Systemic corticosteroids for radicular and non-radicular low back pain.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 10 2022
21 10 2022
Historique:
entrez:
21
10
2022
pubmed:
22
10
2022
medline:
26
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Corticosteroids are medications with anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant properties. Systemic corticosteroids administered through the oral, intravenous, or intramuscular routes have been used to treat various types of low back pain, including radicular back pain (not due to spinal stenosis), non-radicular back pain, and spinal stenosis. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain. To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid for radicular low back pain, non-radicular low back pain, and symptomatic spinal stenosis in adults. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was September 2021. We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials in adults of systematic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid. We used standard Cochrane methods. The major outcomes were pain, function, need for surgery, serious adverse effect, and presence of hyperglycemia. The minor outcomes were quality of life, successful outcomes, non-serious adverse events, and withdrawal due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Thirteen trials (1047 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Nine trials included participants with radicular low back pain, two trial with low back pain, and two trials with spinal stenosis. All trials blinded participants to receipt of systemic corticosteroids. Seven trials were at low risk of bias, five at unclear risk, and one at high risk of selection bias. Two trials were at high risk of attrition bias. Doses and duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy varied. Radicular low back pain For radicular low back pain, moderate-certainty evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly decrease pain versus placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.56 points better, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 0.04 on a 0 to 10 scale) and may slightly increase the likelihood of experiencing improvement in pain at short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.66; absolute effect 5% better (95% CI 5% worse to 15% better). Systemic corticosteroids may not improve function at short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.14 better; range 0.49 better to 0.21 worse) and probably increase the likelihood of improvement in function at short-term follow-up (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; absolute effect 19% better, 95% CI 8% better to 30% better). Systemic corticosteroids were associated with greater improvement in function versus placebo at long-term follow-up (MD -7.40, 95% CI -12.55 to -2.25 on the 0 to 100 Oswestry Disability Index) and greater likelihood of functional improvement (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56), based on a single trial. There was no difference in likelihood of surgery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47). Evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids (administered as a single dose or as a short course of therapy) are not associated with increased risk of any adverse event, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, or hyperglycemia, but estimates were imprecise as some trials did not report harms, and harms reporting was suboptimal in trials that did provide data. Limitations included variability across trials in interventions (e.g. corticosteroid used, dose and duration of treatment), clinical settings, and participants (e.g. duration of symptoms, methods for diagnosis); limited utility of subgroup analyses due to small numbers of trials; methodologic limitations or suboptimal reporting of methods by some trials; and too few trials to formally assess for publication bias using graphical or statistical tests for small sample effects. Non-radicular low back pain Evidence on systemic corticosteroids versus placebo for non-radicular pain was limited and suggested that systemic corticosteroids may be associated with slightly worse short-term pain but slightly better function. Spinal stenosis For spinal stenosis, limited evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids are probably no more effective than placebo for short-term pain or function. Systemic corticosteroids appear to be slightly effective at improving short-term pain and function in people with radicular low back pain not due to spinal stenosis, and might slightly improve long-term function. The effects of systemic corticosteroids in people with non-radicular low back pain are unclear and systemic corticosteroids are probably ineffective for spinal stenosis. A single dose or short course of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain does not appear to cause serious harms, but evidence is limited.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids are medications with anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant properties. Systemic corticosteroids administered through the oral, intravenous, or intramuscular routes have been used to treat various types of low back pain, including radicular back pain (not due to spinal stenosis), non-radicular back pain, and spinal stenosis. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid for radicular low back pain, non-radicular low back pain, and symptomatic spinal stenosis in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was September 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials in adults of systematic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. The major outcomes were pain, function, need for surgery, serious adverse effect, and presence of hyperglycemia. The minor outcomes were quality of life, successful outcomes, non-serious adverse events, and withdrawal due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen trials (1047 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Nine trials included participants with radicular low back pain, two trial with low back pain, and two trials with spinal stenosis. All trials blinded participants to receipt of systemic corticosteroids. Seven trials were at low risk of bias, five at unclear risk, and one at high risk of selection bias. Two trials were at high risk of attrition bias. Doses and duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy varied. Radicular low back pain For radicular low back pain, moderate-certainty evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly decrease pain versus placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.56 points better, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 0.04 on a 0 to 10 scale) and may slightly increase the likelihood of experiencing improvement in pain at