Patient Priority Weighting of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire Does Not Change Results of the Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis Trial.

Makris UE, Edwards TC, Lavallee DC, Bauer Z, Comstock BA, Jarvik JG, Patrick DL, Lotfi M, Friedly JL. Patient Priority Weighting of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire Does Not Change Results of the Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis Trial. Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. : 1986). 2017 Jan 1; 42(1):42-48.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 14-425 – Improving Outcomes for Older Veterans with Chronic Back Pain and Depression

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of lumbar epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis randomized controlled trial data. OBJECTIVE: To reevaluate whether outcomes for older adults receiving epidural steroid injections with or without corticosteroid improve after using patient-prioritized Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) items. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms, despite limited evidence for their effectiveness in clinical trials. It is unclear whether evaluating patient-prioritized outcomes would alter results of a large clinical trial. METHODS: Outcomes from the trial of lumbar epidural corticosteroid injections for spinal stenosis (LESS) trial were reanalyzed using RDQ, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) weights assigned to the RDQ items, and patient-prioritized RDQ items. Differences between corticosteroid + lidocaine versus lidocaine-alone groups and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using analysis of covariance with adjustment for baseline values of the RDQ and recruitment site. RESULTS: At 6 weeks, both the corticosteroid + lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group had improvement in the RDQ scores (RDQ, RDQ using SIP weights, patient-prioritized RDQ) as compared with baseline scores (corticosteroid + lidocaine: -4.2 points, -4.1 points, -4.2; lidocaine-alone: -3.1 points, -2.9 points, and -3.1 points, respectively). However, there was no significant between-group difference in the RDQ or patient-prioritized RDQ (average treatment effect -1.0 points, 95% CI -2.1 to 0.1, P = 0.07; -1.0 points, 95% CI -2.0 to 0.1, P = 0.08, respectively). Although the between-group difference of RDQ using SIP weights was statistically significant (average treatment effect -1.1, 95% CI -2.2 to -0.1, P = 0.04), this was not clinically important. CONCLUSION: Results of the LESS trial did not substantively differ based on reanalysis of data using RDQ with SIP weights or patient-prioritized RDQ outcomes. This provides additional evidence that epidural injection of corticosteroid + lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone for older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.