BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disorder involving deterioration of articular cartilage and underlying bone and is associated with symptoms of pain and disability. Glucosamine is a component of articular cartilage naturally synthesized in the body from glucose and incorporated into substances contained in the cartilage. It has been suggested that consumption of glucosamine may reduce the pain of OA and may have favorable effects on structural changes in the cartilage. This article presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of orally consumed glucosamine sulfate (GS) on OA-related pain and joint structural changes.
METHODS: PubMed and Ovid Embase were searched using specific search terms to find randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials on the effects of GS on pain and/or joint-space narrowing. The outcome measure was the standardized mean difference (SMD), which was the improvement in the placebo groups minus the improvement in the GS groups divided by the pooled standard deviation.
RESULTS: There were 17 studies meeting the review criteria for pain, and the summary SMD was -0.35, with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = -0.54 to -0.16 (negative SMD is in favor of GS). Of the 17 studies, 7 showed a statistically significant reduction in pain from GS use. Four studies met the review criteria for joint space narrowing with a summary SMD = -0.10 (95% CI = -0.23 to +0.04). Studies without involvement of the commercial glucosamine industry had a lower (but still significant) pain reduction efficacy (summary SMD = -0.19, 95% CI = -0.39 to -0.02) than those with industry involvement. Several smaller dosages throughout the day had larger pain reduction effects than a single daily large dose (1500 mg).
CONCLUSION: These data indicate that GS may have a small to moderate effect in reducing OA-related pain but little effect on joint-space narrowing. Until there is more definitive evidence, healthcare providers should be cautious in recommending use of GS to their patients. Because GS dosages used in studies to date resulted in mild and transient adverse effects, and these were similar to that experienced by patients receiving placebos, larger GS doses possibly could be investigated in future studies.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacies of oral glucosamine, chondroitin, the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin, acetaminophen and celecoxib on the treatment of knee and/or hip osteoarthritis.
METHODS: We searched electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and the reference lists of relevant articles published from inception to October 23, 2017. A Bayesian hierarchical random effects model was used to examine the overall effect size among mixed multiple interventions.
RESULTS: We identified 61 randomised controlled trials of patients with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis. There was no obvious difference in the results between the traditional meta-analysis and the network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that celecoxib was most likely the best option (SMD, -0.32 [95% CI, -0.38 to -0.25]) for pain, followed by the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin. For physical function, all interventions were significantly superior to oral placebo except for acetaminophen. In terms of stiffness, glucosamine (SMD, -0.36 [95% CI, -0.67 to -0.06]) and celecoxib (SMD, -0.29 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.08]) were significantly better compared to placebo. In view of safety, compared to placebo only, celecoxib and acetaminophen presented significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the effectiveness of these non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and symptomatic slow-acting drugs, oral celecoxib is more effective than placebo on relieving pain and improving physical function, followed by the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin. Acetaminophen is likely the least efficacious intervention option. This information, accompanied by the tolerability and economic costs of the included treatments, would be conducive to making decisions for clinicians.
Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is one of the main causes of mobility decline in the elderly. Non-surgical treatments such as administration of supplements to strengthen the joint cartilage matrix have become popular not only for pain relief but also for joint preservation. Glucosamine has been used in many countries based on the increasing evidence of its effectiveness for OA. Although there are many previous studies and systematic reviews, the findings vary and different conclusions have been drawn. We aimed to review recent randomized controlled trials on glucosamine for knee OA to reveal up-to-date findings about this supplement. We also performed a meta-analysis of some of the outcomes to overcome the unsolved bias in each study. Eighteen articles written between 2003 and 2016 were analyzed. Many used visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), which were assessed in our meta-analysis. We found a marginally favorable effect of glucosamine on VAS pain scores. The effect on knee function, as measured by the WOMAC, was small and not significant. A newly established knee OA scale, the Japanese Knee Osteoarthritis Measure (JKOM), is commonly used in Japan. Although the number of subjects was small, the JKOM meta-analysis indicated that glucosamine is superior to a placebo in alleviating knee OA symptoms. Given this, we concluded that glucosamine has the potential to alleviate knee OA pain. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of glucosamine on knee function and joint preservation, as well as to evaluate the combined effect with other components, such as chondroitin.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the symptomatic effectiveness and safety of oral symptomatic slow-acting drugs (SYSADOAs) on the treatment of knee and/or hip osteoarthritis, such as chondroitin, glucosamine, and combination treatment with chondroitin plus glucosamine. METHODS: We searched electronic database including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the reference lists of relevant articles published from inception to May 22, 2018. An updated meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness of these slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles describing 30 trials met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The estimates between chondroitin and placebo showed that chondroitin could alleviate pain symptoms and improve function. Compared with placebo, glucosamine proved significant effect only on stiffness improvement. However, the combination therapy did not have enough evidence to be superior to placebo. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the incidence of AEs and discontinuations of AEs when compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Given the effectiveness of these symptomatic slow-acting drugs, oral chondroitin is more effective than placebo on relieving pain and improving physical function. Glucosamine showed effect on stiffness outcome. Regarding on the limited number of combination therapy, further studies need to investigate the accurate effectiveness. This information accompanied with the tolerability and economic costs of included treatments would be conducive to making decisions for clinicians.
