The Efficacy of Oral Steroids in the Treatment of Acute Sciatica
NCT ID: NCT00317447
Last Updated: 2006-04-24
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
COMPLETED
Clinical Phase
PHASE3
Total Enrollment
160 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2002-02-28
Study Completion Date
2004-04-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Sciatica (lumbosacral radiculopathy) is a common diagnosis in primary care, occurring in approximately one percent of all patients with acute low back pain. (1, 2) Traditional treatment generally involves pain control (acetominophen, NSAID's, or narcotics), activity as tolerated, and time. (1, 3-8 ) The general consensus is that fifty percent of patients with sciatica recover within six weeks, and that ninety percent are better in twelve weeks.(4, 8) Those patients with intractable pain or progressive neurologic symptoms usually receive epidural steroid injections and, if necessary, decompressive laminectomy or discectomy. (2, 8, 9)
Low back pain and sciatica result in tremendous losses to our society in terms of decreased productivity and cost of treatment. (1, 12) Oral steroids are inexpensive and relatively safe medications that, if effective in reducing the pain and disability associated with sciatica, could improve the quality of patients' lives, and result in significant cost savings to society at large. We hypothesize that the use of oral steroids to treat acute sciatica will speed patients' recovery as measured by: changes in physical findings, rates of return to work and activities of daily living, pain and disability assessment scores, and decreases in the use of narcotic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID's), and in the need for epidural injection or surgical intervention.
Low back pain and sciatica result in tremendous losses to our society in terms of decreased productivity and cost of treatment. (1, 12) Oral steroids are inexpensive and relatively safe medications that, if effective in reducing the pain and disability associated with sciatica, could improve the quality of patients' lives, and result in significant cost savings to society at large. We hypothesize that the use of oral steroids to treat acute sciatica will speed patients' recovery as measured by: changes in physical findings, rates of return to work and activities of daily living, pain and disability assessment scores, and decreases in the use of narcotic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID's), and in the need for epidural injection or surgical intervention.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Inclusion Criteria
To be included in this study patients had to have a diagnosis of acute sciatica as determined by the principle investigator based on the following criteria: unilateral leg pain extending below the knee (with or without strength, sensory, or reflex changes), and a positive straight leg raising sign (defined as as pain radiating from the buttock to below the knee with elevation of the leg between zero and sixty degrees). Patients had to be between twenty and sixty years of age, and had to be entered in \[recruited into\] the study within one week of the onset of their symptoms.
Exclusion Criteria
Patients were excluded from the study if they were pregnant or had a history of diabetes, renal failure, upper gastro-intestinal bleed, or major psychiatric disease. Patients also had to be free of symptoms suggesting more serious underlying disease as defined by the United States Agency for Healthcare Policy Research document: "Acute Low Back Problems In Adults". (11) "Red Flag" symptoms" included: a history of cancer, unexplained weight loss, fever or chills, night sweats, a history of intravenous drug use, saddle anesthesia, bowel or bladder incontinence, bone pathology, or a Neurologic emergency. Additionally, patients could be excluded for any condition that the principle investigator thought might jeopardize their safety.
Randomization and Blinding
Once the diagnosis of acute sciatica had been confirmed, subjects were randomized to receive either a nine day tapering course of prednisone or placebo capsules. The principle investigator and research nurse were blinded as to group assignment. All subjects received current standard therapy for sciatica, including: a NSAID (ibuprofen, naproxen, etodolac, or nambumetone), narcotics if needed (hydrocodone, propoxyphene, oxycodone, or morphine), activity as tolerated, and a referral for physical therapy.
Study Design
Upon entering the study all patients underwent physical exam with attention to: straight leg raising test (positive or negative), contralateral straight leg raising (positive or negative), knee and ankle stretch reflexes (0-3+), foot sensation (normal or decreased), strength (0-5) of quadriceps, foot dorsiflexors, foot plantar flexors, and ability to perform five heel lifts (0-5). Patients also completed three written instruments: a "12 Item Health Status Questionnaire" (13), a "Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire" (14), and a "Roland-Morris Pain Rating Scale" (14). Also noted at the intake visit and each subsequent visit were the number of hours each patient was working or, if they were not employed or were retired, their estimated percent of daily living activities they were able to accomplish. Lastly, note was made of whether the patient had undergone epidural steroid injection or surgical intervention since the previous visit. Each patient underwent the same exam and completed the same questionnaires weekly for four weeks post recruitment, and then monthly for five months. This led to a total of 6 months of follow-up.
All patients received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication and narcotic medication if needed for pain control. Patients randomized to the study group received tapering course of prednisone: 60 mg for three days, 40 mg for three days, and 20 mg for three days. Patients randomized to the control (placebo) group received capsules identical in appearance to the prednisone capsules but containing an inert filler substance. Patients were questioned at each visit to determine whether they were taking their study medication (first nine days of the study) and whether they were still taking non-steroidal or narcotic medication (entire study).
