No abstract

Background and Objectives: The most frequent cause of mortality in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients is cardiovascular disease (CVD). Inflammation, dyslipidemia, and decreased physical activity are some of the main risk factors for CVD. Siwan sand therapy is a type of traditional therapy used in Egypt to treat RA. The approach of this therapy depends on the experience of the healers. The aim of the current study was to compare the effects of three sessions of Siwan traditional therapy to five sessions on common CVD risk factors and physical function in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients (9 male and 21 female) were assigned into two groups of equal size: group (A) received three sessions of Siwan traditional therapy in the form of a sand bath. Group (B) received the same form of therapy for five days. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), lipid profile, atherogenic index of plasma (AIP), and a health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) were measured before and after treatment. Results: There was a significant increase above normal within group (A) for ESR (p = 0.001), triglycerides (TG; p = 0.015), total cholesterol (Tot-Chol; p = 0.0001), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL; p = 0.0001). However, there were no considerable differences in high-density lipoprotein (HDL; p = 0.106), very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL; p = 0.213), AIP (p = 0.648), and HAQ (p = 0.875). For the second group, there were significant changes within group B only in Tot-Chol (p = 0.0001), HDL (p = 0.0001), VLDL (p = 0.0001), AIP (p = 0.008), and HAQ (p = 0.014). There was a significant difference between both groups regarding HDL (p = 0.027), LDL (p = 0.005), AIP (p = 0.029), ESR (p = 0.016), and HAQ (p = 0.036). Conclusions: For RA patients, five days of Siwan traditional therapy caused significant changes regarding inflammation, Tot-Chol, LDL, HDL, AIP, and functional activity when compared to three days of Siwan hot sand therapy.

Background Corticosteroid (CS) can be injected in a blind fashion (landmark-guided) or with ultrasound (US) guidance, and this may contribute to varying clinical results. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of US-guided versus landmark CS injections in the treatment of adult patients with shoulder pain. Methods We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing US-guided versus landmark CS injection regarding visual analogue scale (VAS), functional scores, disability scores, abduction degree, and side effects. The data were pooled as mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using R software (meta package 4.9-0) for windows. Subgroup analysis and leave-one-out analysis were conducted. Results Eighteen RCTs, with a total of 1010 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled estimate favored the US-guided over landmark CS injection in terms of the mean change of VAS between 6 weeks and baseline (SMD = − 0.48, 95% CI [− 0.79, − 0.17]), the shoulder functional scores (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI [0.05, 0.65]) and shoulder abduction degree (MD = 8.78, 95% CI [3.11, 14.46]). Whilst no significant difference was found between the compared group regarding the overall shoulder disability scores (SMD = − 0.51, 95% CI (− 1.25, 0.22]) and side effects (RR = 0.45, 95% CI [0.15, 1.34]). None of the eligible study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of the US-guided method compared with the landmark method for CS injection. Conclusion Our analysis showed that US-guided CS injection was effective in the treatment of various shoulder diseases. Further research on the cost-effectiveness of US-guided CS methods is needed.