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of glucosamine, chondroitin, the two in combination, or celecoxib in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched through from inception to February 2015. A total of 54 studies covering 16427 patients were included. Glucosamine plus chondroitin, glucosamine alone, and celecoxib were all more effective than placebo in pain relief and function improvement. Specifically, celecoxib is most likely to be the best treatment option, followed by the combination group. All treatment options showed clinically significant improvement from baseline pain, but only glucosamine plus chondroitin showed clinically significant improvement from baseline function. In terms of the structure-modifying effect, both glucosamine alone and chondroitin alone achieved a statistically significant reduction in joint space narrowing. Although no significant difference was observed among the five options with respect to the three major adverse effects (withdrawal due to adverse events, serious adverse events and the number of patients with adverse events), the additional classical meta-analysis showed that celecoxib exhibited a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse effect comparing with the placebo group. The present study provided evidence for the symptomatic efficacy of glucosamine plus chondroitin in the treatment of knee OA.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacies of different preparations of glucosamine for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).
METHODS: Systematic searches of the bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) concerning glucosamine treatment of OA. Effect size (ES) was estimated using Cohen's standardised mean difference. Consistency was evaluated via the I(2) index.
RESULTS: Nineteen trials (3159 patients) contributed to the meta-analysis, revealing a large degree of inconsistency among the trials in terms of pain-reduction outcome: the combined ES in glucosamine sulphate (GS) trials was -0.22 [95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.48, 0.04], I(2) was 82.3%. The combined ES in glucosamine hydrochloride (GH) trials was -0.03 (95% CI -0.14, 0.08), with an absence of heterogeneity. No treatment ES was observed [-0.38 (95% CI -0.99, 0.23)] favouring GS in trials of less than 24 weeks duration and the I(2) remained high (I(2) = 88.5%). No significant treatment ES -0.09 (95% CI -0.21, 0.03) was observed in trials of more than 24 weeks duration compared with placebo, with a heterogeneity of zero. In terms of function-modifying outcomes, GS showed no significant effect on Lequesne Index reduction vs. placebo in trials of less than 24 weeks duration (ES -0.55 (95% CI -1.22, 0.11)) with a high degree of heterogeneity (I(2) = 92.9%). Pooling data from studies with durations of more than 24 weeks presented a significant combined ES of -0.36 (95% CI: -0.56, -0.17) with an absence of heterogeneity. No risk of publication bias could be detected using Egger test.
CONCLUSIONS: GH is ineffective for pain reduction in patients with knee OA. GS may have function-modifying effects in patients with knee OA when administered for more than 6 months. However, it showed no pain-reduction benefits after 6 months of therapy.
BACKGROUND: Nutritional supplements are commonly used for a variety of musculoskeletal conditions, including knee and hip degenerative joint disease. Although these supplements are occasionally recommended for patients with degenerative disc disease and spinal degenerative joint disease, the evidence supporting this use is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically search and assess the quality of the literature on the use of glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and methylsulfonylmethane for the treatment of spinal osteoarthritis / degenerative joint disease, and degenerative disc disease.
DATA SOURCES: The Index of Chiropractic Literature, AMED, Medline, and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials in English from 1984 to July 2009.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data from studies meeting the inclusion criteria was extracted and reviewed by three reviewers. The Jadad scale was used to assess study quality. No attempts were made at meta-analysis due to variation in study design.
RESULTS: Two articles met the inclusion criteria. One study was found to have good quality but reported negative results for the supplemented group compared with placebo, the other study had low quality but reported significant positive results for the supplemented group when compared with a no intervention control group.
CONCLUSION: There was little literature found to support the use of common nutritional supplements for spinal degeneration, making it difficult to determine whether clinicians should recommend them.
