PEMF Device for Pets

Bioelectronics corporation has announced its intent to market a new device for treatment of osteoarthritis in pets. The device, the HealFast®Therapy PetPatch™, is a pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) device that attaches over a swollen or painful joint ad is intended to “to reduce swelling, relieve pain and enhance the healing of surgical incisions, accidental wounds, sprains, strains and chronic wounds.”

PEMF devices are widely available for human use, and as usual for CAM nostrums they are based on some suggestive in vitro and laboratory studies and weak clinical trial evidence. Electromagnetic fields do have measurable effects on cells in vitro, and there are some recognized medical uses for them. Some evidence suggests an improvement in outcome for non-union fractures, and there may be some benefit in terms of reduced pain and swelling following surgery. However, overall the evidence for clinical benefit is equivocal, as indicated by a number of review studies:

“All trials examined knee OA and one also performed a separate evaluation for cervical OA patients. The results of this analysis show improvements in all measurements for knee OA, but their clinical significance from a patient’s perspective was questionable. Only two outcomes favoured treatment for cervical OA trial and none were considered clinically important. There were no reported side effects. The reviewers conclude that there is an urgent need for further large-scale studies of pulsed electric stimulation with a focus on knee OA to establish the clinical relevance of treatment.” Cochrane Review

“We cannot make any definitive statements on the effects of electrotherapy for people with acute or chronic mechanical neck disorders (MND). Based on this review of 11 trials and 525 people with MND, the current evidence on Galvanic current (direct or pulsed), iontophoresis, TENS, EMS, PEMF and permanent magnets is either lacking, limited, or conflicting.” Cochrane Review

“McCarthy and colleagues (2006) noted that the rehabilitation of knee osteoarthritis often includes electrotherapeutic modalities as well as advice and exercise.  One commonly used modality is PEMF.  Its equivocal benefit over placebo treatment has been previously suggested.  However, recently a number of randomized controlled studies have been published that have allowed a systematic review to be conducted.  The authors concluded that this systematic review provides further evidence that PEMF has little value in the management of knee osteoarthritis.  There appears to be clear evidence for the recommendation that PEMF does not significantly reduce the pain of knee osteoarthritis.”AETNA insurance company literature summary

“In a randomized, placebo-controlled study, Ay and Evcik (2008) examined the effects of PEMF on pain relief and functional capacity of patients with knee osteoarthritis.  A total of 55 patients were included.  At the end of treatment, there was statistically significant improvement in pain scores in both groups (p < 0.05).  On the other hand, no significant difference was observed within the groups (p > 0.05).  These investigators observed statistically significant improvement in some of the subgroups of Lequesne index (e.g., morning stiffness and activities of daily living) compared to the placebo group.  However, these researchers could not observe statistically significant differences in total of the scale between two groups (p > 0.05).  Applying between-group analysis, the authors were unable to demonstrate a beneficial symptomatic effect of PEMF in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in all patients.  They stated that further studies using different types of magnetic devices, treatment protocols and patient populations are warranted to confirm the general efficacy of PEMF therapy in knee osteoarthritis and other conditions.” AETNA insurance company literature summary

“Furthermore, in a systematic review on wound care management, Cullum, et al. (2001) concluded that there is generally insufficient reliable evidence to draw conclusions about the contribution of laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, electro-therapy and electromagnetic therapy to chronic wound healing.  Flemming and Cullum (2001) also concluded that there is currently no reliable evidence of benefit of electromagnetic therapy in the healing of venous leg ulcers.” AETNA insurance company literature summary

This would seem to suggest that a responsible company would make an investment in investigating a promising therapeutic concept in the hopes of eventually finding a beneficial, and presumably profitable, product. Unfortunately, as I’ve discussed before this instead is seen as a perfect opportunity to make a quick buck selling something based on its promised rather than its demonstrated value. What is especially disturbing about the Bioelectronics’ press release is the unabashed trumpeting of the potential profit to be made and the clearly stated intent to market the device directly to consumers, bypassing the veterinarians who presumably might have troubling questions about the evidence behind the company’s claims: “A comprehensive direct to consumer marketing program will support the launch of the new product. The centerpiece of the campaign is a new TV commercial which will begin rolling out next week.”

So for those of you who are veterinarians, be prepared for the clients who will soon be coming to you having seen the new commercial. Hopefully, they’ll be seeking you advice, but unfortunately it’s always dissatisfying for client and vet alike to have to answer the glowing testimonials and marketing hype for one of these products by a sober and bland summary of equivocal research evidence. Still, that’s our job!

• Pin It
• Share
• Tweet