Risk of SARS-CoV-2 following joint and epidural corticosteroid injections: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The immunosuppressive effects of corticosteroid (CS) injections have come under more scrutiny during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of the study was to explore any relationship between joint/epidural CS injection and SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients 18 years or over who received at least one joint or epidural CS injection by physiatrists in a tertiary care center between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. This cohort of patients was then compared to a control group who did not receive any CS injection during this time period. RESULTS: A total of 766 patients were identified in the CS injection group and 1546 patients in the control group. Overall, 12.27% of patients turned SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive in the CS injection group, which was similar to 11.90% in the control group (p = 0.797). But 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate showed a statistically significant higher rate among the CS injection group (3.30% in the CS injection group vs. 2.10% in the control group; p = 0.027). In multivariate regression analysis, after adjusting both groups for Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), there was statistically significant higher SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate in the CS injection group (p = 0.024). However, after adjusting both groups for age and total number of comorbidities, there was no difference between the groups in regard to SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate (p = 0.081). In the subgroup analysis of only COVID-19 vaccinated patients, there was an increased 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate among patients with severe comorbidities in the CS injection group (p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: The study was not conclusive on the effect of joint or epidural CS injection on SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate, although adjusted analysis suggests higher 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate after CS injection in patients with severe comorbidities with significant disease burden when compared to controls.

Is there an association between lumbosacral epidural lipomatosis and lumbosacral epidural steroid injections? A comprehensive narrative literature review.

BACKGROUND: Exogenous systemic steroid exposure is a well-established risk factor for spinal epidural lipomatosis (SEL), however the association between lumbosacral epidural steroid injections (LESIs) and lumbosacral epidural lipomatosis (LEL) is generally regarded as poorly understood. Our objective was to investigate the rationale and the evidence implicating LESI(s) as a potential cause of LEL as well as the evidence related to use of LESI(s) as a potential pain relieving treatment option for radicular pain in the setting of LEL. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, OVID were searched from inception until April 2021. Three investigators identified literature that provided original descriptive patient clinical data attributing the development/progression of LEL to LESI(s) or described the use of LESI(s) as a pain relieving modality for radicular pain in the setting of LEL. RESULTS: Fourteen publications were included for review. Overall, the current level of evidence is of low-quality. There are significant methodological gaps on this subject matter and many studies do not account for confounding variables independently associated with LEL. CONCLUSIONS: This review has identified substantial limitations in the literature regarding that which is truly known regarding LESI(s) and LEL, as well as conservative management overall. To provide a well-rounded perspective, we synthesized literature as it pertains to: 1) current knowledge regarding SEL, notable associations and potential implications for corticosteroid exposure; 2) corticosteroid exposure and lipoatrophy; 3) current management recommendations for SEL and 4) areas for future focus. Although LESI(s) have been associated with LEL in the literature, presently due to a lack of rigorous, high-quality studies, the presence or absence of an independent causal relationship between LESI(s) and LEL cannot be stated with confidence.

Differential rates of intravascular uptake and pain perception during lumbosacral epidural injection among adults using a 22-gauge needle versus 25-gauge needle: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Inadvertent intravascular injection has been suggested as the most probable mechanism behind serious neurological complications during transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Authors believe a smaller gauge needle may lead to less intravascular uptake and less pain. Theoretically, there is less chance for a smaller gauge needle to encounter a blood vessel during an injection compared to a larger gauge needle. Studies have also shown smaller gauge needle to cause less pain. The aim of the study was to quantify the difference between a 22-gauge needle and 25-gauge needle during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injection in regards to intravascular uptake and pain perception. METHODS: This was a prospective single blind randomized clinical trial performed at outpatient spine practice locations of two academic institutions. One hundred sixty-two consecutive patients undergoing lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections from February 2018 to June 2019 were recruited and randomized to each arm of the study - 84 patients were randomized to the 22-gauge needle arm and 78 patients to 25-gauge arm. Each transforaminal injection level was considered a separate incidence, hence total number of incidence was 249 (136 in 22-gauge arm and 113 in 25-gauge arm). The primary outcome measure was intravascular uptake during live fluoroscopy and/or blood aspiration. The secondary outcome measure was patient reported pain during the procedure on the numerical rating scale. RESULTS: Fisher exact test was used to detect differences between 2 groups in regards to intravascular uptake and paired t-tests were used to detect differences in pain scores. The incidence of intravascular uptake for a 22-gauge needle was 5.9% (95% confidence interval: 1.9 to 9.8%) and for a 25-gauge needle, 7.1% (95% confidence interval: 2.4 to 11.8%) [p = 0.701]. Average numerical rating scale scores during the initial needle entry for 22-gauge and 25-gauge needle was 3.46 (95% confidence interval: 2.94 to 3.98) and 3.13 (95% confidence interval: 2.57 to 3.69) respectively [p = 0.375]. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed no statistically significant difference in intravascular uptake or pain perception between a 22-gauge needle and 25-gauge needle during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04350307. Registered 4/17/2020. (Retrospectively registered).

