Real-world treatment patterns and management gaps of lumbar disc herniation in the United States

Abstract

Background

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) affects approximately 1% to 3% of the population annually and leads to substantial physical burden, quality-of-life burden, and productivity loss. Commonly used interventions, including pharmacological and epidural steroid injections (ESIs), have limited high-quality evidence to support their effectiveness in the long-term for treating LDH beyond symptom relief. In general, there is a lack of consensus for timing of treatment after LDH onset and limited data on real-world treatment of LDH. The objective of this study was to describe current real-world treatment patterns and inform gaps in clinical management of patients with LDH.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed using data from January 01, 2018 through March 31, 2023 of a United States commercial health insurance claims database (IQVIA PharMetrics Plus). Patients aged 30–70 years with newly-diagnosed LDH and continuous insurance enrollment for ≥6 months before and ≥12 months after index (first) LDH diagnosis were included. Relevant billing codes were used to identify LDH, related treatments (nonpharmacologic, pharmacologic, invasive), and comorbidities. Demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized for the baseline (preindex) period. Treatment patterns were described over the follow-up period, up to 3 years after LDH diagnosis. Time from LDH diagnosis to ESI(s) and surgery(ies) were calculated.

Results

A total of 1,086,552 patients with LDH were included, with a mean age of 50.8 years. Patients had a mean follow-up of 27 months after LDH diagnosis. Nearly 20% of patients with LDH underwent ESI, with half of this group undergoing multiple ESIs. Multiple ESIs were associated with a greater likelihood of surgical intervention and repeat surgical intervention compared to those who only underwent single ESI. LDH surgery was performed on 7.2% of patients, approximately 10% of whom had multiple surgeries during follow-up. A large subset (44.1%) of patients who underwent LDH surgery did not have any ESI prior to surgery. General limitations of claims data analyses can include data misclassification, missing claims for diagnoses and procedures that were conducted, missing clinical information (severity of condition, insights into clinical decision making), and some missing patient demographics and characteristics.

Conclusions

In this study, approximately one quarter of patients with LDH underwent ESI and/or surgery after conservative treatment. Opportunities exist to provide more guideline-concordant care to patients with LDH. In addition, unmet needs exist in the current treatment options for patients with LDH, potentially including the need for other nonsurgical treatment options for patients who do not fully respond to conservative treatment.