Skip to content

A 3-arm Multi-center, Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Transforaminal Corticosteroid, Transforaminal Etanercept and Transforaminal Saline for Lumbosacral Radiculopathy

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00733096
Enrollment
84
Registered
2008-08-12
Start date
2008-08-31
Completion date
2011-03-31
Last updated
2012-10-08

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Lumbosacral Radiculopathy

Keywords

radiculopathy, sciatica, low back pain

Brief summary

Lumbosacral radiculopathy is one of the leading of cause of disability in the U.S. and worldwide. Among recent reviews evaluating epidural steroid injections, some 1 but not all 2 concluded them to be effective in the long-term. In our own double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating epidural etanercept, the results showed significant benefit in favor of the etanercept group, but no subject was included with a duration of pain \> 9 months, and the results of this study have yet to be replicated. Currently, epidural steroid injections are the most frequently performed procedures in pain clinics across the U.S. However, epidural steroids may benefit only a select group of patients. The literature on treating sciatica is notable for a lack of randomized comparative studies involving various treatments. The objective of this project is to conduct a 3-arm study to determine the efficacy of 1) transforaminal epidural corticosteroids; and 2) transforaminal epidural etanercept, in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy.

Detailed description

This is a 3-arm multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing two treatments with transforaminal epidural saline. Each group will receive a 2nd procedure identical to the first 2 weeks after the initial procedure. Seventy-eight study participants will be randomized via a computerized randomization system using SPSS software in groups of 6 at each institution by a research nurse not involved in patient care. There will be 26 patients in each of the 3 groups. A physician unaware of the patient's treatment group will place 22-gauge needles in the relevant foramen under fluoroscopic guidance as determined by patient's symptoms and MRI findings. Once correct placement is confirmed by contrast injection, the blinded physician will leave the room and another physician will inject the medication. In group I, this will be 60 mg of depo-methylprednisolone. In group II, this will be 4 mg of etanercept reconstituted in 2 ml of sterile water. In group III, this will be normal saline. Two weeks after the initial procedure, an identical procedure to the first one will be done by the same physician or his designate. In addition to the study medication, each patient in each group will receive 0.5 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine local anesthetic for immediate pain relief during both injections before the study drug is delivered. The efficacy of blinding will be assessed by a disinterested observer unaware of the randomization results after the second procedure before discharge. Follow-up visits will be conducted one, three and six months after the second injection, for those subjects who continue to experience \> 50% pain relief.

Interventions

DRUGetanercept

Two transforaminal epidural injections of 4 mg, two weeks apart

DRUGmethylprednisolone

Two transforaminal epidural steroid injections with 60 mg, two weeks apart

DRUGnormal saline

Two transforaminal epidural saline injections, two weeks apart

Sponsors

Walter Reed Army Medical Center
CollaboratorFED
National Naval Medical Center
CollaboratorFED
Womack Army Medical Center
CollaboratorFED
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
CollaboratorFED
Massachusetts General Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Johns Hopkins University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. Chronic low back pain of radicular origin of \> 4 weeks but \< 6 months duration. 2. Leg pain \> back pain. 3. Failure of conservative therapy to include physical and pharmacotherapy. 4. MRI evidence of a lateral or paracentral herniated disc corresponding to the patient's radicular symptoms.

Exclusion criteria

1. Uncontrolled coagulopathy. 2. Pregnancy, which will be ruled out by a urine pregnancy test in women of childbearing age. 3. Allergy to contrast dye or amide local anesthetics. 4. Previous epidural steroid injection within last year. 5. Unstable medical or psychiatric condition (e.g. unstable angina, congestive heart failure or severe depression) that could preclude an optimal treatment response. 6. Rheumatoid arthritis or spondylarthropathy. 7. Unstable neurological condition (e.g. multiple sclerosis) 8. Systemic infection

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Numerical Rating Leg Pain Score1 month0-10 pain score. 0= no pain, 10= worst imaginable pain.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Oswestry Disability Score1 month0-100%. 0= no disability, 100% is complete disability
Global Perceived Effect1 monthSatisfaction. Number of participants with positive perceived global satisfaction.
Medication Reduction1 monthNumber of people who reduced medications

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

84 patients were enrolled between 2008 and 2011

Pre-assignment details

80 patients were excluded before assignment

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Steroid
Two epidural steroid injections
28
Etanercept
Two epidural etanercept injections
26
Saline
Two epidural saline injections
30
Total84

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicSteroidEtanerceptSalineTotal
Age Continuous41.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.7
43.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.9
42.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.7
42.29 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.8
Region of Enrollment
United States
28 participants26 participants30 participants84 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
6 Participants8 Participants11 Participants25 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
22 Participants18 Participants19 Participants59 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
1 / 285 / 266 / 30
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 280 / 260 / 30

Outcome results

Primary

Numerical Rating Leg Pain Score

0-10 pain score. 0= no pain, 10= worst imaginable pain.

Time frame: 1 month

Population: Patients who received epidural steroid injections

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
SteroidNumerical Rating Leg Pain Score2.54 units on a scale
EtanerceptNumerical Rating Leg Pain Score3.56 units on a scale
SalineNumerical Rating Leg Pain Score3.78 units on a scale
Secondary

Global Perceived Effect

Satisfaction. Number of participants with positive perceived global satisfaction.

Time frame: 1 month

Population: Subjects who underwent epidural steroid injections

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SteroidGlobal Perceived Effect23 participants
EtanerceptGlobal Perceived Effect15 participants
SalineGlobal Perceived Effect17 participants
Secondary

Medication Reduction

Number of people who reduced medications

Time frame: 1 month

Population: Patients who underwent epidural steroid injections

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SteroidMedication Reduction17 participants
EtanerceptMedication Reduction9 participants
SalineMedication Reduction14 participants
Secondary

Oswestry Disability Score

0-100%. 0= no disability, 100% is complete disability

Time frame: 1 month

Population: Patients who received epidural steroid injections

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
SteroidOswestry Disability Score22.4 percentage of disability out of 100%
EtanerceptOswestry Disability Score40.26 percentage of disability out of 100%
SalineOswestry Disability Score30.00 percentage of disability out of 100%

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 26, 2026