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.
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.
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis, a common joint disorder, is one of the leading causes of disability. Chondroitin has emerged as a new treatment. Previous meta-analyses have shown contradictory results on the efficacy of chondroitin. This, in addition to the publication of more trials, necessitates a systematic review.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefit and harm of oral chondroitin for treating osteoarthritis compared with placebo or a comparator oral medication including, but not limited to, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesics, opioids, and glucosamine or other "herbal" medications.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched seven databases up to November 2013, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Science Citation Index (Web of Science) and Current Controlled Trials. We searched the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) websites for adverse effects. Trial registers were not searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials lasting longer than two weeks, studying adults with osteoarthritis in any joint, and comparing chondroitin with placebo, an active control such as NSAIDs, or other "herbal" supplements such as glucosamine.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed all title assessments, data extractions, and risk of bias assessments.
MAIN RESULTS: Forty-three randomized controlled trials including 4,962 participants treated with chondroitin and 4,148 participants given placebo or another control were included. The majority of trials were in knee OA, with few in hip and hand OA. Trial duration varied from 1 month to 3 years. Participants treated with chondroitin achieved statistically significantly and clinically meaningful better pain scores (0-100) in studies less than 6 months than those given placebo with an absolute risk difference of 10% lower (95% confidence interval (CI), 15% to 6% lower; number needed to treat (NNT) = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8; n = 8 trials) (level of evidence, low; risk of bias, high); but there was high heterogeneity between the trials (T(2) = 0.07; I(2) = 70%, which was not easily explained by differences in risk of bias or study sample size). In studies longer than 6 months, the absolute risk difference for pain was 9% lower (95% CI 18% lower to 0%); n = 6 trials; T(2) = 0.18; I(2) = 83% ), again with low level of evidence.For the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Minimal Clinically Important Improvement (WOMAC MCII Pain subscale) outcome, a reduction in knee pain by 20% was achieved by 53/100 in the chondroitin group versus 47/100 in the placebo group, an absolute risk difference of 6% (95% CI 1% to 11%), (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.24; T(2) = 0.00; I(2) = 0%) (n = 2 trials, 1253 participants; level of evidence, high; risk of bias, low).Differences in Lequesne's index (composite of pain,function and disability) statistically significantly favoured chondroitin as compared with placebo in studies under six months, with an absolute risk difference of 8% lower (95% CI 12% to 5% lower; T(2)= 0.78; n = 7 trials) (level of evidence, moderate; risk of bias, unclear), also clinically meaningful. Loss of minimum joint space width in the chondroitin group was statistically significantly less than in the placebo group, with a relative risk difference of 4.7% less (95% CI 1.6% to 7.8% less; n = 2 trials) (level of evidence, high; risk of bias, low). Chondroitin was associated with statistically significantly lower odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo with Peto odds ratio of 0.40 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; n = 6 trials) (level of evidence, moderate). Chondroitin did not result in statistically significant numbers of adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo or another drug. Adverse events were reported in a limited fashion, with some studies providing data and others not.Comparisons of chondroitin taken alone or in combination with glucosamine or another supplement showed a statistically significant reduction in pain (0-100) when compared with placebo or an active control, with an absolute risk difference of 10% lower (95% CI 14% to 5% lower); NNT = 4 (95% CI 3 to 6); T(2) = 0.33; I(2) = 91%; n = 17 trials) (level of evidence, low). For physical function, chondroitin in combination with glucosamine or another supplement showed no statistically significant difference from placebo or an active control, with an absolute risk difference of 1% lower (95% CI 6% lower to 3% higher with T(2) = 0.04; n = 5 trials) (level of evidence, moderate). Differences in Lequesne's index statistically significantly favoured chondroitin as compared with placebo, with an absolute risk difference of 8% lower (95% CI, 12% to 4% lower; T(2) = 0.12; n = 10 trials) (level of evidence, moderate). Chondroitin in combination with glucosamine did not result in statistically significant differences in the numbers of adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, or in the numbers of serious adverse events compared with placebo or with an active control.The beneficial effects of chondroitin in pain and Lequesne's index persisted when evidence was limited to studies with adequate blinding or studies that used appropriate intention to treat (ITT) analyses. These beneficial effects were uncertain when we limited data to studies with appropriate allocation concealment or a large study sample (> 200) or to studies without pharmaceutical funding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A review of randomized trials of mostly low quality reveals that chondroitin (alone or in combination with glucosamine) was better than placebo in improving pain in participants with osteoarthritis in short-term studies. The benefit was small to moderate with an 8 point greater improvement in pain (range 0 to 100) and a 2 point greater improvement in Lequesne's index (range 0 to 24), both seeming clinically meaningful. These differences persisted in some sensitivity analyses and not others. Chondroitin had a lower risk of serious adverse events compared with control. More high-quality studies are needed to explore the role of chondroitin in the treatment of osteoarthritis. The combination of some efficacy and low risk associated with chondroitin may explain its popularity among patients as an over-the-counter supplement.
