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.
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.
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 investigate the structural and symptomatic efficacy and safety of glucosamine in knee osteoarthritis (OA). DATA SOURCES: Clinical trials of glucosamine were identified through electronic searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, EMB review, the Cochrane Library) using the key words glucosamine, osteoarthritis, degenerative joint disease, degenerative arthritis, osteoarthrosis, gonarthrosis, knee, disease progression, and clinical trial. The bibliographic databases were searched from their respective inception dates to August 2004. We also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were included if they were double-blind, randomized, controlled trials that evaluated oral glucosamine long-term treatment in knee OA; lasting at least one year; and reporting as outcome measures the symptom severity and disease progression as assessed by joint space narrowing. Two authors interpreted data independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: Glucosamine sulfate was more effective than placebo in delaying structural progression in knee OA. The risk of disease progression was reduced by 54% (pooled RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.73; p = 0.0011). The number-needed-to-treat was 9 (95% CI 6 to 20). The pooled effect sizes for pain reduction and improvement in physical function were 0.41 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.60; p < 0.0001) and 0.46 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.66; p < 0.0001), respectively, in favor of glucosamine sulfate. Glucosamine sulfate caused no more adverse effects than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that glucosamine sulfate may be effective and safe in delaying the progression and improving the symptoms of knee OA. Due to the sparse data on structural efficacy and safety, further studies are warranted.
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.
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.
