Older Adults Look Beyond Western Medicine for Help With Joint Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Most older Americans use over-the-counter pain medication and exercise to manage their joint pain, according to a large new survey of adults over age 50. Marijuana, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were rated the most effective pain relievers among those who used them.

The survey of 2,277 adults aged 50 to 80 was conducted online and over the phone early this year as part of the University of Michigan’s National Poll on Healthy Aging. It found that many older adults looked beyond conventional Western medicine for help with their joint pain, but few talked to their doctors about it.

Eight out of ten people (80%) with joint pain said they were confident they could manage it on their own. The survey found that two-thirds (66%) used over-the-counter pain relievers such as NSAID’s or acetaminophen.

The vast majority (89%) also used non-pharmacologic treatments to manage their symptoms, including exercise (64%), massage (26%), physical therapy (24%), splints or braces (13%), and acupuncture or acupressure (5%).

One in four (26%) said they take supplements, such as glucosamine, chondroitin and turmeric, while 11% use cannabidiol (CBD) products and 9% use marijuana.

Only a minority use prescription-based treatments, such as non-opioid pain relievers (18%), steroid joint injections (19%), oral steroids (14%), opioids (14%) and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (4%).

NATIONAL POLL ON HEALTHY AGING

“There are sizable risks associated with many of these treatment options, especially when taken long-term or in combination with other drugs. Yet 60 percent of those taking two or more substances for their joint pain said their health care provider hadn’t talked with them about risks, or they couldn’t recall if they had,” said Beth Wallace, MD, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine at Michigan Medicine and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

“This suggests a pressing need for providers to talk with their patients about how to manage their joint pain, and what interactions and long-term risks might arise if they use medications to do so.”

Both NSAIDs and oral steroids have health risks, especially for older adults. Chronic NSAID use can worsen medical conditions such as hypertension, kidney disease, gastrointestinal bleeding and cardiovascular disease. Short-term use of oral steroids is associated with similar problems, as well as increased risk of developing diabetes, cataracts, insomnia, depression, and anxiety.

The risks are even greater if NSAIDs and oral steroids are taken together. Despite this, about one in four older adults taking oral steroids for joint pain said they had not discussed the potential risks with their provider.

Joint pain is common among older adults, including those who have not been formally diagnosed with arthritis. Nearly half of those surveyed reported joint pain that limited their daily activities, but few rated their symptoms as severe and most regarded joint pain as a normal part of aging.

Those with severe joint pain were somewhat fatalistic about it, with nearly half (49%) agreeing with the statement that “there is nothing a person with arthritis or joint pain can do to make their symptoms better.” Only 10% of those with mild joint pain agreed there was nothing they could do about it.

“Older adults with fair or poor physical or mental health were much more likely to agree with the statement that there’s nothing that someone with joint pain can do to ease their symptoms, which we now know to be untrue. Health providers need to raise the topic of joint pain with their older patients, and help them make a plan for care that might work for them,” said poll director Preeti Malani, MD, a Michigan Medicine physician who specializes in geriatrics and infectious diseases.

Anti-Inflammatory Drugs May Contribute to Chronic Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Anti-inflammatory drugs that are widely used to treat short-term acute pain disrupt the body’s natural healing process and increase the chances of developing chronic pain, according to a provocative new study by an international team of researchers.

If true, it means that ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used by millions of people every day for the temporary relief of acute pain may contribute to long-term pain that is even harder to treat.    

“For many decades it’s been standard medical practice to treat pain with anti-inflammatory drugs. But we found that this short-term fix could lead to longer-term problems,” said co-author Jeffrey Mogil, PhD, Professor of Pain Studies and the Canada Research Chair in the Genetics of Pain at McGill University in Montreal.

In a series of studies, Mogil and his colleagues first analyzed genes and immune cells in the blood of 98 patients with acute lower back pain (LBP), noting which patients became free of pain and which ones developed chronic pain after three months.  

In patients who became pain free, there was an early inflammatory response to acute pain that activated neutrophils -- a type of white blood cell that helps the body fight infection.

In patients with chronic pain, there was no inflammatory immune response. This suggests that neutrophils play an active role in resolving pain and protecting patients from transitioning to chronic pain.