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic, highly prevalent and disabling disease that is expected to increase in prevalence secondary to longer life expectancy and a disproportionately aging population. Treatment of OA is only marginally effective and has been focused primarily on symptom control using weight loss, physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, intra-articular steroids or viscosupplementation, topical NSAIDs and analgesics, diacerein (an oral interleukin-1β inhibitor) and finally joint replacement surgery. The use of nutraceuticals in the treatment of OA is common, and scientific studies examining the effects of nutraceuticals on the pathogenesis and treatment of OA are increasing. This review examines the efficacy and safety of select nutraceuticals for the treatment of OA. The reviewed nutraceuticals include glucosamine, chondroitin, collagen hydrolysates (CHs) and avocado-soybean unsaponifiables (ASUs). There have been several clinical trials examining the efficacy of these products and the results demonstrate significant heterogeneity. Significant improvements in pain, function and structural outcomes have been shown for some of the treatment arms or subgroups of patients, but the effects are not consistent across the studies. Glucosamine, chondroitin and the two in combination have been the most extensively studied. Significant improvement in pain and functional indices and a decrease in the loss of joint space width were demonstrated in some but not all studies. CHs showed significant improvement in pain and functional indices for several subgroups of patients, but these findings were not pervasive amongst the treatment arms. ASU has demonstrated positive results with respect to decreased NSAID use in several studies and functional and pain end points in most of the reviewed studies; however, in the two studies examining structural end points, the results were mixed. The safety of these nutraceuticals has been demonstrated across all of the reviewed trials, and there were no significant issues with tolerance. Given the good safety profile of nutraceuticals, the marginal efficacy of conventional treatments, the high prevalence and rate of disability from OA and the possible benefit of nutraceuticals to patients with OA, use of nutraceuticals in select patients is appropriate. An overall recommendation to use nutraceuticals in the treatment of all patients with OA is not strongly supported by the available data. Future studies should focus on standardization of symptomatic and structural outcome measures, be of longer duration and pay careful attention to the content of the investigational product.
BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses described moderate to large benefits of chondroitin in patients with osteoarthritis. However, recent large-scale trials did not find evidence of an effect.
PURPOSE: To determine the effects of chondroitin on pain in patients with osteoarthritis.
DATA SOURCES: The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1970 to 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to 2006), EMBASE (1980 to 2006), CINAHL (1970 to 2006), and conference proceedings; checked reference lists; and contacted authors. The last update of searches was performed on 30 November 2006.
STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they were randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials that compared chondroitin with placebo or with no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. There were no language restrictions.
DATA EXTRACTION: The authors extracted data in duplicate. Effect sizes were calculated from the differences in means of pain-related outcomes between treatment and control groups at the end of the trial, divided by the pooled SD. Trials were combined by using random-effects meta-analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS: 20 trials (3846 patients) contributed to the meta-analysis, which revealed a high degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 92%). Small trials, trials with unclear concealment of allocation, and trials that were not analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle showed larger effects in favor of chondroitin than did the remaining trials. When the authors restricted the analysis to the 3 trials with large sample sizes and an intention-to-treat analysis, 40% of patients were included. This resulted in an effect size of -0.03 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.07; I2 = 0%) and corresponded to a difference of 0.6 mm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale. A meta-analysis of 12 trials showed a pooled relative risk of 0.99 (CI, 0.76 to 1.31) for any adverse event.