Patients were encouraged to begin non-weight-bearing aerobic activities such as swimming and/or bike riding as soon as their pain had subsided to a reasonable degree. At this point, patients generally also referred to see a physical therapist.
Patients who had rapid improvement and were under fifty generally did not have any imaging studies performed. Project staff ordered plain films of the lumbosacral spine for most patients over age 50 . Irrespective of age, patients who had intractable pain or progressive neurologic symptoms generally had plain films of the lumbosacral spine done and also underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A separate analysis of pain level ratings, narcotic and NSAID use, and return to work rates, was performed for this subgroup with the thought that they probably represented patients with the most severe nerve root inflammation and that the effects of oral prednisone might be more or less obvious in this group.
Statistical power analysis
Statistical power analysis was performed with the primary outcome of return to work within 14 days of the intervention. The proportion of the control group returning to work was hypothesized to be 50%. Oral prednisone was hypothesized to have a 50% treatment effect, resulting in a 75% rate of return to work within 14 days. Using chi square with continuity correction, statistical power analysis found that a (study and control group) sample size of 80 per subgroup would have a power of 88% to find this difference (i.e., between 50% and 75%)statistically significant at p\<.05.
To be included in this study patients had to have a diagnosis of acute sciatica as determined by the principle investigator based on the following criteria: unilateral leg pain extending below the knee (with or without strength, sensory, or reflex changes), and a positive straight leg raising sign (defined as as pain radiating from the buttock to below the knee with elevation of the leg between zero and sixty degrees). Patients had to be between twenty and sixty years of age, and had to be entered in \[recruited into\] the study within one week of the onset of their symptoms.
Exclusion Criteria
Patients were excluded from the study if they were pregnant or had a history of diabetes, renal failure, upper gastro-intestinal bleed, or major psychiatric disease. Patients also had to be free of symptoms suggesting more serious underlying disease as defined by the United States Agency for Healthcare Policy Research document: "Acute Low Back Problems In Adults". (11) "Red Flag" symptoms" included: a history of cancer, unexplained weight loss, fever or chills, night sweats, a history of intravenous drug use, saddle anesthesia, bowel or bladder incontinence, bone pathology, or a Neurologic emergency. Additionally, patients could be excluded for any condition that the principle investigator thought might jeopardize their safety.
Randomization and Blinding
Once the diagnosis of acute sciatica had been confirmed, subjects were randomized to receive either a nine day tapering course of prednisone or placebo capsules. The principle investigator and research nurse were blinded as to group assignment. All subjects received current standard therapy for sciatica, including: a NSAID (ibuprofen, naproxen, etodolac, or nambumetone), narcotics if needed (hydrocodone, propoxyphene, oxycodone, or morphine), activity as tolerated, and a referral for physical therapy.
Study Design
Upon entering the study all patients underwent physical exam with attention to: straight leg raising test (positive or negative), contralateral straight leg raising (positive or negative), knee and ankle stretch reflexes (0-3+), foot sensation (normal or decreased), strength (0-5) of quadriceps, foot dorsiflexors, foot plantar flexors, and ability to perform five heel lifts (0-5). Patients also completed three written instruments: a "12 Item Health Status Questionnaire" (13), a "Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire" (14), and a "Roland-Morris Pain Rating Scale" (14). Also noted at the intake visit and each subsequent visit were the number of hours each patient was working or, if they were not employed or were retired, their estimated percent of daily living activities they were able to accomplish. Lastly, note was made of whether the patient had undergone epidural steroid injection or surgical intervention since the previous visit. Each patient underwent the same exam and completed the same questionnaires weekly for four weeks post recruitment, and then monthly for five months. This led to a total of 6 months of follow-up.
All patients received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication and narcotic medication if needed for pain control. Patients randomized to the study group received tapering course of prednisone: 60 mg for three days, 40 mg for three days, and 20 mg for three days. Patients randomized to the control (placebo) group received capsules identical in appearance to the prednisone capsules but containing an inert filler substance. Patients were questioned at each visit to determine whether they were taking their study medication (first nine days of the study) and whether they were still taking non-steroidal or narcotic medication (entire study).
Patients were encouraged to begin non-weight-bearing aerobic activities such as swimming and/or bike riding as soon as their pain had subsided to a reasonable degree. At this point, patients generally also referred to see a physical therapist.
Patients who had rapid improvement and were under fifty generally did not have any imaging studies performed. Project staff ordered plain films of the lumbosacral spine for most patients over age 50 . Irrespective of age, patients who had intractable pain or progressive neurologic symptoms generally had plain films of the lumbosacral spine done and also underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A separate analysis of pain level ratings, narcotic and NSAID use, and return to work rates, was performed for this subgroup with the thought that they probably represented patients with the most severe nerve root inflammation and that the effects of oral prednisone might be more or less obvious in this group.
