Effectiveness of epidural steroid injection in patients with lumbar herniated intervertebral disc under a "wait-and-see" policy

BACKGROUND

There are no consensus and guidelines on the optimal interval of repeat epidural steroid injections (ESI) for patients with lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) who respond to initial ESI.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of ESI in patients with HIVD under a "wait-and-see" policy, i.e. as-needed injections not on a predetermined schedule.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 592 patients with lumbar HIVD received spine injections between January and December 2017. After excluding patients with excellent (no pain) or poor (>70% residual symptoms) response in the two- or three-week pain assessment, the data of 141 responders were analyzed (60 men, 73 women; age = 50.55±17.25 years). We divided patients into wait-and-see (n=124) and early repeat-ESI (n=17) groups, who received repeat ESIs within three weeks. Evaluations of characteristics and outcomes were performed with the chi-square test or independent Student's t-test.

RESULTS

Six patients (4.8%) in the wait-and-see group and 1 (5.9%) in the early repeat-ESI group underwent operation within one year (P=0.85). A mean of 1.52±0.82 ESIs was performed in the wait-and-see and a mean of 2.29±0.47 ESIs in the early repeat-ESI group over one year (P<0.001). The time interval between the first and second ESIs was longer in the wait-and-see group than in the early repeat-ESI group (97.15 vs. 15.47 days, P<0.001). Seventy-eight patients (62.9%) in the wait-and-see group could control their pain with a single ESI.

CONCLUSION

A "wait-and-see" policy could be an effective pain management option for patients with lumbar HIVD who respond to initial ESI.

When can maximal efficacy occur with repeat botulinum toxin injection in upper limb spastic paresis?

Repeated injection cycles with abobotulinumtoxinA, a botulinum toxin type A, are recommended in current clinical guidelines as a treatment option for adults with upper limb spastic paresis. However, the magnitude of the maximal therapeutic effect of repeated abobotulinumtoxinA treatment across different efficacy parameters and the number of injection cycles required to reach maximal effect remain to be elucidated. Here, we present a post hoc exploratory analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (12–24 weeks; NCT01313299) and open-label extension study (up to 12 months; NCT0131331), in patients aged 18–80 years with hemiparesis for ≥6 months after stroke/traumatic brain injury. Two inferential methods were used to assess the changes in efficacy parameters after repeat abobotulinumtoxinA treatment cycles: Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis and Non-Linear Random Coefficients analysis. Using the latter model, the expected maximal effect size (not placebo-controlled) and the number of treatment cycles to reach 90% of this maximal effect were estimated. Treatment responses in terms of passive and perceived parameters (i.e. modified Ashworth scale in primary target muscle group, disability assessment scale for principal target for treatment or limb position, and angle of catch at fast speed) were estimated to reach near-maximal effect in two to three cycles. Near-maximal treatment effect for active parameters (i.e. active range of motion against the resistance of extrinsic finger flexors and active function, assessed by the Modified Frenchay Scale) was estimated to be reached one to two cycles later. In contrast to most parameters, active function showed greater improvements at Week 12 (estimated maximal change from baseline-modified Frenchay Scale overall score: +0.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.6; 1.0) than at Week 4 (+0.6 [95% confidence interval, 0.4; 0.8]). Overall, the analyses suggest that repeated treatment cycles with abobotulinumtoxinA in patients chronically affected with upper limb spastic paresis allow them to relearn how to use the affected arm with now looser antagonists. Future studies should assess active parameters as primary outcome measures over repeated treatment cycles, and assess efficacy at the 12-week time-point of each cycle, as the benefits of abobotulinumtoxinA may be underestimated in the studies of insufficient duration.

Abbreviated summary

In this post hoc analysis of repeated abobotulinumtoxinA injection cycles in upper limb spastic paresis, Gracies et al. used statistical modelling to elucidate the maximal therapeutic effect of abobotulinumtoxinA. Notably, the number of injections required to reach this maximal effect was higher for active (e.g. active function) compared with passive (e.g. tone) parameters.

Can repeat injection provide clinical benefit in patients with cervical disc herniation and stenosis when the first epidural injection results only in partial response?

Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is known to be an effective treatment for neck or radicular pain due to herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) and spinal stenosis (SS). Although repeat ESI has generally been indicated to provide more pain relief in partial responders after single ESI, there has been little evidence supporting the usefulness of this procedure. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to determine whether repeat ESI at a prescribed interval of 2 to 3 weeks after the first injection would provide greater clinical benefit in patients with partial pain reduction than intermittent ESI performed only when pain was aggravated. One hundred eighty-four patients who underwent transforaminal ESI (TFESI) for treatment of axial neck and radicular arm pain due to HIVD or SS and could be followed up for 1 year were enrolled. We divided the patients into 2 groups. Group A (N = 108) comprised partial responders (numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥ 3 after the first injection) who underwent repeat injection at a prescribed interval of 2 to 3 weeks after the first injection. Group B (N = 76) comprised partial responders who did not receive repeat injection at the prescribed interval, but received intermittent injections only for aggravation of pain. Various clinical data were assessed, including total number of injections during 1 year, NRS duration of <3 during 1 year (NRS < 3 duration), and time interval until pain was increased to require additional injections after repeat injection in Group A, or after first injection in Group B (time to reinjection). Groups A and B were compared in terms of total population, HIVD, and SS. In the whole population, HIVD subgroup, and SS subgroup, patients in Group A required significantly fewer injections to obtain satisfactory pain relief during the 1-year follow-up period. Group A showed a significantly longer time to reinjection and longer NRS < 3 than Group B did. Repeat TFESI conducted at 2- to 3-week intervals after the first injection in partial responders contributed to greater clinical benefit compared with intermittent TFESI performed only upon pain aggravation, with fewer TFESI sessions.