Evaluation of Cost-Utility of Thoracic Interlaminar Epidural Injections.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic thoracic pain, even though not as prevalent as low back and neck pain, appears in approximately 30% of the general population. The severity of thoracic pain and degree of disability seems to be similar to other painful conditions. Despite this severity, interventions in managing chronic thoracic pain are less frequent, and there is a paucity of literature regarding epidural injections and facet joint interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: As with lumbar and cervical spine, a multitude of interventions are offered in managing chronic thoracic pain, including interventional techniques with epidural injections and facet joint interventions. A single randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been published with a 2-year follow-up of clinical effectiveness of the results. However, there have not been any cost-utility analysis studies pertaining to either epidural injections or facet joint interventions in thoracic pain. Based on the results of the RCT, a cost-utility analysis of thoracic interlaminar epidural injections was undertaken. Evaluation of the cost-utility analysis of thoracic interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing thoracic disc herniation, thoracic spinal stenosis, and thoracic discogenic or axial pain was assessed in 110 patients with a 2-year follow-up. Direct payment data from 2018 was utilized for procedural costs and indirect costs. Costs, including drug costs, were determined by multiplication of direct procedural payment data by a factor of 1.67 or addition of 40% of cost to accommodate for indirect payments and arrive at overall costs. Cost-utility analysis showed direct procedural cost of USD $1943.19, whereas total estimated costs year per QALY were USD $3245.12.

Comparing the short-term cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injections and medical management alone for discogenic lumbar radiculopathy.

OBJECTIVE: Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a commonly used treatment strategy for low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy. However, their cost-effectiveness and ability to mediate long-term quality of life (QOL) improvements is debated. We sought to analyze the cost-effectiveness of lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) compared to medical management alone for patients with lumbar radiculopathy and low back pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: QOL outcomes were prospectively collected at 3- and 6-months following initial consultation. Metrics included the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire, the Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Cost estimations were based on Medicare national payment amounts, median income, and missed workdays. A cost-utility analysis was performed based upon cost estimations and a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/Quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: One hundred forty-one patients met our inclusion/exclusion criteria; 89 received ESI and 52 were treated with medical management alone. Both cohorts showed improved EQ-5D scores at 3 months but were similar to one another: ESI (ΔEQ-5D = 0.06; p = 0.03) and medical-alone (ΔEQ-5D = 0.07; p = 0.03). No significant difference was seen between groups for total costs ($2,190 vs. $1,772; p = 0.18) or cost-utility ratios ($38,710/QALY vs. $27,313/QALY; p = 0.73). At both the 3-month and 6-month endpoints, absolute differences in cost-utility was driven by overall costs as opposed to QALY gains. Medical management alone was more cost effective at both points owing to lower expenditures, however these differences were not significant. No benefits were seen in either group on the EQ-5D or any of the patient reported outcomes at the 6-month time point. CONCLUSION: ESIs were not cost-effective at either the 3-month or 6-month follow-up period. At 3 months, ESIs provide similar improvements in QOL outcomes relative to medical management and at similar costs. At 6 months, neither ESIs nor conservative management provide significant improvements in QOL outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy (Mechanical Diagnosis and Treatment and Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections) among patients with an indication for a Lumbar Herniated Disc surgery: Protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The general consensus is that surgical treatment is advised when conservative methods fail in patients with lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS). Preliminary evidence from our pilot study indicates that combination therapy (mechanical diagnosis therapy and transforaminal epidural injections) can prevent surgical treatment in patients on the waiting list for surgery. The pilot study lacked a control group, and therefore, firm conclusions pertaining to effects could not be made. This study aims to determine if combination therapy, performed while being on the waiting list for lumbar herniated disc surgery, is effective and cost-effective compared with usual care (i.e., no intervention while being on the waiting list) among patients with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed indication for a lumbar herniated disc surgery. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial will be conducted with an economic evaluation. Patients aged 18 and above with incapacitating LRS, with leg pain and an MRI confirmed indication for lumbar disc hernia surgery, will be recruited from seven Dutch hospitals. While being on the waiting list for lumbar herniated disc surgery, patients will be randomized to either the combination therapy or usual care group. The primary outcome measure is the number of patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery during 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include back and leg pain intensity (numeric pain rating scale), physical functioning (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaires-23), self-perceived recovery (global perceived effect), and health-related quality of life (EuroQol Five Dimensions Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12)). For the economic evaluation, societal and health care costs will be measured. Measurements moments are baseline, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 months. Data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. CONCLUSION: No randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy compared with usual care in patients with an indication for lumbar herniated disc surgery, which emphasizes the importance of this study.

Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Injections in the Treatment of Cervical Disc Herniation, Post Surgery Syndrome, or Discogenic Pain: Cost Utility Analysis from Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is one of the major conditions attributing to overall disability in the United States. There have been multiple publications assessing clinical and cost effectiveness of multiple modalities of interventions in managing chronic neck pain. Even then, the literature has been considered sparse in relation to cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck pain. In contrast, cost utility studies of lumbar interlaminar injections, caudal epidural injections, cervical and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, percutaneous adhesiolysis demonstrated costs of less than $3,500 for quality-adjusted life year (QALY). OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost utility of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck and/or upper extremity pain secondary to cervical disc herniation, post-surgery syndrome in neck, and axial or discogenic neck pain. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis based on 3 previously published randomized trials of the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections assessing their role in disc herniation, cervical post-surgery syndrome, and axial or discogenic pain. SETTING: A contemporary, private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States. METHODS: Cost utility of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing cervical disc herniation, cervical post-surgery syndrome, and cervical discogenic or axial neck back pain was conducted with data derived from 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included a 2-year follow-up, with inclusion of 356 patients. The primary outcome was significant improvement defined as at least 50% in pain reduction and disability status. Direct payment data from all carriers from 2018 was utilized for the assessment of procedural costs. Overall costs, including drug costs, were determined by multiplication of direct procedural payment data by a factor of 1.67 to accommodate for indirect payments respectively for disc herniation, discogenic pain, and cervical post-surgery syndrome. RESULTS: The results of the 3 RCTs showed direct cost utility for one year of QALY of $2,412.31 for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, $2,081.07 for disc herniation, and $2,309.20 for post surgery syndrome, with an average cost per one year QALY of $2,267.57, with total estimated overall costs with addition of indirect costs of $3,475.38, $4,028.55, $3,856.36, and $3,785.89 respectively. LIMITATIONS: The limitation of this cost utility analysis includes that it is a single center evaluation. Indirect costs were extrapolated. CONCLUSION: This cost utility analysis of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in patients nonresponsive to conservative management in the treatment of disc herniation, post surgery syndrome and axial or discogenic neck pain shows $2,267.57 for direct costs with a total cost of $3,785.89 per QALY. KEY WORDS: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections, chronic neck pain, cervical disc herniation, cervical discogenic pain, post surgery syndrome, cost utility analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, quality-adjusted life years.

Economic and Outcomes Analysis of Recalcitrant Cervical Radiculopathy: Is Nonsurgical Management or Surgery More Cost-Effective?

INTRODUCTION: This study directly compares the economical and clinical effectiveness of the use of cervical epidural injections and continued physical therapy versus surgical management in cases of cervical radiculopathy that have failed 6 weeks of conservative management. METHODS: A theoretical cohort of patients with cervical radiculopathy resistant to 6 weeks of noninvasive conservative management were simulated to treatment with either anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical epidural injections and continued physical therapy and analyzed with Markov chain decision tree Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with ACDF was $6,768 per quality-adjusted life year over the lifetime of the patient, whereas the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with cervical injections ranged from $9,033 to $4,044 per quality-adjusted life year based on the success rate. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that for the management of recalcitrant cervical radiculopathy, ACDF remains the dominant strategy compared with cervical epidural injections if the surgical avoidance rate of such injections is less than 50%. If there is a greater than 50% surgery avoidance rate with injections, then cervical epidural injections would be considered a cost-effective strategy with a role in the management of cervical radiculopathy before surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections.

STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost per quality-adjusted life-year for lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESI). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite being a widely performed procedure, there are few studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of LESIs. METHODS: Patients who had received LESI between June 2012 and July 2013 with EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) scores available before and after LESIs but before any surgical intervention were identified. Costs were calculated on the basis of the Medicare Fee Schedule multiplied by the number of LESIs received between the 2 clinic visits. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using the EQ-5D. RESULTS: Of 421 patients who had pre-LESI EQ-5D data, 323 (77%) had post-LESI data available; 200 females, 123 males, mean age: 59.2 ±â€Š14.2 years. Cost per LESI was $608, with most patients receiving 3 LESIs for more than 1 year (range: 1-6 yr). Mean QALY gained was 0.005. One hundred forty-five patients (45%) had a QALY gain (mean = 0.117) at a cost of $62,175 per QALY gained; 127 patients (40%) had a loss in QALY (mean = -0.120) and 51 patients (15%) had no change in QALY. Fourteen of the 145 patients who improved, and 29 of the 178 patients who did not, have medical comorbidities that precluded surgery. Thirty-two (22%) of 131 patients without medical comorbidities who improved and 57 (32%) of 149 patients without medical comorbidities who did not improve subsequently had undergone surgery (P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: LESI may not be cost-effective in patients with lumbar degenerative disorders. For the 145 patients who improved, cost per QALY gained was acceptable at $62,175. However, for the 178 patients with no gain or a loss in QALY, the economics are not reportable with a cost per QALY gained being theoretically infinite. Further studies are needed to identify specific patient populations who will benefit from LESI because the economic viability of LESI requires improved patient selection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Cost Utility Analysis of Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation, Central Spinal Stenosis, and Axial or Discogenic Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Cost utility or cost effective analysis continues to take center stage in the United States for defining and measuring the value of treatments in interventional pain management. Appropriate cost utility analysis has been performed for caudal epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation. However, the literature pertaining to lumbar interlaminar epidural injections is lacking, specifically in reference to cost utility analysis derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a pragmatic approach in a practical setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost utility of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic low back and/or lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and axial or discogenic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis based on 3 previously published randomized trials of effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections assessing their role in disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and axial or discogenic pain. SETTING: A contemporary, private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States. METHODS: Cost utility of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing lumbar disc herniation, central spinal stenosis, and discogenic or axial low back pain was conducted with data derived from 3 RCTs that included a 2-year follow-up, with inclusion of 360 patients. The primary outcome was significant improvement defined as at least a 50% in pain reduction and disability status. Direct payment data from 2016 was utilized for assessment of procedural costs. Overall costs, including drug costs, were determined by multiplication of direct procedural payment data by a factor of 1.6 to accommodate for indirect payments respectively for disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain. RESULTS: The results of 3 RCTs showed direct cost utility for one year of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $2,050.87 for disc herniation, $2,112.25 for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, and $1,773.28 for spinal stenosis, with an average cost per one year QALY of $1,976.58, with total estimated costs of $3,425, $3,527, $2,961, and $3,301 respectively. LIMITATIONS: The limitation of this cost utility analysis includes that it is a single center evaluation, even though 360 patients were included in this analysis. Further, only the costs of interventional procedures and physician visits were assessed based on the data, with extrapolation of indirect costs presenting the overall total costs. The benefits of returning to work were not assessed. CONCLUSION: This cost utility analysis of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in patients nonresponsive to conservative management in the treatment of disc herniation, central spinal stenosis, and axial or discogenic low back pain in the lumbar spine shows the clinical effectiveness and cost utility of these injections of $1,976.58 for direct costs with a total cost of $3,301 per QALY.

Epidural steroid injections: update on efficacy, safety, and newer medications for injection.