Statistical power analysis
Statistical power analysis was performed with the primary outcome of return to work within 14 days of the intervention. The proportion of the control group returning to work was hypothesized to be 50%. Oral prednisone was hypothesized to have a 50% treatment effect, resulting in a 75% rate of return to work within 14 days. Using chi square with continuity correction, statistical power analysis found that a (study and control group) sample size of 80 per subgroup would have a power of 88% to find this difference (i.e., between 50% and 75%)statistically significant at p\<.05.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Sciatica
Keywords
Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.
Sciatica
Lower back pain
Prednisone
Randomized, controlled clinical trial
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
DOUBLE
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Oral Prednisone
Intervention Type
DRUG
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
A diagnosis of acute sciatica as determined by the principle investigator based on the following criteria:
unilateral leg pain extending below the knee (with or without strength, sensory, or reflex changes); and
a positive straight leg raising sign (defined as as pain radiating from the buttock to below the knee with elevation of the leg between zero and sixty degrees)
recruited into the study within one week of the onset of symptoms
unilateral leg pain extending below the knee (with or without strength, sensory, or reflex changes); and
a positive straight leg raising sign (defined as as pain radiating from the buttock to below the knee with elevation of the leg between zero and sixty degrees)
recruited into the study within one week of the onset of symptoms
Exclusion Criteria
Current pregnancy
A history of:
diabetes renal failure upper gastro-intestinal bleed major psychiatric disease
Presence of any 'red flag' symptoms suggestive of more serious underlying disease as defined by the United States Agency for Healthcare Policy Research document: "Acute Low Back Problems In Adults" (11) including:
a history of cancer
unexplained weight loss
fever or chills
night sweats
a history of intravenous drug use, saddle anesthesia, bowel or bladder incontinence, bone pathology, or a Neurologic emergency.
Any condition that the principle investigator thought might jeopardize the patient's safety
A history of:
diabetes renal failure upper gastro-intestinal bleed major psychiatric disease
Presence of any 'red flag' symptoms suggestive of more serious underlying disease as defined by the United States Agency for Healthcare Policy Research document: "Acute Low Back Problems In Adults" (11) including:
a history of cancer
unexplained weight loss
fever or chills
night sweats
a history of intravenous drug use, saddle anesthesia, bowel or bladder incontinence, bone pathology, or a Neurologic emergency.
Any condition that the principle investigator thought might jeopardize the patient's safety
Minimum Eligible Age
20 Years
Maximum Eligible Age
60 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Kaiser Permanente
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Richard Holve, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Kaiser Permanente
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Kaiser-Permanente
Santa Rosa, California, United States
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
United States
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Frymoyer JW. Back pain and sciatica. N Engl J Med. 1988 Feb 4;318(5):291-300. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198802043180506. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Scheer SJ, Radack KL, O'Brien DR Jr. Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 2. Discogenic low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 Nov;77(11):1189-97. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90147-1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
USDHHS, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Acute low back problems in adults. Rockville, MD: AHCPR; 1994. AHCPR pub number 95-0642
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Daniels JM 2nd. Treatment of occupationally acquired low back pain. Am Fam Physician. 1997 Feb 1;55(2):587-96, 601-2.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Deyo RA. Conservative therapy for low back pain. Distinguishing useful from useless therapy. JAMA. 1983 Aug 26;250(8):1057-62.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Deyo RA. Back pain revisited. Newer thinking on diagnosis and therpapy. Consultant 1993 Feb:88-97
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Griffin G, Tudiver F, Grant WD. Do NSAIDs help in acute or chronic low back pain? Am Fam Physician. 2002 Apr 1;65(7):1319-21. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Weber H. The natural history of disc herniation and the influence of intervention. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Oct 1;19(19):2234-8; discussion 2233. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199410000-00022.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kraemer J. Natural course and prognosis of intervertebral disc diseases. International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine Seattle, Washington, June 1994. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Mar 15;20(6):635-9. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199503150-00001.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Guo HR, Tanaka S, Halperin WE, Cameron LL. Back pain prevalence in US industry and estimates of lost workdays. Am J Public Health. 1999 Jul;89(7):1029-35. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.7.1029.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Radosevich DM. An abbreviated health status questionnaire: the HSQ12. The Newsletter of the Health Outcomes Institute. 1995;2:1-4
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983 Mar;8(2):141-4. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Elashoff JD, NQuery Advisor Version 2.0, 2000, Statistical Solutions, Saugus MA
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Oral Steroid Tx Acute Sciatica
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id