Return To Research Article

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Electrotherapy and Thermotherapy Interventions in the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults.

Ottawa Panel.

Phys Ther. 2004 Nov;84(11):1016-43.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to create guidelines for electrotherapy and thermotherapy interventions in the management of adult patients (>18 years of age) with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis according to the criteria of the American Rheumatism Association (1987).

METHODS: Using Cochrane Collaboration methods, the Ottawa Methods Group identified and synthesized evidence from comparative controlled trials. The group then formed an expert panel, which developed a set of criteria for grading the strength of the evidence and the recommendation. Patient-important outcomes were determined through consensus, provided that these outcomes were assessed with a validated and reliable scale.

RESULTS: The Ottawa Panel developed 8 positive recommendations of clinical benefit. Lack of evidence meant that the panel could not gauge the efficacy of electrical stimulation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The Ottawa Panel recommends the use of low-level laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, thermotherapy, electrical stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

Ostrakhovich EA, Ilich-Stoianovich O, Afanas'ev IB.

Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk. 2001;(5):23-7.

Infrared pulse laser therapy was studied for its impact on the production of active forms of oxygen and nitrogen by neutrophils from patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The authors determined the non-activated and PMA-activated production of superoxide anion-radical, peroxynitrite, peripheral neurophilic NAD.PH-oxidase and superoxide dismutase activities, and the red blood cell concentrations of reduced glutathione. Before therapy, non-activation RA neurophilic production of superoxide was much higher than in donors. Laser therapy made this parameter normal. Similarly, neutrophilic peroxynitrite production (defined by dihydrorhodamine oxidation) in RA patients was 1.7 times higher than the normal values. IF-laser therapy decreased peroxynitrite production to the values observed in donors. It is important that the therapy caused increased SOD activity (that was lower in RA patients prior to therapy) up to apparently control values. Thus, IF-laser therapy has a certain antioxidative effect by increasing SOD activity in RA patients' blood cells and reducing the production of highly reactive oxygen and nitrogen forms.

Ilich-Stoianovich O, Nasonov EL, Balabanova RM.

Ter Arkh. 2000;72(5):32-4.

AIM: To evaluate effects of low-intensity infrared impulse laser therapy (IRILT) on concentration of immunity activation (soluble receptors of TNF-alpha and neopterin) and indicator of the inflammation activity (concentration of C-reactive protein) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enzyme immunoassay, radioimmunoassay, enzyme immunoassay and radial immunodiffusion were used to measure soluble receptors of TNF-alpha, neopterin and C-reactive protein in 38 females with verified RA receiving IRILT or sham procedures.

RESULTS: IRILT induced lowering of neopterin, TNF-alpha soluble receptors (p < 0.01) and C-reactive protein (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: The findings give pathogenetical grounds for IRILT use in RA as this treatment suppresses functional activity of macrophages which serve the main source of neopterin and the receptors synthesis.

Brosseau L, Welch V, Wells G, Tugwell P, de Bie R, Gam A, Harman K, Shea B, Morin M.

J Rheumatol. 2000 Aug;27(8):1961-9.

Physiotherapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. lbrossea@uottawa.ca

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affect a large proportion of the population. Low level laser therapy (LLLT) was introduced as an alternative noninvasive treatment for RA and OA about 10 years ago, but its effectiveness is still controversial. We assessed the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of RA and OA.

METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, following an a priori protocol, according to the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Trials were identified by a literature search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Only randomized controlled trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of RA or OA were eligible. Thirteen trials were included, with 212 patients randomized to laser and 174 patients to placebo laser, and 68 patients received active laser on one hand and placebo on the opposite hand. Treatment duration ranged from 4 to 10 weeks. Followup was reported by only 2 trials for up to 3 months.

RESULTS: In patients with RA, relative to a separate control group, LLLT reduced pain by 70% relative to placebo and reduced morning stiffness by 27.5 min (95% CI -52.0 to -2.9), and increased tip to palm flexibility by 1.3 cm (95% CI -1.7 to -0.8). Other outcomes such as functional assessment, range of motion, and local swelling were not different between groups. There were no significant differences between subgroups based on LLLT dosage, wavelength, site of application, or treatment length. In RA, relative to a control group using the opposite hand, there was no difference between control and treatment hand, but all hands were improved in terms of pain relief and disease activity. For OA, a total of 197 patients were randomized. Pain was assessed by 3 trials. The pooled estimate (random effects) showed no effect on pain (standardized mean difference -0.2, 95% CI -1.0 to +0.6), but there was statistically significant heterogeneity (p > 0.05). Other outcomes of joint tenderness, joint mobility, and strength were not significant.

CONCLUSION: LLLT should be considered for short term relief of pain and morning stiffness in RA, particularly since it has few side effects. For OA, the results are conflicting in different studies and may depend on the method of application and other features of the LLLT. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this metaanalysis lacked data on how effectiveness of LLLT is affected by 4 factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage, and site of application over nerves instead of joints. There is a need to investigate the effects of these factors on effectiveness of LLLT for RA and OA in randomized controlled clinical trials.