Predictive Factors for Sustained Pain after (sub)acute Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures. Combined Results from the VERTOS II and VERTOS IV Trial.

PURPOSE: Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures are treated conservatively or in selected cases with percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV). The purpose of this retrospective analysis is to determine predictive factors for a high visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score after conservative, sham or PV and is based on previously published randomized trials. METHODS: The VERTOS II compared conservative versus PV, and VERTOS IV compared sham versus PV treatment. The conservative group received pain medication. The sham and PV group received subcutaneous lidocaine/bupivacaine. In addition, the PV group received cementation, which was simulated in the sham group. Nineteen different predictors of high (≥ 5) versus low (< 5) VAS pain score at 12 months were investigated. RESULTS: 20.7% of patients in the PV group demonstrated a VAS ≥ 5 at the 12-month, compared to 40.1% in the conservative or sham group, with a significant difference (χ2(1) = 15.26, p < 0.0001, OR = 2.57, 95% CI = 1.59 to 4.15). In the subgroup analysis, we detected five predictors for the risk of high pain scores (VAS ≥ 5 after 12 months follow-up), namely: female, baseline VAS > 8, long-term baseline pain, mild/severe Genant and new fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant more patients had a high pain score at 12 months in the sham and conservative group when compared with the PV group. Five predictors were identified for sustained high local back pain, regardless of the received treatment. Patients with moderate fracture deformity were less likely to have high pain scores at 12 months if they received PV than if they had sham or conservative therapy.

Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous vertebroplasty is increasingly used for treatment of pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, but the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of the procedure remain uncertain. We aimed to clarify whether vertebroplasty has additional value compared with optimum pain treatment in patients with acute vertebral fractures. METHODS: Patients were recruited to this open-label prospective randomised trial from the radiology departments of six hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium. Patients were aged 50 years or older, had vertebral compression fractures on spine radiograph (minimum 15% height loss; level of fracture at Th5 or lower; bone oedema on MRI), with back pain for 6 weeks or less, and a visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 5 or more. Patients were randomly allocated to percutaneous vertebroplasty or conservative treatment by computer-generated randomisation codes with a block size of six. Masking was not possible for participants, physicians, and outcome assessors. The primary outcome was pain relief at 1 month and 1 year as measured by VAS score. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00232466. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008, we identified 431 patients who were eligible for randomisation. 229 (53%) patients had spontaneous pain relief during assessment, and 202 patients with persistent pain were randomly allocated to treatment (101 vertebroplasty, 101 conservative treatment). Vertebroplasty resulted in greater pain relief than did conservative treatment; difference in mean VAS score between baseline and 1 month was -5·2 (95% CI -5·88 to -4·72) after vertebroplasty and -2·7 (-3·22 to -1·98) after conservative treatment, and between baseline and 1 year was -5·7 (-6·22 to -4·98) after vertebroplasty and -3·7 (-4·35 to -3·05) after conservative treatment. The difference between groups in reduction of mean VAS score from baseline was 2·6 (95% CI 1·74-3·37, p<0·0001) at 1 month and 2·0 (1·13-2·80, p<0·0001) at 1 year. No serious complications or adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: In a subgroup of patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures and persistent pain, percutaneous vertebroplasty is effective and safe. Pain relief after vertebroplasty is immediate, is sustained for at least a year, and is significantly greater than that achieved with conservative treatment, at an acceptable cost. FUNDING: ZonMw; COOK Medical.

Percutaneous Vertebroplasty is no Risk Factor for New Vertebral Fractures and Protects Against Further Height Loss (VERTOS IV).

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) is an alternative option to treat pain after an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF). Controversy exists as to whether PV increases the risk of new OVCFs or prevents further vertebral height loss in treated levels. We assessed both during 1-year follow-up in patients with acute OVCF randomised to PV or a sham procedure. METHODS: VERTOS IV is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing PV with sham therapy in 180 patients. New OVCFs and further vertebral height loss were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12 months (interquartile range (IQR) = 12-12) 31 new fractures were reported in 15 patients from the PV group and 28 new fractures in 19 patients from the sham group. The occurrence of new vertebral fractures did not significantly differ between the groups (χ2(1) = 0.83, p = 0.36, OR = .71, 95%CI = 0.33-1.50). There was no higher fracture risk of adjacent versus distant vertebrae. After sham procedure, further height loss of treated vertebrae occurred more frequently (7 patients (8%) in the PV group and 39 (45%) in the sham group (χ2(1) = 28.85, p < 0.001, OR = 9.84, 95%CI = 4.08-23.73)) and was more severe (p < .001) than after PV. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of further vertebral height loss is significantly lower after PV compared to a sham intervention, i.e. PV protects against progressive vertebral height loss. In addition, PV does not increase the risk of new adjacent and distant OVCFs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1a, therapeutic study. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01200277.

