Low level laser therapy is ineffective in the management of rheumatoid arthritic finger joints. Low energy laser therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. One-year outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of an educational-behavioural joint protection programme for people with rheumatoid arthritis.
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) is a relatively new and increasingly popular form of electrotherapy. It is used by physiotherapists in the treatment of a wide variety of conditions including RA despite the lack of scientific evidence to support its efficacy. A randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of LLLT. The patient sample consisted of chronic RA patients with active finger joint synovitis. Forty RA patients with involvement of some or all of MCP or PIP joints were recruited. Following random allocation they received either active or placebo laser three times a week for 4 weeks. Measurements were taken prior to entry, after the treatment, 1 month and 3 months at follow-up. The groups were well matched in terms of age, sex, disease duration and severity. Few significant differences were noted in grip strength, duration of morning stiffness, joint tenderness, temperature of inflamed joints, range of movement or pain either within or between groups. Using these irradiation parameters the efficacy of LLLT is ineffective. Low energy laser (LEL) is a widely used treatment for a variety of musculoskeletal disorders although convincing documentation of the effect is missing. We have examined the LEL effect on Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) in a double blind placebo controlled study. Twenty-two patients completed the study (10 receiving LEL treatment) according to the protocol. A significant effect on pain score was found due to LEL treatment, but when data were corrected for disease variation the effect disappeared. No effect of LEL could be demonstrated on the other assessed variables: grip strength, morning stiffness, flexibility, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP). In conclusion, we did not find that LEL had any clinically relevant effects on RA. Joint protection aims to reduce pain and local inflammation, preserve the integrity of joint structures and improve function. There is evidence that it can improve pain and function in the short term, but the long-term effects are uncertain. This study evaluated the effects of joint protection in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                A randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded trial of duration 1 yr was conducted. Two interventions (both 8 h) were compared: standard arthritis education, including 2.5 h of joint protection education based on typical UK practice; and a joint protection arthritis education programme, using educational-behavioural teaching methods. Assessments were made at entry and 6 and 12 months.
                Sixty-five people with RA attended the joint protection programme and 62 the standard programme. The groups were matched for age (51 and 49 yr), disease duration (21 and 17.5 months) and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. In comparison with the standard group, the joint protection group significantly improved with respect to adherence to the joint protection programme (P=0.001), hand pain (P=0.02), general pain (P=0.05), early morning stiffness (P=0.01), self-reported number of disease flare-ups (P=0.004), visits to the doctor for arthritis (P<0.01), and the AIMS2 (Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales) activities of daily living scale (P=0.04). A trend to improved swollen joint counts was identified (P=0.07). Within-group analyses also showed improvements in arthritis self-efficacy and perceived control. Hand deformity scores continued to increase in both groups.
                We found significant improvements in adherence, pain, disease status and functional ability amongst those attending the joint protection programme. Benefits became more apparent with time, suggesting that joint protection can help slow the progression of the effects of RA over and above the effects of drug therapy.
LLLT could be considered for short-term treatment for relief of pain and morning stiffness for RA patients, particularly since it has few side-effects. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected by four important factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage and site of application over nerves instead of joints. There is clearly a need to investigate the effects of these factors on LLLT effectiveness for RA in randomized controlled clinical trials.