Evaluating Noninvasive Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy for Joint and Soft Tissue Pain Management: A Prospective, Multi-center, Randomized Clinical Trial.
Joshua G Hackel, James M Paci, Sunny Gupta, David A Maravelas, Taylor J North, Adelina Paunescu
{"title":"Evaluating Noninvasive Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy for Joint and Soft Tissue Pain Management: A Prospective, Multi-center, Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Joshua G Hackel, James M Paci, Sunny Gupta, David A Maravelas, Taylor J North, Adelina Paunescu","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00711-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Strategies to reduce pharmacologic use for pain are needed. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is a noninvasive, nonpharmacologic treatment for pain that modifies nitric oxide signaling to improve healing. This study examined whether PEMF decreased pain and pharmacologic use vs. standard-of-care (SOC) treatment for joint and soft tissue pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolled 120 patients presenting with joint or soft tissue pain at five orthopedic clinic sites. The PEMF group self-administered daily therapy from a commercially available device and the SOC group received standard treatment daily as prescribed by the clinician. Patients recorded their pain level, pharmacologic usage, and adverse events daily for 14 days. After 14 days, patients in the SOC group were given the option to crossover to PEMF therapy and continue for 16 days. The study was overseen by an independent clinical research organization. It was hypothesized that PEMF would be superior to SOC for pain management.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PEMF treatment provided significant analgesic benefits compared to SOC. Complete data was collected for 91 patients, 48 from the PEMF group and 43 from the SOC group. The least squares mean pain score change from baseline was - 1.8 (a 36% reduction) for the PEMF group, significantly surpassing - 0.46 (a 10% reduction) for the SOC group (p < 0.0001). Pharmacologic usage decreased from 40 to 18% for the PEMF group (a 55% reduction), while the SOC group decreased from 40 to 35% (a 12% reduction). In the crossover subgroup, patients experienced an additional 18% decrease in pain score and 63% decrease in pharmacologic use after switching from SOC to PEMF treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEMF was significantly more effective than SOC at managing pain and reducing pharmacologic use. PEMF therapy should be considered for noninvasive, nonpharmacologic management of joint and soft tissue pain.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05244187.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-025-00711-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Strategies to reduce pharmacologic use for pain are needed. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is a noninvasive, nonpharmacologic treatment for pain that modifies nitric oxide signaling to improve healing. This study examined whether PEMF decreased pain and pharmacologic use vs. standard-of-care (SOC) treatment for joint and soft tissue pain.
Methods: This prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolled 120 patients presenting with joint or soft tissue pain at five orthopedic clinic sites. The PEMF group self-administered daily therapy from a commercially available device and the SOC group received standard treatment daily as prescribed by the clinician. Patients recorded their pain level, pharmacologic usage, and adverse events daily for 14 days. After 14 days, patients in the SOC group were given the option to crossover to PEMF therapy and continue for 16 days. The study was overseen by an independent clinical research organization. It was hypothesized that PEMF would be superior to SOC for pain management.
Results: PEMF treatment provided significant analgesic benefits compared to SOC. Complete data was collected for 91 patients, 48 from the PEMF group and 43 from the SOC group. The least squares mean pain score change from baseline was - 1.8 (a 36% reduction) for the PEMF group, significantly surpassing - 0.46 (a 10% reduction) for the SOC group (p < 0.0001). Pharmacologic usage decreased from 40 to 18% for the PEMF group (a 55% reduction), while the SOC group decreased from 40 to 35% (a 12% reduction). In the crossover subgroup, patients experienced an additional 18% decrease in pain score and 63% decrease in pharmacologic use after switching from SOC to PEMF treatment.
Conclusions: PEMF was significantly more effective than SOC at managing pain and reducing pharmacologic use. PEMF therapy should be considered for noninvasive, nonpharmacologic management of joint and soft tissue pain.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05244187.
期刊介绍：
Pain and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of pain therapies and pain-related devices. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, acute pain, cancer pain, chronic pain, headache and migraine, neuropathic pain, opioids, palliative care and pain ethics, peri- and post-operative pain as well as rheumatic pain and fibromyalgia.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial protocols, short communications such as commentaries and editorials, and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from around the world. Pain and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
