Addition of corticosteroids to local anaesthetics for chronic non-cancer pain injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.

Interventional pain management for chronic pain: a survey of physicians in Canada

PURPOSE

The use of interventional pain management (IPM) modalities to alleviate chronic pain is increasing despite the lack of high-quality evidence. We undertook this survey to explore patterns, training, and attributes of IPM practice.

METHODS

We administered a 32-item survey via seven Canadian physician member organizations, whose members were engaged in the management of chronic pain.

RESULTS

Of 777 physicians contacted, 256 (33%) responded: 45 (6%) declined to participate and 211 (27%) agreed to participate; the number of participants answering any given question varied. One hundred and sixty-nine of 194 (87%) practiced IPM and 103 of 194 (53%) managed only non-cancer pain. Pain management training of ≥ six months was associated with higher odds of IPM training (odds ratio [OR], 2.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32 to 6.7), but not necessarily ongoing IPM practice (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.74 to 5.3). A substantial percentage of physicians (108 of 168 [64%]) practiced IPM based only on training received during either their base residency program or courses. Only 48 of 186 (26%) felt that there were adequate opportunities for IPM training, and 69 of 186 (37%) believed that their colleagues practiced IPM in accordance with the best current evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey indicates that IPM practice and training were not uniform, and that interventional therapies for chronic pain may not be performed in accordance with the best available evidence. Our survey highlights a lack of IPM training opportunities, which may result in substandard training. Concerted efforts involving physician organizations and regulators are needed to standardize IPM training and develop clinical guidelines to optimize evidence-based practice.