评估无创脉冲电磁场治疗关节和软组织疼痛:一项前瞻性,多中心,随机临床试验。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pain and Therapy Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1007/s40122-025-00711-z
Joshua G Hackel, James M Paci, Sunny Gupta, David A Maravelas, Taylor J North, Adelina Paunescu
{"title":"评估无创脉冲电磁场治疗关节和软组织疼痛:一项前瞻性,多中心,随机临床试验。","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":"723-735"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11914662/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"723-735\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11914662/pdf/\",\"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\":\"2025/2/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"2025/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:减少药物治疗疼痛的策略是必要的。脉冲电磁场(PEMF)治疗是一种无创、非药物治疗疼痛的方法,通过改变一氧化氮信号来改善愈合。本研究考察了PEMF与标准治疗(SOC)相比是否能减轻关节和软组织疼痛的疼痛和药物使用。方法:这项前瞻性、随机对照试验纳入了5个骨科诊所的120例关节或软组织疼痛患者。PEMF组每天使用市售设备进行自我治疗,SOC组每天接受临床医生规定的标准治疗。患者每天记录疼痛程度、药物使用情况和不良事件,持续14天。14天后,SOC组的患者可以选择切换到PEMF治疗并持续16天。这项研究是由一个独立的临床研究组织监督的。假设PEMF在疼痛管理方面优于SOC。结果:与SOC相比,PEMF治疗具有显著的镇痛效果。收集了91例患者的完整数据,其中48例来自PEMF组,43例来自SOC组。与基线相比,PEMF组的最小二乘平均疼痛评分变化为- 1.8(减少36%),显著超过SOC组的- 0.46(减少10%)(p结论:PEMF在控制疼痛和减少药物使用方面明显比SOC更有效。对于关节和软组织疼痛的非侵入性、非药物治疗,应考虑采用脉冲电场治疗。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05244187。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Noninvasive Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy for Joint and Soft Tissue Pain Management: A Prospective, Multi-center, Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain and Therapy
Pain and Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
110
审稿时长
6 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信