“Neutrophils dominate the early stages of inflammation and set the stage for repair of tissue damage. Inflammation occurs for a reason, and it looks like it’s dangerous to interfere with it,” said Mogil.

The study findings, published in Science Translational Medicine, were replicated in a cohort of patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD), a painful inflammation of the jaw.

Researchers also tested their theory on laboratory animals, giving mice with acute pain the anti-inflammatory steroid dexamethasone or the NSAID diclofenac. While the drugs were initially effective, researchers found that blocking neutrophils in mice ultimately prolonged their pain up to ten times the normal duration. Three other analgesics without anti-inflammatory properties (gabapentin, morphine and lidocaine) produced short-term pain relief without affecting the overall duration of pain in mice.

These findings were also supported by a separate analysis of health records for 500,000 people in the United Kingdom with acute LBP. Those that took NSAIDs were nearly twice as likely to still have pain 2 to 6 years later than those who did not take NSAIDs. Patients who took acetaminophen (paracetamol) or antidepressants – neither of which are anti-inflammatory --  were not at higher risk of transitioning to chronic LBP.

“Our findings suggest it may be time to reconsider the way we treat acute pain. Luckily pain can be killed in other ways that don’t involve interfering with inflammation,” said co-author Massimo Allegri, MD, Head of Pain Service at Policlinico of Monza Hospital in Italy and Ensemble Hospitalier de la Cote in Switzerland.

Researchers say their findings should be followed up with larger clinical trials directly comparing the long-term effects of anti-inflammatory drugs to other pain relievers that don’t disrupt inflammation.

“Together, our results suggest that active immune processes confer adaptation at the acute pain stage, and impairment of such inflammatory responses in subjects with acute LBP (or TMD) increases the risk of developing chronic pain. These adaptive inflammatory responses are intrinsically transcriptionally driven, probably modified by both genetics and environmental factors, and can be inhibited by steroids and NSAIDs,” researchers said.

“Our conclusions may have a substantial impact on medical treatment of the most common presenting complaints to health care professionals. Specifically, our data suggest that the long-term effects of anti-inflammatory drugs should be further investigated in the treatment of acute LBP and likely other pain conditions.”

NSAIDs are widely used to treat everything from fever and headache to low back pain and arthritis. They are in so many different pain relieving products, including over-the-counter cold and flu medications, that many consumers may not be aware how often they use NSAIDs. At high doses, studies have found that NSAIDs increase the risk of a heart attack or stroke.

The current draft revision of the CDC opioid guideline recommends that NSAIDs should be used for low back pain, painful musculoskeletal injuries, dental pain, postoperative pain, kidney stones and acute pain caused by episodic migraine.

Acetaminophen also has its risks. Long-term use has been associated with liver, kidney, heart and blood pressure problems. Acetaminophen overdoses are involved in about 500 deaths and over 50,000 emergency room visits in the U.S. annually.

General Anesthesia as Safe as Spinal Injections for Hip Fracture Surgery

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

General anesthesia is just as safe as spinal anesthesia for patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, according to a large new study that dispels a common belief that patients who receive spinal injections have better outcomes.

Researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania enrolled 1,600 mostly elderly patients having hip fracture surgery at 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals, and randomly assigned them to receive either spinal or general anesthesia.

They found that rates of survival, delirium and functional recovery post-surgery were similar for patients, regardless of the type of anesthesia they received. The findings are published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our study argues that, in many cases, either form of anesthesia appears to be safe," said lead investigator Mark D. Neuman, MD, an associate professor of Anesthesiology and Critical Care at Perelman. "This is important because it suggests that choices can be guided by patient preference rather than anticipated differences in outcomes in many cases."

During general anesthesia, inhaled and intravenous medications are used to make patients unconscious, which often requires a breathing tube during surgery. For spinal anesthesia, medications are used to numb the lower part of the body through an injection into the spinal column. Patients anesthetized this way are typically able to breathe on their own during surgery and rarely require a breathing tube.

About 250,000 people have hip fracture surgery annually in the United States. In the past, most would receive general anesthesia, but in recent years the use of spinal anesthesia for hip fracture surgeries has increased significantly, due in part to the belief by some anesthesiologists that it was safer for frail, older patients.  

