      • Home
      • Newsletters
      • Blogs
      • Archives
      • CME/CE Map
      • Shop
    • Emergency
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Hospital
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Clinical
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • All Access
      • Subscribe Now
      • My Subscription
    • My Account
      • My Subscriptions
      • My Content
      • My Orders
      • My CME/CE
      • My Transcript
    • Help
    • Search
    • About Us
    • Sign In
    • Register
    Relias Media - Continuing Medical Education Publishing

    The trusted source for

    healthcare information and

    CONTINUING EDUCATION.

    Customer Service

    customerservice@reliasmedia.com

    U.S. and Canada: 1-800-688-2421

    International +1-404-262-5476

    Accounts Receivable

    1-800-370-9210
    ReliasMedia_AR@reliasmedia.com

    Mailing Address

    • 1010 Sync St., Suite 100
      Morrisville, NC 27560-5468
      USA

    © 2020 Relias. All rights reserved.

    Do Not Sell My Personal Information  Privacy Policy  Terms of Use  Contact Us  Reprints  Group Sales

    For DSR inquiries or complaints, please reach out to Wes Vaux, Data Privacy Officer, DPO@relias.com

    Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing