A PRAGMATIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDY OF ROUTINE EPIDURAL CORTICOSTEROID INJECTIONS FOR LUMBOSCIATIC SYNDROME REQUIRING INHOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

Citation
A. Lafuma et al., A PRAGMATIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDY OF ROUTINE EPIDURAL CORTICOSTEROID INJECTIONS FOR LUMBOSCIATIC SYNDROME REQUIRING INHOSPITAL MANAGEMENT, Revue du rhumatisme, 64(10), 1997, pp. 549-555
Citations number
19
Categorie Soggetti
Rheumatology
Journal title
ISSN journal
11698446
Volume
64
Issue
10
Year of publication
1997
Pages
549 - 555
Database
ISI
SICI code
1169-8446(1997)64:10<549:APCSOR>2.0.ZU;2-K
Abstract
A multicenter randomized study was conducted using a pragmatic approac h to evaluate the benefits and costs of routine epidural corticosteroi d injections for the treatment of lumbosciatic syndrome requiring inho spital management, The primary evaluation criterion was whether other treatments were required after one to three injections, The 108 patien ts were randomly allocated to treatment with or without routine epidur al corticosteroids. Rest and a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug were used in all patients, The two groups were comparable at baseline exce pt for a larger proportion of males in the routine epidural corticoste roid 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 t he second visit, None of the other factors studied influenced treatmen t decisions, Clinical efficacy criteria were identical in the two grou ps, Hospital costs contributed most of the total cost, and the mean co st was higher in the routine epidural corticosteroid group, These data suggest that adding an epidural injection as a first-line treatment t o rest and a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug for the treatment of l umbosciatic syndrome requiring inhospital management results in additi onal costs and no gain in efficacy.