To get a better idea of possible outcomes associated with both forms form of anesthesia, researchers looked at post-surgical death rates, whether patients regained the ability to walk, and if they experienced any cognitive decline.

Statistically, there was hardly any difference in outcomes between the two groups. Sixty days after surgery, 18.5% of patients assigned to spinal anesthesia had either died or were unable to walk; versus 18 percent of patients who received general anesthesia. About 21 percent of patients assigned to spinal anesthesia experienced delirium, versus 20 percent of those given general anesthesia.

"What our study offers is reassurance that general anesthesia can represent a safe option for hip fracture surgery for many patients," said Neuman. "This is information that patients, families, and clinicians can use together to make the right choice for each patient's personalized care."

Neuman and his research team say previous comparisons of general and spinal anesthesia came from studies that didn’t randomly assign patients, which creates self-selection bias. Some patients may have chosen spinal anesthesia with the goal of avoiding complications, while others opted for general anesthesia to avoid a spinal injection or because they feared inadequate sedation during surgery.

The most common types of medications used during spinal injections are anesthetics, opioids or corticosteroids. A recent study of patients with hip osteoarthritis warned of serious long-term complications for those given steroid injections. Patients who received steroids were 8.5 times more likely to develop rapidly destructive hip disease, a condition that causes the loss of blood flow and death of bone tissue in the hip.

Researchers Urge Caution on Using Steroid Injections for Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Doctors and patients should be more cautious about using corticosteroid injections for pain relief, according to new studies that warn of rare, but serious long-term complications for patients who receive epidurals during childbirth or high doses and multiple injections in their hips.

Researchers at Kaiser Moanalua Medical Center in Hawaii looked at health data for nearly 700 patients with hip osteoarthritis and found that those who received steroid injections were 8.5 times more likely to develop rapidly destructive hip disease (RDHD), a condition that causes the loss of blood flow and death of bone tissue in the hip.

Higher rates of RDHD were especially apparent in patients receiving multiple and/or high-dose injections of the steroid triamcinolone. The risk of RDHD following a single, low-dose injection was about two percent, but rose to five percent following multiple low-dose injections or a single high-dose injection, and up to 10 percent following multiple high-dose injections.

“While the risk of RDHD following a single low-dose (40 mg or less) triamcinolone injection is low, the risk is higher following high-dose (80 mg or more) injection and multiple injections. These findings provide information that can be used to counsel patients about the risks associated with this common procedure. In addition, caution should be taken with intra-articular hip injections utilizing 80 mg of corticosteroid and multiple injections,” wrote lead author Kanu Okike, MD, of Hawaii Permanente Medical Group in Honolulu.

As they became more aware of a possible link with RDHD, orthopedic surgeons at the hospital started ordering fewer hip corticosteroid injections. In subsequent years, the number of RDHD cases decreased. The hospital also added a discussion of post-injection RDHD to the informed consent process for patients and stopped performing high-dose corticosteroid injections.

The study, recently published in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, is believed to be the largest to date of patients with post-injection RDHD.

Epidural Injections

Two new studies have also found that women receiving epidural injections for pain relief during labor are at high risk of long-term headaches and chronic back pain if the needle accidentally punctures the dural lining of the spinal cord. Dural punctures or “wet taps” cause the leak of spinal fluid, which can result in serious neurological complications.  

“I’ve likely performed more than 10,000 epidurals in my lifetime, and I still have wet taps from time to time,” Pamela Flood, MD, a professor of anesthesiology at Stanford University School of Medicine, told Anesthesiology News. “But no matter how many we’ve seen, we still feel terrible about each one. We’re trying to relieve people’s pain and give them a wonderful childbirth experience, and the last thing we want to do is cause them complications.”

A study published in the journal Anaesthesia found that over half of women (58%) with an accidental dural puncture were still experiencing headaches 18 months after the epidural, and nearly half (48%) suffered from chronic low back pain. A recent study in the British Journal of Anaesthesia had similar findings.    

Dural punctures during epidurals are relatively uncommon. Women are usually warned there is a risk of short-term headaches, but not about long-term health problems.

“While this information has been creeping into our consciousness in the form of retrospective trials, only this year has it been confirmed with two large prospective trials,” Flood said. “Unfortunately, clinicians have been slow to hear this, perhaps because we don’t want to admit that the short-term concern that we have been discussing for years carries long-term consequences in a significant percentage of women.”

The two most common types of medications used during epidural injections are anesthetics (lidocaine or bupivacaine) or corticosteroids (betamethasone, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, methyl-prednisolone, triamcinolone). 

In addition to treating labor pain, epidural steroid injections are widely used for back pain. About 9 million epidural steroid injections are performed annually in the U.S., even though they are not FDA-approved. The FDA has warned that injection of steroids into the epidural space can result in rare but serious neurological problems, including loss of vision, stroke and paralysis. Some patients have also developed arachnoiditis, a chronic and painful inflammation of the spinal cord, after getting steroid injections for back pain.

A Pained Life: Don’t Throw Out the Bathwater

By Carol Levy, PNN Columnist

In 1976, my trigeminal neuralgia started. In those days, the environment regarding chronic pain was very different. My doctor had only one agenda: He wanted to stop or reduce my constant debilitating and disabling pain.

He couldn’t cure me, so he ordered opioid pain medication. When one opioid didn’t work, he tried another; Darvon, Percocet, Percodan, Demerol. So many I can’t recall them all. When none helped, he prescribed an 8-ounce bottle of opium.

The first pharmacist who saw the opium prescription shook his head. “Sorry. We don't carry it,” he said. The next pharmacy did. “Have a seat. It'll just be a few minutes,” the pharmacist said.

I wasn't looked at askance. No questions were asked about my doctor or diagnosis. I wasn’t warned: “This is a very strong drug. You need to be careful. You could become addicted.”

They trusted that my doctor knew what he was doing. They trusted me to be a responsible patient. I doubt it ever entered the pharmacist’s mind that I might be a drug seeker or abuser.

Now the tables have totally turned. Many of us get questioned by pharmacists. And some of our doctors have stopped writing opioid prescriptions. They should be cautious, right? Because opioids are addictive, you can become dependent or have other bad side effects. And they can be used illegally.

The same is true for steroids. Yet there seem to be no politicians, physicians or groups with an agenda that are working to scare the public about steroids or trying to get doctors to stop “overprescribing” them.  

When steroids first came out there were many, many horror stories about them. The 1956 film Bigger Than Life was about a school teacher (James Mason) taking corticosteroids. They helped his pain from an autoimmune disorder, but he soon became hyper-manic and ultimately psychotic, even trying to murder his son.

His doctor reduced the dosage, but because steroids helped his pain, the teacher continued to take more than prescribed. He even goes to another town, impersonates a doctor, and writes a fake prescription to obtain more of the pills.

Sound familiar?

The movie was a caricature of the potential risks of steroids, which include dependency and addiction. Opioids have the same risks, but most patients with chronic pain take them responsibly, as most on steroids do, and they do not become addicted, try to obtain them fraudulently or go off the deep end.

There will always be bad actors who will be irresponsible, but users of any medication should not be demonized because of a few bad apples. Steroids are easily obtained and the patients who use them are not seen as potential felons. And why would they? For most patients, steroids can be very helpful.

Those who can still get opioids for their pain are often seen as potential miscreants. Yet studies also show that for most patients, opioids do help.

You don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. You don’t create guidelines scaring doctors into not writing steroid prescriptions because a small percentage of people will misuse or abuse them.

The medical community and the government need to stop throwing out the bathwater. When they refuse to write prescriptions for opioids that have helped patients, the side effect — intentional or not — is to throw us away, too.

Carol Jay Levy has lived with trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic facial pain disorder, for over 30 years. She is the author of “A Pained Life, A Chronic Pain Journey.”  Carol is the moderator of the Facebook support group “Women in Pain Awareness.” Her blog “The Pained Life” can be found here.

Lupus and Arthritis Patients at No Greater Risk from COVID-19

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Patients with lupus and other forms of arthritis are not at increased risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 due to medications that weaken their immune systems, according to researchers at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine.

Lupus, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic and rheumatoid arthritis are autoimmune conditions in which the body’s immune system attacks joints, skin, kidneys and other tissues, causing pain and inflammation. The arthritic conditions are often treated with steroids, biologics and other immune suppressing medications, which has raised concern that the drugs could also make patients more susceptible to risks from coronavirus infection.

But in two studies recently published in the journal Arthritis and Rheumatology, researchers found that most patients with arthritis had the same risk of hospitalization as the general population.

“People with lupus or inflammatory arthritis have the same risk factors for getting seriously ill from COVID-19 as people without these disorders,” said co-author Ruth Fernandez-Ruiz, MD, a postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone.

The first study involved 226 adult patients in New York City who were being treated for mild to severe forms of lupus between April 13 and June 1, when the coronavirus pandemic peaked in the New York City region. Forty-one of the lupus patients were also diagnosed with COVID-19. Of those, 24 were hospitalized and four died. Another 42 patients had COVID-19-like symptoms but were not formally tested.

The second study involved 103 women being treated for inflammatory arthritis between March 3 and May 4 in New York City. All tested positive for COVID-19 or had symptoms highly suggesting they were infected. Twenty-seven of them were hospitalized and four died.

Researchers say the lupus patients taking immune-suppressing medications such as mycophenolate mofetil (Cellcept) and azathioprine (Imuran), had no greater risk of hospitalization than patients not using the drugs. Similarly, hospitalization rates for people with inflammatory arthritis and COVID-19 were no greater than for all New Yorkers.

“Patients receiving therapy for lupus and inflammatory arthritis should not automatically stop taking their medications for fear that they would be worse off if they also caught the coronavirus,” said co-author Rebecca Haberman, MD, a clinical instructor in rheumatology in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone.

Haberman and her colleagues say arthritis patients taking biologic drugs such as adalimumab (Humira) and etanercept (Enbrel), or the antiviral drug hydroxychloroquine, were also at no greater or lesser risk of hospitalization than those not taking the drugs.

However, arthritis patients taking glucocorticoids, a type of steroid, even in mild doses, were up to 10 times more likely to be hospitalized than patients not using steroids. The researchers caution that although statistically significant, the study’s small size may overestimate the actual risk from steroids.

“Our findings represent the largest of its kind for American patients with lupus or arthritis and COVID-19, and should reassure most patients, especially those on immunosuppressant therapy, that they are at no greater risk of having to be admitted to hospital from COVID-19 than other lupus or arthritis patients,” said Fernandez-Ruiz.

Risk factors that can double the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 are having multiple health conditions, such as obesity, hypertension and diabetes.

5 Things to Know About Epidural Steroid Injections

By Margaret Aranda, MD, Columnist

Some patients with neck and back pain report that their doctor requires them to get epidural steroid injections (ESI's) before they are prescribed opioid pain medication. Many do not realize that the procedure or any use of drugs for spinal injection is not FDA approved and is considered "off label."

Some patients benefit from ESI’s, while others gain no pain relief or suffer serious complications. In 2014, the FDA warned that injection of corticosteroids into the epidural space of the spine may result in rare but serious neurological events, including "loss of vision, stroke, paralysis, and death."  

A 2015 commentary by FDA scientists in The New England Journal of Medicine urged doctors to carefully select patients to identify those who might benefit from spinal injections and to minimize serious risks.

Probably the worst epidural steroid catastrophe was the 2012-13 outbreak of fungal meningitis, caused by contaminated steroids produced at the New England Compounding Center. As many as 13,000 patients nationwide were exposed to the fungus, mostly through epidural injection, resulting in 751 meningitis infections and at least 64 deaths.

Let's take a step back to assess why epidural steroids may or may not be a good idea. The rationale behind the procedure comes from the anti-inflammatory effect of steroids on the nerves.

Chronic inflammation in nerves can lead to pain, numbness, and muscle weakness. Nerve injury causes microscopic changes in nerve anatomy, including tissue swelling or edema, an increase in fibrous tissue and, in the worst case, nerve death through something called Wallerian degeneration. In cases like traumatic brain injury or stroke, the nerve damage can be permanent.

There are now about 9 million epidural steroid injections performed annually in the U.S and the number of procedures appears to be growing.

During a standard epidural injection, the doctor may inject into the epidural space a contrast dye using x-ray guidance (fluoroscopy) to make sure the dye is going into the correct location.  Others may use a more blind approach, called the "loss of resistance" technique, with a syringe of air that injects itself into the epidural space as it enters. There is a "pop" when the needle penetrates the epidural space.

