AB1261 DOUBLE-BLIND PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL OF PULSED ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD THERAPY IN KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS (PRELIMINARY RESULTS)
Authors: D. Karateev, A. Makevnina, A. Tangieva, E. Luchikhina, H. Hamhoeva
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2020)

Background: Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is widely used in different areas of medicine. There are a lot of portable PEMF therapeutic devices on the market around the world. Nevertheless, the role of PEMF in treatment of rheumatic conditions is not clear. Current evidence is of low and very low quality. Objectives: To study efficacy and safety of PEMF therapy in primary and secondary osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee in controlled clinical trial. Methods: This abstract presents the preliminary results of an ongoing double-blind placebo-controlled trial of PEMF portable therapeutic device “ALMAG+” (Certificate EN ISO 13485:2012+AC:2012 reg.-No 44221 117836, Yelatma Instrument-Making Enterprise, Russian Federation, Reg. Num.: 3007075140). The device is intended for physiotherapeutic treatment and rehabilitation with a low-frequency low-intensity PEMF in medical institutions, as well as at home after the recommendation of a doctor. Patients with primary and secondary (as a part of inflammatory rheumatic disease) OA of knee with Kellgren-Lawrence Grade I-III included in the study (in patients with inflammatory conditions disease activity should be minimal on stable drug therapy). Three courses of PEMF of 20 procedures for 1 year planned in active treatment group and placebo (inactive device) group of 35 patients each. Efficacy is evaluated by pain VAS, WOMAC, Lequesne index, and quality of life studied using SF-36, EuroQoL 5D tools. Instrumental control with knee ultrasound and MRI investigations will be performed. The study protocol was approved by local Ethical Committee. Results: To date 23 patients (7 males, 16 females, age 54,6±11,2 years, primary knee OA – 16 pts, RA- 6 pts, AS – 1 pt) completed 1 st course of PEMF. Table presents differences (Δ) in the main clinical parameters in active treatment and placebo device groups. No significant difference in ESR or CRP levels was found. No treatment-related adverse events has been reported. Table. Differences (Δ) in the main clinical parameters after a 1 st course of PEMF. Parameter Active device (n=11) Placebo device (n=12) p Δ VAS pain in movement 15 [0; 38,5] 5 [1,25; 10,5] 0,053 Δ VAS pain in rest 10 [0; 34] 1 [0; 2,75] 0,043 Δ WOMAC 3 [2; 10] 2 [0; 4,5] 0,174 Δ Lequesne index 3 [0; 4] 1 [0,25; 2,5] 0,258 Conclusion: In this preliminary analysis pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy showed significant impact on pain in rest in knee OA after one course of procedures. References: Negm A, Lorbergs A, Macintyre NJ. Efficacy of low frequency pulsed subsensory threshold electrical stimulation vs placebo on pain and physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis: systematic review with meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013 Sep;21(9):1281-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2013.06.015 Disclosure of Interests: Dmitry Karateev Consultant of: Abbvie, Pfizer, Biocad, Sanofi, Novartis, Lilly, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Roche, Pfizer, Biocad, MSD, Sanofi, Johnson &amp; Johnson, Glaxo, UCB, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Bayer, Alexandra Makevnina Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Aminat Tangieva: None declared, Elena Luchikhina Consultant of: Abbvie, Biocad, Sanofi, Celgene, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Roche, Pfizer, Biocad, MSD, Sanofi, Johnson &amp; Johnson, Glaxo, UCB, Celgene, Novartis, Hava Hamhoeva: None declared