The best evidence for epidural injection appears to be in the setting of radicular pain with epidural steroid and non-steroid injections more efficacious than non-epidural injections. Studies showed the efficacy of non-particulate steroid to approach the efficacy of particulate steroid and very limited comparisons demonstrated no significant difference between epidural steroid and epidural non-steroid (local anesthetic) injection. Preliminary studies evaluating epidural injection of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs such etanercept and tocilizumab showed conflicting results and had significant limitations. Randomized studies support better efficacy of transforaminal injection due to greater incidence of ventral epidural spread of injectate when compared to interlaminar injection. Thus, the transforaminal approach is recommended when unilateral radicular pain is limited to one nerve root. However, the transforaminal approach is associated with greater incidence of central nervous system injury, including paraplegia, attributed to embolization of the particulate steroid. Recent studies showed that non-particulate steroids potentially last as long as particulate steroids. Therefore non-particulate steroid should be used in initial transforaminal epidural injection. Future studies should look into the role of adjunct diagnostic aids, including digital subtraction angiography, in detecting intravascular injection and the ideal site of needle placement, whether it is the safe triangle or the triangle of Kambin. Finally, the role of epidural disease -modifying antirheumatic drugs in the management of back pain needs to be better elucidated.

Assessment of the growth of epidural injections in the medicare population from 2000 to 2011.

BACKGROUND: Among the many diagnostic and therapeutic interventions available for the management of chronic pain, epidural steroid injections are one of the most commonly used modalities. The explosive growth of this technique is relevant in light of the high cost of health care in the United States and abroad, the previous literature assessing the effectiveness of epidural injections has been sparse with highly variable outcomes based on technique, outcome measures, patient selection, and methodology. However, the recent assessment of fluoroscopically directed epidural injections has shown improved evidence with proper inclusion criteria, methodology, and outcome measures. The exponential growth of epidural injections is illustrated in multiple reports. The present report is an update of the analysis of the growth of epidural injections in the Medicare population from 2000 to 2011 in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of utilization patterns of epidural procedures in the Medicare population in the United States from 2000 to 2011. OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the use of all types of epidural injections (i.e., caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal in the lumbar, cervical, and thoracic regions) with an assessment of specialty and regional characteristics. METHODS: This assessment was performed utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master data from 2000 to 2011. RESULTS: Epidural injections in Medicare beneficiaries increased significantly from 2000 to 2011. Overall, epidural injections increased 130% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries with an annual increase of 7.5%. The increases per 100,000 Medicare recipients were 123% for cervical/thoracic interlaminar epidural injections; 25% for lumbar/sacral interlaminar, or caudal epidural injections; 142% for cervical/thoracic transforaminal epidural injections; and 665% for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidural injections. The use of epidurals increased 224% in the radiologic specialties (interventional radiology and diagnostic radiology) and 145% in psychiatric settings, whereas and physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians' use of epidurals increased 520%. LIMITATIONS: Study limitatations include lack of inclusion of Medicare Advantage patients. In addition, the statewide data is based on claims which may include the contiguous or other states. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural injections in Medicare recipients increased significantly. The growth was significant for some specialties (radiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and psychiatry) and for certain procedures (lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections).

Symptomatic magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed lumbar disk herniation patients: a comparative effectiveness prospective observational study of 2 age- and sex-matched cohorts treated with either high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy or imaging-guided lumbar nerve root injections.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare self-reported pain and "improvement" of patients with symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed, lumbar disk herniations treated with either high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) or nerve root injections (NRI). METHODS: This prospective cohort comparative effectiveness study included 102 age- and sex-matched patients treated with either NRI or SMT. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain data were collected before treatment. One month after treatment, current NRS pain levels and overall improvement assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale were recorded. The proportion of patients, "improved" or "worse," was calculated for each treatment. Comparison of pretreatment and 1-month NRS scores used the paired t test. Numerical rating scale and NRS change scores for the 2 groups were compared using the unpaired t test. The groups were also compared for "improvement" using the χ(2) test. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Average direct procedure costs for each treatment were calculated. RESULTS: No significant differences for self-reported pain or improvement were found between the 2 groups. "Improvement" was reported in 76.5% of SMT patients and in 62.7% of the NRI group. Both groups reported significantly reduced NRS scores at 1 month (P = .0001). Average cost for treatment with SMT was Swiss Francs 533.77 (US $558.75) and Swiss Francs 697 (US $729.61) for NRI. CONCLUSIONS: Most SMT and NRI patients with radicular low back pain and magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed disk herniation matching symptomatic presentation reported significant and clinically relevant reduction in self-reported pain level and increased global perception of improvement. There were no significant differences in outcomes between NRI and SMT. When considering direct procedure costs, the average cost of SMT was slightly less expensive.