After the air or dye is injected and the needle located, a second syringe containing  the steroid is injected. Afterward, the patient is observed for signs of pain relief and complications.

Many studies show that about 50% of patients feel better. If there is no pain relief after one ESI, a second attempt is usually in order. If partial relief is exhibited, a series of three injections in two weeks may be performed.

There is controversy over the rate and frequency of epidurals for pain. Typically, a “cycle” of epidurals is done, but if there is no pain relief after two injections, some doctors recommend that a different treatment be used. Some patients report getting as many as two or three dozen epidurals in a single year.  Critics say that raises the risk of a misplaced needle causing “cumulative trauma” and serious complications such as adhesive arachnoiditis.

If you doctor recommends that you get an epidural steroid injection, here are five things you need to know:

1. Drugs Used: The two most common drugs for ESI are a local anesthetic (lidocaine or bupivacaine) and/or a corticosteroid (betamethasone, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, methyl-prednisolone, triamcinolone). 

The local anesthetic offers immediate numbing and pain relief. It also verifies whether the injection was done in the right place and gives an idea of how the steroid may act to decrease inflammation. After the anesthetic wears off, the steroid kicks in for an effect that may last varying times, sometimes for a short period and sometimes forever.

Patients and doctors need to know whether there was immediate pain relief from the local anesthetic. The doctor should ask, "Does the pain feel better?" to assess the temporary anesthetic effect.

If the answer is yes, then the steroid should provide more pain relief. If the answer is no, the steroid is much less likely to have any clinical effect. There is no indication to repeat the procedure if there is no decrease in pain. Doing so would unnecessarily expose a patient to serious complications or death.

2. Injection Sites: The most common injections are into the neck (cervical) and into the lower back (lumbar). Less commonly, epidural injections are placed into the upper back (thoracic) or to the bottom tip of the spine in the sacral area (caudal). The needle can go either straight into the middle of the spine (interlaminar), or enter from the left or right side (transforaminal). 

In general, the closer the injection is placed to the head, the greater the risk of serious complications if the needle accidentally hits a nerve or artery, an air bubble causes an embolism, or if the injection goes into the spinal fluid.

3. Minor complications: Adverse events can occur within minutes or up to 48 hours after an injection. Minor complications are generally not life-threatening and usually go away with little to no treatment.

Some patients get an "epidural headache" when the needle is inserted too far into the dura, causing a leak of cerebrospinal fluid. This is a stressful and painful headache, but it usually completely resolves. Other minor complications include facial flushing, fainting, hypertension (high blood pressure) and increased pain.

4. Serious complications: No one really knows the complication rate of epidural steroid injections, due to under-reporting by doctors and the lack of standard guidelines.

Normally, the steroid will flow into the epidural space above and below where it was injected, but it can also flow into unintended places like the subdural or intrathecal spaces, cranial nerves, brain stem, and lower midbrain.

For example, if the injection accidentally goes into the spinal fluid, the procedure becomes a spinal block, not an epidural block. This may lead to potentially life-threatening complications. If this happens during an injection to the neck, it can spread upward, toward the top of the head and into the brain, leading to serious complications. 

Severe complications from an injection can include arachnoiditis, allergic reactions, stroke, brain edema, cauda equina syndrome, seizures, vasculitis, blindness, and death.

5. Off-Label Use: The FDA places epidural steroids in the category of "off-label" use that falls within the practice of medicine and is not FDA-approved. The FDA requires all glucocorticoid steroid warning labels to state:

The safety and effectiveness of epidural administration of corticosteroids have not been established and corticosteroids are not approved for this use… serious neurologic events, some resulting in death, have been reported with epidural injection of corticosteroids.”

The FDA website also warns patients to seek emergency medical attention if they experience any unusual symptoms, such as loss of vision or vision changes, tingling in the arms or legs, sudden weakness or numbness, dizziness, severe headache or seizures.

If you have concerns regarding the use of epidural steroid injections, talk to your doctor.

Dr. Margaret Aranda is a Stanford and Keck USC alumni in anesthesiology and critical care. She has dysautonomia and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) after a car accident left her with traumatic brain injuries that changed her path in life to patient advocacy.

