Dose-Response Relationship Between Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation and Muscle Function in People With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is a viable intervention for improving impaired muscle function in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, there is limited evidence about the dose-response relationship between NMES and muscle function in these individuals. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to investigate the dose-response relationship between NMES and muscle function in individuals with RA and to establish the minimal NMES training intensity for promoting improvements. DESIGN: This study was a secondary analysis of data obtained before and after an NMES intervention in a randomized study. METHODS: The study took place at a research clinic. Only adults diagnosed with RA were included. The intervention consisted of 36 NMES treatment sessions for the quadriceps muscles over 16 weeks. Muscle function was measured before and after the intervention; quadriceps cross-sectional area and muscle quality were assessed using computed tomography, and strength was measured with an isokinetic dynamometer. NMES training intensity was calculated as a percentage by dividing NMES-elicited quadriceps muscle torque by the maximum voluntary isometric contraction. Improvements in muscle function were calculated using paired-sample t tests. The dose-response relationship was determined using curve estimation regression statistics. The minimum NMES training intensity was defined as that sufficient to significantly improve all muscle function measures. RESULTS: Twenty-four people (48 legs) participated (75% women; mean [SD] age = 58 [8] years; mean body mass index = 32 [7] kg/m2). Quadriceps cross-sectional area, muscle quality, and strength improved after the intervention. Associations between NMES training intensity and muscle quality (r2 = 0.20) and strength (r2 = 0.23) were statistically significant, but that between NMES training intensity and muscle cross-sectional area was not (r2 = 0.02). The minimum NMES training intensity necessary to improve all measures of muscle function ranged from 11% to 20% of the maximum voluntary isometric contraction. LIMITATIONS: The relatively small sample size was a limitation. CONCLUSIONS: The minimum NMES training intensity for significant gains in muscle function was ∼15%. Higher NMES intensities may promote better muscle quality and strength in individuals with RA.

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.