The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2015
Can patient characteristics predict benefit from epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms?
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Turner Judith A, Comstock Bryan A, Standaert Christopher J, Heagerty Patrick J, Jarvik Jeffrey G, Deyo Richard A, Wasan Ajay D, Nedeljkovic Srdjan S, Friedly Janna L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly used to treat back and leg pain associated with lumbar spinal stenosis. However, little is known about which patient characteristics may predict favorable responses.
PURPOSE: The aim was to identify patient characteristics associated with benefits from epidural injections of corticosteroid with lidocaine versus epidural injections of lidocaine only for lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This was a secondary analysis of Lumbar Epidural steroid injections for Spinal Stenosis randomized controlled trial data from 16 US clinical sites.
PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients aged older than or equal to 50 years with moderate-to-severe leg pain and lumbar central spinal stenosis randomized to epidural injections of corticosteroids with lidocaine (n=200) or lidocaine only (n=200) were included.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and 0 to 10 leg pain intensity ratings. Secondary outcomes included the Brief Pain Inventory Interference Scale and the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire.
METHODS: At baseline, clinicians rated severity of patient spinal stenosis, and patients completed predictor and outcome measures. Patients completed outcome measures again 3 and 6 (primary end point) weeks after randomization/initial injection. Analysis of covariance was used with treatment by covariate interactions to identify baseline predictors of greater benefit from corticosteroid+lidocaine versus lidocaine alone. We also identified nonspecific (independent of treatment) predictors of outcomes.
RESULTS: Among 21 candidate predictors and six outcomes, only one baseline variable predicted greater benefit from corticosteroid+lidocaine versus lidocaine only at 3 or 6 weeks. Compared with patients who rated their health-related quality of life as high on the EQ-5D Index, patients who rated it as poor had greater improvement with corticosteroid than with lidocaine only in leg pain at 6 (but not 3) weeks (interaction coefficient=2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.11-5.76; p=.04) and in RMDQ disability scores at 3 (but not 6) weeks (interaction coefficient=4.77, 95% CI= -0.04 to 9.59; p = .05). Several baseline patient characteristics predicted outcomes regardless of treatment assignment.
CONCLUSIONS: Among 21 baseline patient characteristics examined, none, including clinician-rated spinal stenosis severity, were consistent predictors of benefit from epidural injections of lidocaine+corticosteroid versus lidocaine only.
PURPOSE: The aim was to identify patient characteristics associated with benefits from epidural injections of corticosteroid with lidocaine versus epidural injections of lidocaine only for lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This was a secondary analysis of Lumbar Epidural steroid injections for Spinal Stenosis randomized controlled trial data from 16 US clinical sites.
PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients aged older than or equal to 50 years with moderate-to-severe leg pain and lumbar central spinal stenosis randomized to epidural injections of corticosteroids with lidocaine (n=200) or lidocaine only (n=200) were included.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and 0 to 10 leg pain intensity ratings. Secondary outcomes included the Brief Pain Inventory Interference Scale and the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire.
METHODS: At baseline, clinicians rated severity of patient spinal stenosis, and patients completed predictor and outcome measures. Patients completed outcome measures again 3 and 6 (primary end point) weeks after randomization/initial injection. Analysis of covariance was used with treatment by covariate interactions to identify baseline predictors of greater benefit from corticosteroid+lidocaine versus lidocaine alone. We also identified nonspecific (independent of treatment) predictors of outcomes.
RESULTS: Among 21 candidate predictors and six outcomes, only one baseline variable predicted greater benefit from corticosteroid+lidocaine versus lidocaine only at 3 or 6 weeks. Compared with patients who rated their health-related quality of life as high on the EQ-5D Index, patients who rated it as poor had greater improvement with corticosteroid than with lidocaine only in leg pain at 6 (but not 3) weeks (interaction coefficient=2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.11-5.76; p=.04) and in RMDQ disability scores at 3 (but not 6) weeks (interaction coefficient=4.77, 95% CI= -0.04 to 9.59; p = .05). Several baseline patient characteristics predicted outcomes regardless of treatment assignment.
CONCLUSIONS: Among 21 baseline patient characteristics examined, none, including clinician-rated spinal stenosis severity, were consistent predictors of benefit from epidural injections of lidocaine+corticosteroid versus lidocaine only.