Effects of various types of ultrasound therapy in hip osteoarthritis - a double-blind, randomized, controlled, follow-up study.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of various types of ultrasound therapy (UST) on pain, function, and quality of life in patients with hip osteoarthritis. METHODS: Seventy-one patients receiving conventional physiotherapy (exercise, massage, and balneotherapy), were randomly allocated into four treatment groups: (1) continuous UST, (2) pulsed UST, (3) UST combined with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), (4) placebo UST. We evaluated the hip pain (Visual Analog Scale), medication use, functional impairment (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index; 6-minute walking test) and quality of life (SF-36) before, right after the treatments, and at 3 months follow-up. RESULTS: Resting pain improved significantly in all treatment groups at the follow-up visit compared to baseline (p (group1-4) ≤0.002). The proportion of patients achieving Minimal Clinically Important Improvement (MCII) in function at month 3 was the highest in group 3 (73%). The 6-minute walking test significantly improved in each group during the follow-up period (p (group1-4) ≤ 0.025). Pain (p (group1-4) ≤ 0.014) and general health domains of the SF-36 showed the greatest improvement (p (group 2-4) ≤ 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference among the effects of various types of UST on pain, function, and quality of life in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis. Additional ultrasound treatment is not likely to increase the effect of the conventional therapy on pain and function in hip osteoarthritis.

Assessing the risk of rapid radiographic progression in Hungarian rheumatoid arthritis patients.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should be determined early. Rapid radiological progression (RRP) is > or = 5 units increase according to the van der Heijde-Sharp score within a year. The risk of RRP can be estimated by a matrix model using non-radiographic indicators, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), rheumatoid factor (RF) and swollen joint count (SJC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A non-interventional, cross-sectional, retrospective study was conducted in eleven Hungarian arthritis centres. We assessed RRP risk in biologic-naïve RA patients with the prevalence of high RRP risk as primary endpoint. RRP was calculated according to this matrix model. As a secondary endpoint, we compared RRP in methotrexate (MTX) responders vs non-responders. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 1356 patients. Mean CRP was 17.7 mg/l, RF was 139.3 IU/ml, mean 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) was 5.00 and mean SJC was 6.56. Altogether 18.2% of patients had high risk (≥40%) of RRP. RA patients with high RRP risk of RRP (n = 247) had significantly lower age compared to those with RRP < 40% (n = 1109). MTX non-response (OR: 16.84), male gender (OR: 1.67), erosions at baseline (OR: 1.50) and ACPA seropositivity (OR: 2.18) were independent predictors of high-risk RRP. Male gender (OR: 5.20), ACPA seropositivity (OR: 4.67) and erosions (OR: 7.98) were independent predictors of high RRP risk in MTX responders. CONCLUSIONS: In this Hungarian study, high RRP risk occurred in 18% of RA patients. These patients differ from others in various parameters. RRP was associated with non-response to MTX.