short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.66; absolute effect 5% better (95% CI 5% worse to 15% better). Systemic corticosteroids may not improve function at short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.14 better; range 0.49 better to 0.21 worse) and probably increase the likelihood of improvement in function at short-term follow-up (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; absolute effect 19% better, 95% CI 8% better to 30% better). Systemic corticosteroids were associated with greater improvement in function versus placebo at long-term follow-up (MD -7.40, 95% CI -12.55 to -2.25 on the 0 to 100 Oswestry Disability Index) and greater likelihood of functional improvement (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56), based on a single trial. There was no difference in likelihood of surgery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47). Evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids (administered as a single dose or as a short course of therapy) are not associated with increased risk of any adverse event, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, or hyperglycemia, but estimates were imprecise as some trials did not report harms, and harms reporting was suboptimal in trials that did provide data. Limitations included variability across trials in interventions (e.g. corticosteroid used, dose and duration of treatment), clinical settings, and participants (e.g. duration of symptoms, methods for diagnosis); limited utility of subgroup analyses due to small numbers of trials; methodologic limitations or suboptimal reporting of methods by some trials; and too few trials to formally assess for publication bias using graphical or statistical tests for small sample effects. Non-radicular low back pain Evidence on systemic corticosteroids versus placebo for non-radicular pain was limited and suggested that systemic corticosteroids may be associated with slightly worse short-term pain but slightly better function. Spinal stenosis For spinal stenosis, limited evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids are probably no more effective than placebo for short-term pain or function.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Systemic corticosteroids appear to be slightly effective at improving short-term pain and function in people with radicular low back pain not due to spinal stenosis, and might slightly improve long-term function. The effects of systemic corticosteroids in people with non-radicular low back pain are unclear and systemic corticosteroids are probably ineffective for spinal stenosis. A single dose or short course of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain does not appear to cause serious harms, but evidence is limited.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36269125
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012450.pub2
pmc: PMC9585990
doi:
Substances chimiques
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
0
Immunosuppressive Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD012450Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Aug 15;33(18):E624-9
pubmed: 18665021
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jan 1;33(1):90-4
pubmed: 18165753
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Nov 1;45(21):E1405-E1415
pubmed: 32890301
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Nov 1;31(23):2724-7
pubmed: 17077742
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011 Sep;50(9):1603-11
pubmed: 21525139
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Oct 21;10:CD012450
pubmed: 36269125
JAMA. 2015 May 19;313(19):1915-23
pubmed: 25988461
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Nov 03;5:35
pubmed: 16269081
J Am Board Fam Med. 2008 Sep-Oct;21(5):469-74
pubmed: 18772303
J Emerg Med. 2014 Jul;47(1):65-70
pubmed: 24739318
Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Jun;64(6):2028-37
pubmed: 22231424
Eur J Pain. 2020 Mar;24(3):518-535
pubmed: 31715647
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2008 Mar;20(2):131-7
pubmed: 18349741
Medwave. 2021 Apr 7;21(3):e8149
pubmed: 35380557
Scand J Rheumatol. 1979;8(3):142-4
pubmed: 386492
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1975 Dec;38(12):1211-7
pubmed: 1219086
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Aug;76:108-17
pubmed: 26931293
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 26;372(13):1240-8
pubmed: 25806916
BMJ. 2021 Jan 20;372:m4825
pubmed: 33472813
Int J Rehabil Res. 2020 Dec;43(4):342-346
pubmed: 32897933
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Feb 15;31(4):377-81
pubmed: 16481946
Arch Psychiatr Nervenkr (1970). 1982;231(4):359-67
pubmed: 6214237
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3110-4
pubmed: 11124726
J Pain. 2014 Jun;15(6):569-85
pubmed: 24787228
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Jan 1;29(1):79-86
pubmed: 14699281
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Apr 4;166(7):514-530
pubmed: 28192789
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Apr 1;34(7):718-24
pubmed: 19282797
CMAJ. 2012 Aug 7;184(11):E613-24
pubmed: 22586331
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 2;147(7):478-91
pubmed: 17909209
JAMA. 2008 Feb 13;299(6):656-64
pubmed: 18270354
Neurology. 1986 Dec;36(12):1593-4
pubmed: 2946981
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Sep 1;163(5):373-81
pubmed: 26302454
J Emerg Med. 2006 Nov;31(4):365-70
pubmed: 17046475
Phys Ther. 2016 Oct;96(10):1620-1637
pubmed: 27081203
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Feb 1;154(3):181-9
pubmed: 21282698
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Oct;161(4):551-560
pubmed: 31159641
J Negat Results Biomed. 2014 Aug 07;13:13
pubmed: 25099318
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Feb 16;(2):CD008112
pubmed: 21328304
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Oct;27(10):1403-1404
pubmed: 31153985
Clin Orthop Surg. 2016 Sep;8(3):262-7
pubmed: 27583108
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Nov 15;35(24):E1406-11
pubmed: 21030902
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Oct 1;137(7):586-97
pubmed: 12353946
Acta Neurol Scand. 1982 Jan;65(1):6-10
pubmed: 7039210
Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Nov 14;55(11):
pubmed: 31739434
Emerg Med J. 2015 Jul;32(7):525-30
pubmed: 25122642
Eur J Pharmacol. 2008 May 13;585(2-3):483-91
pubmed: 18410913
BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 23;10(6):e040559
pubmed: 32580990
Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jul;76(7):1269-1278
pubmed: 28153830
J Clin Rheumatol. 2021 Oct 1;27(7):282-285
pubmed: 31985722
Anesthesiology. 1995 Apr;82(4):896-902
pubmed: 7717561
BMJ. 2011 Jul 22;343:d4002
pubmed: 21784880
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Nov;40(21):1660-73
pubmed: 26208232