Cost utility analysis of caudal epidural injections in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, axial or discogenic low back pain, central spinal stenosis, and post lumbar surgery syndrome.

BACKGROUND: In this era of escalating health care costs and the questionable effectiveness of multiple interventions, cost effectiveness or cost utility analysis has become the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, and has an influence coverage decisions. Even though multiple cost effectiveness analysis studies have been performed over the years, extensive literature is lacking for interventional techniques. Cost utility analysis studies of epidural injections for managing chronic low back pain demonstrated highly variable results including a lack of cost utility in randomized trials and contrasting results in observational studies. There has not been any cost utility analysis studies of epidural injections in large randomized trials performed in interventional pain management settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost utility of caudal epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation, axial or discogenic low back pain, lumbar central spinal stenosis, and lumbar post surgery syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: This analysis is based on 4 previously published randomized trials. SETTING: A private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States. METHODS: Four randomized trials were conducted assessing the clinical effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids for lumbar disc herniation, lumbar discogenic or axial low back pain, lumbar central spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome. A cost utility analysis was performed with direct payment data for a total of 480 patients over a period of 2 years from these 4 trials. Outcome included various measures with significant improvement defined as at least a 50% improvement in pain reduction and disability status. RESULTS: The results of 4 randomized controlled trials of low back pain with 480 patients with a 2 year follow-up with the actual reimbursement data showed cost utility for one year of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $2,206 for disc herniation, $2,136 for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, $2,155 for central spinal stenosis, and $2,191 for post surgery syndrome. All patients showed significant improvement clinically and showed positive results in the cost utility analysis with an average cost per one year QALY of $2,172.50 for all patients and $1,966.03 for patients judged to be successful. The results of this assessment show a better cost utility or lower cost of managing chronic, intractable low back pain with caudal epidural injections at a QALY that is similar or lower in price than medical therapy only, physical therapy, manipulation, and surgery in most cases. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this cost utility analysis include that it is a single center evaluation, even though 480 patients were included in the analysis. Further, only the costs of interventional procedures and physician visits were included. The benefits of returning to work were not assessed. CONCLUSION:   This cost utility analysis of caudal epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation, axial or discogenic low back pain, central spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome in the lumbar spine shows the clinical effectiveness and cost utility of these injections at less than $2,200 per one year of QALY.

Analysis of the growth of epidural injections and costs in the Medicare population: a comparative evaluation of 1997, 2002, and 2006 data.

BACKGROUND: Interventional techniques for the treatment of spinal techniques are commonly used and are increasing exponentially. Epidural injections and facet joint interventions are the 2 most commonly utilized procedures in interventional pain management. The current literature regarding the effectiveness of epidural injections is sparse with highly variable outcomes based on the technique, outcome measures, patient selection, and methodology. Multiple reports have illustrated the exponential growth of lumbosacral injections with significant geographic variations in the administration of epidural injections in Medicare patients. However, an analysis of the growth of epidural injections and costs in the Medicare population has not been performed with recent data and has not been looked at from an interventional pain management perspective. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of epidural injection growth and costs in Medicare's population 1997, 2002, and 2006. OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of all types of epidural injections (i.e. caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal in lumbar, cervical and thoracic regions), and other epidural procedures, including epidural adhesiolysis. In addition, the purpose was to identify trends in the number of procedures, reimbursement, specialty involvement, fluoroscopy use, and indications from 1997 to 2006. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 5% national sample carrier claim record data from 1997, 2002, and 2006 was utilized. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Outcome measures included Medicare beneficiaries' characteristics receiving epidural injections, epidural injections by place of service, type of specialty, reimbursement characteristics, and other variables. RESULTS: Epidural injections increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2006. Patients receiving epidurals increased by 106.3%; visits per 100,000 population increased 102.7%. Hospital outpatient department (HOPD) payments increased significantly; ASC average payments decreased; overall payments increased. The increase in procedures performed by general physicians outpaced that of interventional pain management (IPM) physicians. LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include no Medicare Advantage patients; potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural injections grew significantly. This growth appears to coincide with chronic low back pain growth and other treatments for low back pain. Since many procedures are performed without fluoroscopy, continued growth and inappropriate provision of services might reduce access.