LIMITATIONS: For 9 trials, the authors had to use approximations to calculate effect sizes. Trial quality was generally low, heterogeneity among the trials made initial interpretation of results difficult, and exploring sources of heterogeneity in meta-regression and stratified analyses may be unreliable.
CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale, methodologically sound trials indicate that the symptomatic benefit of chondroitin is minimal or nonexistent. Use of chondroitin in routine clinical practice should therefore be discouraged.
BACKGROUND: Pain is the most debilitating symptom in osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK).
AIM AND METHODS: To determine the short-term pain-relieving effects of seven commonly used pharmacological agents for OAK pain by performing a systematic review of randomised placebo-controlled trials.
RESULTS: In total, 14,060 patients in 63 trials were evaluated. Opioids and oral NSAIDs therapy in patients with moderate to severe pain (mean baseline 64.3 and 72.8 mm on VAS respectively) had maximum efficacies compared to placebo at 2-4 weeks of 10.5 mm [95% CI: 7.4-13.7] and 10.2 mm [95% CI: 8.8-11.2] respectively. The efficacy of opioids may be inflated by high withdrawal rates (24-50%) and "best-case" scenarios reported in intention-to-treat analyses. In patients with moderate pain scores on VAS (mean range from 51 to 57 mm), intra-articular steroid injections and topical NSAIDs had maximum efficacies at 1-3 weeks of 14.5mm [95% CI: 9.7-19.2] and 11.6 mm [95% CI: 7.4-15.7], respectively. Paracetamol, glucosamin sulphate and chondroitin sulphate had maximum mean efficacies at 1-4 weeks of only 4.7 mm or lower. Heterogeneity tests revealed that best efficacy values of topical NSAIDs may be slightly deflated, while data for oral NSAIDs may be slightly inflated due to probable patient selection bias.
CONCLUSION: Clinical effects from pharmacological interventions in OAK are small and limited to the first 2-3 weeks after start of treatment. The pain-relieving effects over placebo in OAK are smaller than the patient-reported thresholds for relevant improvement.
This chapter discusses the symptomatic/structural efficacy and the tolerance of the chondroitin sulfate (CS) in the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) through a meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials. It presents a study in which a search for any randomized, double‐blind, and placebo (PBO)‐controlled prospective trial, whose aim was to assess the symptomatic and/or structural activity of oral CS in the treatment of knee or hip OA, was performed through data sources and then through a manual search of the reference section of all articles retrieved by the primary search. This search was limited to articles published in extenso in peer‐reviewed journals between 1980 and 2005, in English or French languages, presenting sufficient data and lasting more than 4 weeks. A modest effect of the CS on the relief of pain and on the improvement of the joint function has been found. Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis, affecting the knee in 30% and the hip in 4–10% of people aged 65 and over. Even if roughly 50% of them only have signs and symptoms, the number of adults clinically affected by this disease is considerable especially in the elderly and is increasing with the increasing average age in the populations.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the structural and symptomatic efficacy of oral glucosamine sulfate and chondroitin sulfate in knee osteoarthritis through independent meta-analyses of their effects on joint space narrowing, Lequesne Index, Western Ontario MacMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale for pain, mobility, safety, and response to treatment.
METHODS: An exhaustive systematic research of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials published or performed between January 1980 and March 2002 that assessed the efficacy of oral glucosamine or chondroitin on gonarthrosis was performed using MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Current Contents, BIOSIS Previews, HealthSTAR, EBM Reviews, manual review of the literature and congressional abstracts, and direct contact with the authors and manufacturers of glucosamine and chondroitin. Inclusion, quality scoring, and data abstraction were performed systematically by 2 independent reviewers who were blinded to sources and authors. Conservative approaches were used for clear assessment of potential efficacy.
RESULTS: Our results demonstrated a highly significant efficacy of glucosamine on all outcomes, including joint space narrowing and WOMAC. Chondroitin was found to be effective on Lequesne Index, visual analog scale pain, mobility, and responding status. Safety was excellent for both compounds.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the structural efficacy of glucosamine and indistinguishable symptomatic efficacies for both compounds. Regarding the relatively sparse data on glucosamine and joint space narrowing and the absence of data on structural effects of chondroitin, further studies are needed to investigate the relationship among time, dose, patient baseline characteristics, and structural efficacy for an accurate, disease-modifying characterization of these 2 compounds.
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.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