FDA Won’t Change Warning Label for Steroid Injections

By Pat Anson, Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has decided not to toughen its warning label on the use of epidural steroid injections – despite the risk of serious and sometimes fatal neurological problems caused by the procedure. The injections are commonly used to treat neck and back pain.

Last year, the FDA required all injectable glucocorticoid products to carry labels warning that “serious neurologic events, some resulting in death, have been reported with epidural injection” and that the “safety and effectiveness of epidural administration of corticosteroids have not been established.”

Since then, the agency has been lobbied by interventional pain physicians who perform the injections to weaken the warning label; while patient activists wanted even tougher language used. The FDA will do neither.

“The FDA has decided not to modify the warning about serious neurologic events. Without question, serious (sometimes fatal) neurologic events occur with epidural glucocorticoid injection. Given the large number of these procedures performed, these events appear to be rare; however, a population-based study would be needed to establish a valid estimate of their frequency,” wrote several FDA scientists in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The use of steroids in epidural injections (ESI’s) has never been approved by the FDA, but millions of the procedures are performed every year by doctors who use steroids “off label” – which the agency considers “part of the practice of medicine and not regulated by FDA.” 

As Pain News Network has reported, ESI’s can be a lucrative procedure for physicians, depending on insurance payments and where the epidurals are performed. Payments can vary widely, from a few hundred dollars to over $2,000 per injection.

Critics say the injections are risky, overused, and often a waste of money. While side effects appear to be rare, they can be very serious, including loss of vision, stroke, paralysis and a disabling condition known as arachnoiditis, a painful and chronic inflammation of the spinal cord.

“What do you think would happen if the FDA were to contraindicate Depo-Medrol, the steroid that gave me adhesive arachnoiditis?” asked Gary Snook, a Montana man who developed arachnoiditis after a series of epidurals for back pain.

“In a few days we would be seeing TV commercials asking, ‘Have you received an epidural steroid injection? Do you now have burning pain in your legs? Do you now have numbness, tingling or weakness?' The phones would be ringing off the hook!’” said Snook in an email to PNN. “Because of the sheer number of injections given, even at a disability rate of 1%, every pain clinic and hospital in the country would be facing multiple lawsuits. No. The FDA had to do nothing. They had to keep a lid on this degree of medical malpractice.”

Depo-Medrol is a steroid made by Pfizer that has been banned for epidural use in Australia and New Zealand. Another steroid commonly used in ESI's, Bristol-Myers Squibb's Kenalog, does come with a warning label against epidural use, but patients are rarely told by their doctors about the risks involved.

“Sadly, in the current marketplace that packages and merchandises epidural injections for the short term address of chronic pain, (the FDA’s) decision makes it more difficult to obtain a true patient centered solution focused on the problem of preventing and treating chronic and intractable pain,” said Terri Lewis, PhD, a patient advocate. “FDA turned the keys to the asylum over to the corporations who lobbied hard to preserve their bricks and mortar investments supported by Medicare, worker's compensation, Medicaid, and private insurance.”

But the epidural injection industry didn’t get what it wanted, either. In a recent letter to the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, which petitioned the FDA to weaken or withdraw its warning label, FDA director Janet Woodcock said the label would not change.

“FDA has identified case reports of serious neurologic adverse events associated with all ESI approaches and all injection sites,” Woodcock wrote. “The totality of the available information provides evidence adequate to support the class safety warning.”

Woodcock also denied suggestions in the petition that an FDA advisory committee known as the "Working Group" met improperly with the Multisociety Pain Workgroup (MPW), a rival coalition of anesthesiologists, surgeons and pain management doctors, to discuss safety guidelines for ESI's.

"We do not agree with the unsupported characterizations of the Working Group, its activities, or its relationship to the MPW as asserted in your Petition," Woodock wrote.

Although 17 clinical guidelines were later issued by the Working Group, Woodock said the recommendations were for the "medical community" and were "neither binding on FDA nor endorsed by the FDA."

A federal study released earlier this year said there was little evidence that epidural steroid injections were effective in treating low back pain. The MPW called the report’s conclusions "flawed" and "absurd."