Vertebroplasty versus sham procedure for painful acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VERTOS IV): randomised sham controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether percutaneous vertebroplasty results in more pain relief than a sham procedure in patients with acute osteoporotic compression fractures of the vertebral body. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, sham controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Four community hospitals in the Netherlands, 2011-15. PARTICIPANTS: 180 participants requiring treatment for acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures were randomised to either vertebroplasty (n=91) or a sham procedure (n=89). INTERVENTIONS: Participants received local subcutaneous lidocaine (lignocaine) and bupivacaine at each pedicle. The vertebroplasty group also received cementation, which was simulated in the sham procedure group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measure was mean reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at one day, one week, and one, three, six, and 12 months. Clinically significant pain relief was defined as a decrease of 1.5 points in VAS scores from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were the differences between groups for changes in the quality of life for osteoporosis and Roland-Morris disability questionnaire scores during 12 months' follow-up. RESULTS: The mean reduction in VAS score was statistically significant in the vertebroplasty and sham procedure groups at all follow-up points after the procedure compared with baseline. The mean difference in VAS scores between groups was 0.20 (95% confidence interval -0.53 to 0.94) at baseline, -0.43 (-1.17 to 0.31) at one day, -0.11 (-0.85 to 0.63) at one week, 0.41 (-0.33 to 1.15) at one month, 0.21 (-0.54 to 0.96) at three months, 0.39 (-0.37 to 1.15) at six months, and 0.45 (-0.37 to 1.24) at 12 months. These changes in VAS scores did not, however, differ statistically significantly between the groups during 12 months' follow-up. The results for secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. Use of analgesics (non-opioids, weak opioids, strong opioids) decreased statistically significantly in both groups at all time points, with no statistically significant differences between groups. Two adverse events occurred in the vertebroplasty group: one respiratory insufficiency and one vasovagal reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous vertebroplasty did not result in statistically significantly greater pain relief than a sham procedure during 12 months' follow-up among patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01200277.

A randomised sham controlled trial of vertebroplasty for painful acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures (VERTOS IV).

BACKGROUND: The standard care in patients with a painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (VCF) is conservative therapy. Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV), a minimally invasive technique, is a new treatment option. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) provide conflicting results: two sham-controlled studies showed no benefit of PV while an unmasked but controlled RCT (VERTOS II) found effective pain relief at acceptable costs. The objective of this study is to compare pain relief after PV with a sham intervention in selected patients with an acute osteoporotic VCF using the same strict inclusion criteria as in VERTOS II. Secondary outcome measures are back pain related disability and quality of life. METHODS: The VERTOS IV study is a prospective, multicenter RCT with pain relief as primary endpoint. Patients with a painful osteoporotic VCF with bone edema on MR imaging, local back pain for 6 weeks or less, osteopenia and aged 50 years or older, after obtaining informed consent, are included and randomized for PV or a sham intervention. In total 180 patients will be enrolled. Follow-up is at regular intervals during a 1-year period with a standard Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score for pain and pain medication. Necessary additional therapies and complications are recorded. DISCUSSION: The VERTOS IV study is a methodologically sound RCT designed to assess pain relief after PV compared to a sham intervention in patients with an acute osteoporotic VCF selected on strict inclusion criteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov., NCT01200277.

Clinical experience with the combined use of lopinavir/ritonavir and rifampicin.

Thirty-four patients treated concomitantly with lopinavir/ritonavir and rifampicin were evaluated. Overall, only 15% used the recommended increased dose of lopinavir/ritonavir. Of patients on a nonadjusted dose of lopinavir/ritonavir, 67% had a subtherapeutic lopinavir plasma concentration and 38% had a detectable viral load. Forty percent of patients on an increased dose of lopinavir/ritonavir prematurely stopped the drug combination because of adverse events. Combined use of lopinavir/ritonavir and rifampicin is challenging as it implies balancing between suboptimal efficacy and toxicity.

Prospective clinical follow-up after percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess short-term, midterm, and long-term pain relief in patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) treated with percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain at the treated vertebral level, analgesic use, and satisfaction with outcome were assessed in 112 patients after PV of 168 VCFs. Serial follow-up was performed at 24 hours and 3, 6, and 12 months and in a small number of patients at 1-3 years. Procedure-related complications were evaluated by physical examination and computed tomography of treated levels. RESULTS: After PV, VAS scores for pain at the individual vertebral levels treated and use of analgesic agents were significantly reduced compared with before treatment at every follow-up period. Within 24 hours after the procedure, the decreases in all scores were less compared with scores at later follow-up periods, but this was not significant. The preprocedural mean VAS score was 8.8 (range, 5-10). At follow-up, mean VAS scores ranged from 2.5 to 3.3 (range, 0-10). In the short term after PV, patients used significantly less analgesic drugs and 86% of patients were satisfied with the outcome. At midterm and long-term follow-up, patients used even less analgesic drugs and 95%-100% of patients were satisfied with the outcome of PV. Procedure-related complications with clinical consequences occurred in three patients (2.7%): one patient experienced a cardiovascular reaction, one patient had a pedicle chip fracture, and one had a rib fracture. CONCLUSION: PV of painful osteoporotic VCFs provides significant pain reduction in nearly all treated patients.

The risk of new osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures in the year after percutaneous vertebroplasty.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess the incidence, location, and possible causative mechanisms of new vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) in 66 symptomatic patients with osteoporotic VCFs treated with percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) and to study the relation between new VCFs and back pain symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six patients with 102 painful symptomatic VCFs were treated with PV. All patients had baseline total spinal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Follow-up MR imaging was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months to locate new VCFs. Visual analog scales for pain and pain medication consumption were used to assess clinical outcomes. The following characteristics were compared in patients with new VCFs after PV versus patients without new VCFs: patient age, sex, presence of secondary osteoporosis, bone mineral density, number of preexisting VCFs, shape and grade of VCFs, type of bone cement used for PV, volume of injected cement, and cement leakage in intervertebral disc spaces. RESULTS: Sixteen of 66 patients had 26 new VCFs during 1 year of follow-up after PV. Most new VCFs occurred within 3 months of PV, half of new VCFs appeared in levels adjacent to treated levels, and half of the new VCFs were symptomatic. The presence of more than two preexisting VCFs was the only independent risk factor for the development of a new VCF. CONCLUSIONS: New VCFs occurred after PV in 24% of patients. Half of new VCFs occurred in levels adjacent to treated levels and half were symptomatic. The presence of more than two preexisting VCFs was the only independent risk factor for the development of a new VCF.