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: Structure-modifying medications or nutraceuticals may be an effective treatment for osteoarthritis. This study identified 12 treatments that may possess chondroprotective properties: oral glucosamine; chondroitin; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); polyunsaturated fatty acids; S-adenosylmethionine; avocado and soybean unsaponifiable fractions; methylsulfonylmethane; vitamins C, D, and E; intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid; and platelet-rich plasma (PRP).
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials for the effectiveness of each agent in preserving articular cartilage of the knee and delaying the progression of osteoarthritis.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were performed using "treatment," "osteoarthritis," and "knee" as keywords. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials of ≥12 months, with a placebo control, measuring radiographic changes in joint space width, cartilage volume, or radiographic progression of osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was changes in joint integrity measures.
RESULTS: A total of 3514 studies were identified from the initial search, 13 of which met inclusion criteria. Treatment with chondroitin sulfate showed a significant reduction in cartilage loss in 3 of 4 studies identified compared with placebo. Two of 3 trials identified for glucosamine also reported significant structural effects relative to placebo. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid was effective in lowering the rate of cartilage loss in only 1 of 3 studies identified versus placebo. Of the 6 studies identified for NSAIDs, vitamin E, and vitamin D, none showed any structural effect compared with placebo. No studies were found that met the inclusion criteria for polyunsaturated fatty acids, S-adenosylmethionine, avocado and soybean unsaponifiable fractions, methylsulfonylmethane, vitamin C, or PRP.
CONCLUSION: For patients with or at risk for osteoarthritis, the use of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate may serve as a nonoperative means to protect joint cartilage and delay osteoarthritis progression. Hyaluronic acid injections showed variable efficacy, while NSAIDs and vitamins E and D showed no effect on osteoarthritis progression. The other agents evaluated had no evidence in the literature to support or refute their use for chondroprotection.
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.
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.
Objective: To determine the effect of glucosamine, chondroitin, or the two in combination on joint pain and on radiological progression of disease in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Design: Network meta-analysis. Direct comparisons within trials were combined with indirect evidence from other trials by using a Bayesian model that allowed the synthesis of multiple time points. Main outcome measure: Pain intensity. Secondary outcome was change in minimal width of joint space. The minimal clinically important difference between preparations and placebo was prespecified at -0.9 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. Data sources: Electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception to June 2009, expert contact, relevant websites. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Large scale randomised controlled trials in more than 200 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip that compared glucosamine, chondroitin, or their combination with placebo or head to head. Results: 10 trials in 3803 patients were included. On a 10 cm visual analogue scale the overall difference in pain intensity compared with placebo was -0.4 cm (95% credible interval -0.7 to -0.1 cm) for glucosamine, -0.3 cm (-0.7 to 0.0 cm) for chondroitin, and -0.5 cm (-0.9 to 0.0 cm) for the combination. For none of the estimates did the 95% credible intervals cross the boundary of the minimal clinically important difference. Industry independent trials showed smaller effects than commercially funded trials (P=0.02 for interaction). The differences in changes in minimal width of joint space were all minute, with 95% credible intervals overlapping zero. Conclusions: Compared with placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not reduce joint pain or have an impact on narrowing of joint space. Health authorities and health insurers should not cover the costs of these preparations, and new prescriptions to patients who have not received treatment should be discouraged.
<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To update a published meta-analysis of double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy of chondroitin sulfate as a structure-modifying drug for knee osteoarthritis (OA).<b>DESIGN: </b>A published meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was updated to include data from one new trial and final data from a second trial both published recently in peer-reviewed literature. This meta-analysis was limited to three RCTs of 2-year duration. Data were pooled using a fixed effects model as there was no evidence of important heterogeneity.<b>RESULTS: </b>Pooled results demonstrated a small significant effect of chondroitin sulfate on the reduction in rate of decline in minimum joint space width of 0.13 mm [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06, 0.19] (P=0.0002) that corresponded to an effect size of 0.23 (95% CI 0.11, 0.35) (P=0.0001).<b>CONCLUSION: </b>These results demonstrate that chondroitin sulfate is effective for reducing the rate of decline in minimum joint space width in patients with knee OA.
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.
