Cost-effectiveness and safety of epidural steroids in the management of sciatica.
Price C., Arden N., Coglan L., Rogers P.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effectiveness of epidural steroid injections (ESIs) in the treatment of sciatica with an adequately powered study and to identify potential predictors of response to ESIs. Also, to investigate the safety and cost-effectiveness of lumbar ESIs in patients with sciatica. DESIGN: A pragmatic, prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with 12-month follow-up was performed. Patients were stratified according to acute (<4 months since onset) versus chronic (4-18 months) presentation. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with last observation carried forward used to impute missing data. SETTING: Rheumatology, orthopaedic and pain clinics in four participating centres: three district hospitals and one teaching hospital in the south of England. PARTICIPANTS: Total of 228 patients listed for ESI with clinically diagnosed unilateral sciatica, aged between 18 and 70 years, who had a duration of symptoms between 4 weeks and 18 months. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received up to three injections of epidural steroid and local anaesthetic (active), or an injection of normal saline into the interspinous ligament (placebo). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ); measures of pain relief and psychological and physical function were collected. Health economic data on return to work, analgesia use and other interventions were also measured. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using the SF-6D, calculated from the Short Form (SF-36). Costs per patient were derived from figures supplied by the centres' finance departments and a costings exercise performed as part of the study. A cost-utility analysis was performed using the SF-36 to calculate costs per QALY. RESULTS: ESI led to a transient benefit in ODQ and pain relief, compared with placebo at 3 weeks (p = 0.017, number needed to treat = 11.4). There was no benefit over placebo between weeks 6 and 52. Using incremental QALYs, this equates to and additional 2.2 days of full health. Acute sciatica seemed to respond no differently to chronic sciatica. There were no significant differences in any other indices, including objective tests of function, return to work or need for surgery at any time-points. There were no clinical predictors of response, although the trial lacked sufficient power to be confident of this. Adverse events were uncommon, with no difference between groups. Costs per QALY to providers under the trial protocol were 44,701 pounds sterling. Costs to the purchaser per QALY were 354,171 pounds sterling. If only one ESI was provided then costs per QALY fell to 25,745 pounds sterling to the provider and 167,145 pounds sterling to the purchaser. ESIs thus failed the QALY threshold recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). CONCLUSIONS: Although ESIs appear relatively safe, it was found that they confer only transient benefit in symptoms and self-reported function in a small group of patients with sciatica at substantial costs. ESIs do not provide good value for money if NICE recommendations are followed. Additional research is suggested into the epidemiology of radicular pain, producing a register of all ESIs, possible subgroups who may benefit from ESIs, the use of radiological imaging, optimal early interventions, analgesic agents and nerve root injections, the use of cognitive behavioural therapy in rehabilitation, improved methods of assessment, a comparative cost-utility analysis between various treatment strategies, and methods to reduce the effect of scarring and inflammation.