OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility and effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) with that of high-intensity volitional resistance training for improving muscle structure and function and physical function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We also compared pre-intervention and post-intervention values of myocyte characteristics. METHODS: In this 2-group, single-blind, randomized pilot study, adult patients with RA were assigned to 36 sessions of NMES (n = 31 patients) or volitional training (n = 28 patients) over 16 weeks. Outcome measures included muscle structure and function (quadriceps muscle area, density, and strength), physical function (performance-based and patient-reported), feasibility (increased pain, increased disease activity, attrition, and adherence), and myocyte characteristics (area, proportion of type I or II muscle fibers, and intramyocellular lipid content). Analysis of covariance was used to compare groups. RESULTS: The intervention intensity in the NMES group was less than half that in the volitional exercise group (31% versus 77% of maximum effort). Both groups experienced significant improvements in muscle structure and function (P < 0.001 to 0.019). Improvements in muscle characteristics and physical function were not different between groups. Exercise did not result in serious adverse events or increases in pain and disease activity. Attrition was 29% in the NMES group and 7% in the volitional exercise group. CONCLUSION: Both NMES and high-intensity volitional resistance training can be used as effective approaches to improving muscle structure and function in patients with RA. NMES may be a viable alternative for improving muscle function in patients in whom high-intensity resistance exercise may not be tolerated or is contraindicated, but attrition must be considered when using this approach.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility and effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) with that of high-intensity volitional resistance training for improving muscle structure and function and physical function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We also compared pre-intervention and post-intervention values of myocyte characteristics. METHODS: In this 2-group, single-blind, randomized pilot study, adult patients with RA were assigned to 36 sessions of NMES (n = 31 patients) or volitional training (n = 28 patients) over 16 weeks. Outcome measures included muscle structure and function (quadriceps muscle area, density, and strength), physical function (performance-based and patient-reported), feasibility (increased pain, increased disease activity, attrition, and adherence), and myocyte characteristics (area, proportion of type I or II muscle fibers, and intramyocellular lipid content). Analysis of covariance was used to compare groups. RESULTS: The intervention intensity in the NMES group was less than half that in the volitional exercise group (31% versus 77% of maximum effort). Both groups experienced significant improvements in muscle structure and function (P < 0.001 to 0.019). Improvements in muscle characteristics and physical function were not different between groups. Exercise did not result in serious adverse events or increases in pain and disease activity. Attrition was 29% in the NMES group and 7% in the volitional exercise group. CONCLUSION: Both NMES and high-intensity volitional resistance training can be used as effective approaches to improving muscle structure and function in patients with RA. NMES may be a viable alternative for improving muscle function in patients in whom high-intensity resistance exercise may not be tolerated or is contraindicated, but attrition must be considered when using this approach.
Authors: J David Curb; Clementina D Ceria-Ulep; Beatriz L Rodriguez; John Grove; Jack Guralnik; Brad J Willcox; Tim A Donlon; Kamal H Masaki; Randi Chen Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Samannaaz S Khoja; Charity G Moore; Bret H Goodpaster; Anthony Delitto; Sara R Piva Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: E M Simonsick; A B Newman; M C Nevitt; S B Kritchevsky; L Ferrucci; J M Guralnik; T Harris Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: F Wolfe; D M Mitchell; J T Sibley; J F Fries; D A Bloch; C A Williams; P W Spitz; M Haga; S M Kleinheksel; M A Cathey Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1994-04
Authors: Sara R Piva; Edward A Goodnite; Koichiro Azuma; Jason D Woollard; Bret H Goodpaster; Mary Chester Wasko; G Kelley Fitzgerald Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2007-06-06