Objectives. To critically evaluate the evidence regarding complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) taken orally or applied topically (excluding glucosamine and chondroitin) in the treatment of OA. Methods. Randomized clinical trials of OA using CAMs, in comparison with other treatments or placebo, published in English up to January 2009, were eligible for inclusion. They were identified using systematic searches of bibliographic databases and manual searching of reference lists. Information was extracted on outcomes, and statistical significance, in comparison with alternative treatment of placebo, and side effects were reported. The methodological quality of the primary studies was determined. Results. The present review found consistent evidence that capsaicin gel and S-adenosyl methionine were effective in the management of OA. There was also some consistency to the evidence that Indian Frankincense, methylsulphonylmethane and rose hip may be effective. For other substances with promising evidence, the evidence base was either insufficiently large or the evidence base was inconsistent. Most of the CAM compounds studied were free of major adverse effects. Conclusion. The major limitation in reviewing the evidence is the paucity of randomized controlled trials in the area: widening the evidence base, particularly for those compounds for which there is promising evidence, should be a priority for both researchers and funders.
OBJECTIVE: Conventional treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is associated with serious gastrointestinal side effects and in view of the recent withdrawal of some cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors, identifying safer alternative treatment options is needed. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the existing evidence from randomised controlled trials of two chemically related nutritional supplements, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) in the treatment of OA to determine their efficacy and safety profile.
METHODS: The electronic databases [Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Amed, Cinahl and NeLH (1950 to November 2007)] were searched. The search strategy combined terms: osteoarthritis, degenerative joint disorder, dimethyl sulfoxide, DMSO, methylsulfonylmethane, MSM, clinical trial; double-blind, single blind, RCT, placebo, randomized, comparative study, evaluation study, control. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Data were extracted and quality was assessed using the JADAD scale.
RESULTS: Six studies were included [evaluating a total of 681 patients with OA of the knee for DMSO (N=297 on active treatment); 168 patients for MSM (N=52 on active treatment)]. Two of the four DMSO trials, and both MSM trials reported significant improvement in pain outcomes in the treatment group compared to comparator treatments, however, methodological issues and concerns over optimal dosage and treatment period, were highlighted.
CONCLUSION: No definitive conclusion can currently be drawn for either supplement. The findings from all the DMSO studies need to be viewed with caution because of poor methodology including; possible unblinding, and questionable treatment duration and dose. The data from the more rigorous MSM trials provide positive but not definitive evidence that MSM is superior to placebo in the treatment of mild to moderate OA of the knee. Further studies are now required to identify both the optimum dosage and longer-term safety of MSM and DMSO, and definitive efficacy trials.
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disorder involving deterioration of articular cartilage and underlying bone and is associated with symptoms of pain and disability. Glucosamine is a component of articular cartilage naturally synthesized in the body from glucose and incorporated into substances contained in the cartilage. It has been suggested that consumption of glucosamine may reduce the pain of OA and may have favorable effects on structural changes in the cartilage. This article presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of orally consumed glucosamine sulfate (GS) on OA-related pain and joint structural changes.
METHODS:
PubMed and Ovid Embase were searched using specific search terms to find randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials on the effects of GS on pain and/or joint-space narrowing. The outcome measure was the standardized mean difference (SMD), which was the improvement in the placebo groups minus the improvement in the GS groups divided by the pooled standard deviation.
RESULTS:
There were 17 studies meeting the review criteria for pain, and the summary SMD was -0.35, with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = -0.54 to -0.16 (negative SMD is in favor of GS). Of the 17 studies, 7 showed a statistically significant reduction in pain from GS use. Four studies met the review criteria for joint space narrowing with a summary SMD = -0.10 (95% CI = -0.23 to +0.04). Studies without involvement of the commercial glucosamine industry had a lower (but still significant) pain reduction efficacy (summary SMD = -0.19, 95% CI = -0.39 to -0.02) than those with industry involvement. Several smaller dosages throughout the day had larger pain reduction effects than a single daily large dose (1500 mg).
CONCLUSION:
These data indicate that GS may have a small to moderate effect in reducing OA-related pain but little effect on joint-space narrowing. Until there is more definitive evidence, healthcare providers should be cautious in recommending use of GS to their patients. Because GS dosages used in studies to date resulted in mild and transient adverse effects, and these were similar to that experienced by patients receiving placebos, larger GS doses possibly could be investigated in future studies.