Concomitant Use of Opioids and Benzodiazepines in the Outpatient Setting.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines have been identified as a concurrent factor in opioid-related deaths. Although the dangers of concomitant administration of opioids and benzodiazepines are well documented, implementation of this knowledge into practice may be lagging behind. OBJECTIVE: To examine the concomitant use of opioids and benzodiazepines in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Academic outpatient multispecialty practice. PARTICIPANTS: Over 2000 outpatient clinic visits from January 2018 to April 2018 among four physiatrists were analyzed. METHODS: All patients were reviewed in the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) website to identify whether they have filled either opioid or benzodiazepine prescription(s) in the last 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Number of opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions, discrepancies in reporting of medications, providers prescribing medications, and cigarette/alcohol use. RESULTS: A total of 353 patients were identified to have filled either opioid or benzodiazepine prescription(s) in last 12 months. 49.4% of patients prescribed opioids were found to be taking benzodiazepines concurrently. Reporting discrepancies were noted between the outpatient electronic medical record and PDMP in 17.2% of patients. Among patients taking both opioids and benzodiazepines, 38.9% had multiple providers prescribing these medications, 41.9% were over 65 years old, and 11.9% were daily cigarette/alcohol users. Patients taking both types of drugs (opioids and benzodiazepines) were significantly more likely to use different providers (38.9%) compared to patients taking one type of drug (9.8%, P < .001). The former group was also noted to fill significantly more prescriptions than the latter group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The study results emphasize that clinicians may not be aware that some of their patients are concurrently taking opioids and benzodiazepines. These results highlight the importance of routinely checking the PDMP and using that information to make fully informed decisions to minimize risks in use of these controlled substances. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Concomitant use of opioids and benzodiazepines in the outpatient setting: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines have been identified as a concurrent factor in opioid related deaths. Although the dangers of concomitant administration of opioids and benzodiazepines are well documented, implementation of this knowledge into practice may be lagging behind. OBJECTIVE: To examine the concomitant use of opioids and benzodiazepines in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Academic outpatient multispecialty practice. PARTICIPANTS: Over 2000 outpatient clinic visits from January 2018 to April 2018 among 4 Physiatrists were analyzed. METHODS: All patients were reviewed in the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) website to identify if they have filled either opioid or benzodiazepine prescription(s) in the last 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Number of opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions, discrepancies in reporting of medications, providers prescribing medications, and cigarette/alcohol use. RESULTS: 353 patients were identified to have filled either opioid or benzodiazepine prescription(s) in last 12 months. 49.4% of patients prescribed opioids were found to be on benzodiazepines concurrently. Reporting discrepancies were noted between the outpatient electronic medical record and PDMP in 17.2% of patients. Among patients on both opioids and benzodiazepines, 38.9% had multiple providers prescribing these medications, 41.9% were over 65 years old, and 11.9% were daily cigarette/alcohol users. Patients on both types of drugs (opioids and benzodiazepines) were significantly more likely to use different providers (38.9%) compared to patients on one type of drug (9.8%, p<.001). The former group was also noted to fill significantly more prescriptions than the latter group (p<.001). CONCLUSION: The study results emphasize clinicians may not be aware that some of their patients are concurrently taking both opioids and benzodiazepines, hence highlights the importance of routinely checking the PDMP and utilizing that information to make fully informed decisions regarding the safest possible way to prescribe these controlled substances. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.