Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Compared to Volitional Exercise for Improving Muscle Function in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Pilot Study.

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.

Prednisone Use and Risk of Mortality in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Moderation by Use of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs.

OBJECTIVE: Medications for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may affect survival. However, studies often include limited followup and do not account for selection bias in treatment allocation. Using a large longitudinal database, we examined the association between prednisone use and mortality in RA, and whether this risk was modified with concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use, after controlling for propensity for treatment with prednisone and individual DMARDs. METHODS: In a prospective study of 5,626 patients with RA followed for up to 25 years, we determined the risk of death associated with prednisone use alone and combined treatment of prednisone with methotrexate (MTX) or sulfasalazine. We used the random forests method to generate propensity scores for prednisone use and each DMARD at study entry and during followup. Mortality risks were estimated using multivariate Cox models that included propensity scores. RESULTS: During followup (median 4.97 years), 666 patients (11.8%) died. In a multivariate, propensity-adjusted model, prednisone use was associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 2.83 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.03-7.76]). However, there was a significant interaction between prednisone use and MTX use (P = 0.03), so that risk was attenuated when patients were treated with both medications (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.18-5.36]). However, combination treatment also weakened the protective association of MTX with mortality. Results were similar for sulfasalazine. CONCLUSION: Prednisone use was associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality in patients with RA. This association was mitigated by concomitant DMARD use, but combined treatment also negated the previously reported beneficial association of MTX with survival in RA.

Association of Light-Intensity Physical Activity With Lower Cardiovascular Disease Risk Burden in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize physical activity (PA) in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to determine the associations between PA participation at light to moderate intensities and cardiovascular disease risk factors, disability, and disease activity. METHODS: The cross-sectional study used data from 2 RA cohorts. PA was measured using an accelerometry-based activity monitor, recording minutes/day spent in sedentary (≤1 metabolic equivalent [MET]), very light (1.1-1.9 METs), light (2-2.9 METs), and moderate activities (≥3 METs). Cardiovascular markers included body mass index, blood pressure, insulin resistance, and lipid profile. Disability and disease activity were measured using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), respectively. Associations between PA at each intensity level and health markers were assessed by multiple linear regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and cohort. RESULTS: Ninety-eight subjects (mean ± SD age 58 ± 9 years, 85% female) were included. Subjects spent 9.8 hours/day being sedentary, 3.5 hours/day engaged in very light PA, 2.1 hours/day engaged in light PA, and 35 minutes/day engaged in moderate PA. Only 17% were physically active (≥150 minutes/week of moderate PA in 10-minute bouts). Regression models showed that very light, light, and moderate PA were inversely associated with most cardiovascular disease risk factors and HAQ and DAS28 scores (R(2) Δ range 0.04-0.52, P < 0.05). The associations between PA and cardiovascular disease markers were either equivalent or stronger at very light and light intensities, as compared to moderate intensity. CONCLUSION: Individuals with RA are mostly active at very light and light intensities. PA at these intensity levels associates favorably with cardiovascular markers and lower disability and disease activity in RA.