Back to Search Start Over

Cost-effectiveness of Transforaminal epidural steroid injections for patients with ACUTE sciatica: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors :
ter Meulen, Bastiaan C.
Maas, Esther T.
van der Vegt, Rien
Haumann, Johan
Weinstein, Henry C.
Ostelo, Raymond W. J. G.
van Dongen, Johanna M.
Source :
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 4/1/2024, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p1-15. 15p.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Background: Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are increasingly being used in patients sciatica. The STAR (steroids against radiculopathy)-trial aimed to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of TESI in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks). This article contains the economic evaluation of the STAR-trial. Methods: Participants were randomized to one of three study arms: Usual Care (UC), that is oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy, n = 45); intervention group 1: UC and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TESI) 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone and intervention group 2: UC and transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) with 1 ml of 0,5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 0.9% NaCl (n = 50). The primary effect measure was health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were pain, functioning, and recovery. Costs were measured from a societal perspective, meaning that all costs were included, irrespective of who paid or benefited. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. Results: None of the between-group differences in effects were statistically significant for any of the outcomes (QALY, back pain, leg pain, functioning, and global perceived effect) at the 26-weeks follow-up. The adjusted mean difference in total societal costs was €1718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: − 3020 to 6052) for comparison 1 (intervention group 1 versus usual care), €1640 (95%CI: − 3354 to 6106) for comparison 2 (intervention group 1 versus intervention group 2), and €770 (95%CI: − 3758 to 5702) for comparison 3 (intervention group 2 versus usual care). Except for the intervention costs, none of the aggregate and disaggregate cost differences were statistically significant. The maximum probability of all interventions being cost-effective compared to the control was low (< 0.7) for all effect measures. Conclusion: These results suggest that adding TESI (or TEI) to usual care is not cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks) from a societal perspective in a Dutch healthcare setting. Trial registration: Dutch National trial register: NTR4457 (March, 6th, 2014). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
14712474
Volume :
25
Issue :
1
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
176354152
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07366-5