Increases in lumbosacral injections in the Medicare population: 1994 to 2001.

STUDY DESIGN: Anecdotal reports and limited data suggest that the use of spinal injections is increasing, despite equivocal evidence about efficacy. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate trends in lumbosacral injection use for low back pain, including the specialties providing the injections and the costs of care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The current literature reports success rates of 18% to 90% for lumbosacral steroid injections, depending on methodology, outcome measures, patient selection, and technique. Preliminary data suggest that spinal injection rates are rising, despite ambiguity in the literature regarding their clinical effectiveness. METHODS: We used Medicare Physician Part B claims for 1994 through 2001 to examine the use of epidural steroid injections (ESI), facet joint injections, sacroiliac joint injections, and related fluoroscopy. Fee-for-service Medicare enrollees 65 years of age and older were included in this study. We used Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes to identify the number of procedures performed each year, as well as trends in expenditures, physician specialties involved, and diagnoses assigned. RESULTS: Between 1994 and 2001, there was a 271% increase in lumbar ESIs, from 553 of 100,000 to 2055 of 100,000 patients, and a 231% increase in facet injections from 80 of 100,000 to 264 of 100,000 patients. The total inflation-adjusted reimbursed costs (professional fees only) for lumbosacral injections increased from $24 million to over $175 million. Also, costs per injection doubled, from $115 to $227 per injection. Forty percent of all ESIs were associated with diagnosis codes for sciatica, radiculopathy, or herniated disc, whereas axial low back pain diagnoses accounted for 36%, and spinal stenosis for 23%. CONCLUSION: Lumbosacral injections increased dramatically in the Medicare population from 1994 to 2001. Less than half were performed for sciatica or radiculopathy, where the greatest evidence of benefit is available. These findings suggest a lack of consensus regarding the indications for ESIs and are cause for concern given the large expenditures for these procedures.

Chronic pain of spinal origin: the costs of intervention.

The cost of chronic benign spinal pain is large and growing. The costs of interventional treatment for spinal pain were at a minimum of $13 billion (U.S. dollars) in 1990, and the costs are growing at least 7% per year. Medical treatment of chronic pain costs $9000 to $19,000 per person per year. The costs of interventional therapy is calculated. Methods of evaluating differential treatments in terms of costs are described. Cost-minimization versus cost-effectiveness approaches are described. Spinal cord stimulation and intraspinal drug infusion systems are alternatives that can be justified on a cost basis. Cost minimization analysis suggests that epidural injections under fluoroscopy may not be justified by the current literature.

Does the method of injection alter the outcome of epidural injections?

A pilot study involving 44 patients with low back and leg pain was performed to compare the relative efficacy of epidural caudal and lumbar injections.

A pragmatic cost-effectiveness study of routine epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbosciatic syndrome requiring inhospital management.

A multicenter randomized study was conducted using a pragmatic approach to evaluate the benefits and costs of routine epidural corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbosciatic syndrome requiring inhospital management. The primary evaluation criterion was whether other treatments were required after one to three injections. The 108 patients were randomly allocated to treatment with or without routine epidural corticosteroids. Rest and a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug were used in all patients. The two groups were comparable at baseline except for a larger proportion of males in the routine epidural corticosteroid group. Patients in the routine epidural corticosteroid group were more likely to require other treatments, but the difference was only of borderline significance after adjustment for gender. Results showed that physicians based their treatment decisions primarily on whether an improvement in the clinical status of the patient was apparent at the second visit. None of the other factors studied influenced treatment decisions. Clinical efficacy criteria were identical in the two groups. Hospital costs contributed most of the total cost, and the mean cost was higher in the routine epidural corticosteroid group. These data suggest that adding an epidural injection as a first-line treatment to rest and a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug for the treatment of lumbosciatic syndrome requiring inhospital management results in additional costs and no gain in efficacy.