Osteoarthritis is the most prevalent chronic articular disease, in which pain is one of the main symptoms and a major determinant of functional loss. Several therapeutic options have been proposed, including glucosamine, but its actual usefulness has not yet been established. To answer this question, we searched in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening multiple databases. We identified 11 systematic reviews including 35 randomized trials answering the question of interest. We extracted data, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. We concluded it is not clear whether glucosamine decreases pain or improves functionality in osteoarthritis because the certainty of the evidence is very low.
Osteoarthritis is the most prevalent chronic articular disease, in which pain is one of the main symptoms and the major determinant of functional loss. Several therapeutic options have been proposed, including chondroitin sulfate, but its actual usefulness has not yet been established. To answer this question we searched in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources. We identified 13 systematic reviews including 50 randomized trials overall. We extracted data, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. We concluded it is not clear whether the use of chondroitin sulfate leads to an improvement in pain or functionality in osteoarthritis because the certainty of the evidence is very low.
OBJECTIVE: To develop concise, up-to-date, patient-focused, evidence-based,
expert consensus guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA),
intended to inform patients, physicians, and allied healthcare professionals
worldwide. METHOD: Thirteen experts from relevant medical disciplines (primary
care, rheumatology, orthopedics, physical therapy, physical medicine and
rehabilitation, and evidence-based medicine), three continents and ten countries
(USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Japan, and
Canada) and a patient representative comprised the Osteoarthritis Guidelines
Development Group (OAGDG). Based on previous OA guidelines and a systematic
review of the OA literature, 29 treatment modalities were considered for
recommendation. Evidence published subsequent to the 2010 OARSI guidelines was
based on a systematic review conducted by the OA Research Society International
(OARSI) evidence team at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA. Medline, EMBASE,
Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled
Trials were initially searched in first quarter 2012 and last searched in March
2013. Included evidence was assessed for quality using Assessment of Multiple
Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria, and published criticism of included
evidence was also considered. To provide recommendations for individuals with a
range of health profiles and OA burden, treatment recommendations were stratified
into four clinical sub-phenotypes. Consensus recommendations were produced using
the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Delphi voting process. Treatments were
recommended as Appropriate, Uncertain, or Not Appropriate, for each of four
clinical sub-phenotypes and accompanied by 1-10 risk and benefit scores. RESULTS:
Appropriate treatment modalities for all individuals with knee OA included
biomechanical interventions, intra-articular corticosteroids, exercise
(land-based and water-based), self-management and education, strength training,
and weight management. Treatments appropriate for specific clinical
sub-phenotypes included acetaminophen (paracetamol), balneotherapy, capsaicin,
cane (walking stick), duloxetine, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
(NSAIDs; COX-2 selective and non-selective), and topical NSAIDs. Treatments of
uncertain appropriateness for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included
acupuncture, avocado soybean unsaponfiables, chondroitin, crutches, diacerein,
glucosamine, intra-articular hyaluronic acid, opioids (oral and transdermal),
rosehip, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasound. Treatments
voted not appropriate included risedronate and electrotherapy (neuromuscular
electrical stimulation). CONCLUSION: These evidence-based consensus
recommendations provide guidance to patients and practitioners on treatments
applicable to all individuals with knee OA, as well as therapies that can be
considered according to individualized patient needs and preferences.
OBJECTIVES: To update a previous report on the comparative benefits and harms of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, over-the-counter supplements (chondroitin and glucosamine), and topical agents (NSAIDs and rubefacients, including capsaicin) for osteoarthritis.
DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (1996–January 2011), the Cochrane Database (through fourth quarter 2010), and reference lists.
REVIEW METHODS: We included randomized trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and systematic reviews that met predefined inclusion criteria. For each study, investigators abstracted details about the study population, study design, data analysis, followup, and results, and they assessed quality using predefined criteria. We assessed the overall strength of each body of evidence using predefined criteria, which included the type and number of studies; risk of bias; consistency; and precision of estimates. Meta-analyses were not performed, though pooled estimates from previously published studies were reported.
RESULTS: A total of 273 studies were included. Overall, we found no clear differences in efficacy for pain relief associated with different NSAIDs. Celecoxib was associated with a lower risk of ulcer complications (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.76) compared to nonselective NSAIDs. Coprescribing of proton pump inhibitors, misoprostol, and H2-antagonists reduce the risk of endoscopically detected gastroduodenal ulcers compared to placebo in persons prescribed NSAIDs. Celecoxib and most nonselective, nonaspirin NSAIDs appeared to be associated with an increased risk of serious cardiovascular (CV) harms. There was no clear association between longer duration of NSAID use or higher doses and increased risk of serious CV harms. There were no clear differences between glucosamine or chondroitin and oral NSAIDs for pain or function, though evidence from a systematic review of higher-quality trials suggests that glucosamine had some very small benefits over placebo for pain. Head-to-head trials showed no difference between topical and oral NSAIDs for efficacy in patients with localized osteoarthritis, lower risk of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events, and higher risk of dermatological adverse events, but serious GI and CV harms were not evaluated. No head-to-head trials compared topical salicylates or capsaicin to oral NSAIDs.
CONCLUSIONS: Each of the analgesics evaluated in this report was associated with a unique set of risks and benefits. Choosing the optimal analgesic for an individual with osteoarthritis requires careful consideration and thorough discussion of the relevant tradeoffs.
Osteoarthritis is the most prevalent chronic articular disease, in which pain is one of the main symptoms and a major determinant of functional loss. Several therapeutic options have been proposed, including glucosamine, but its actual usefulness has not yet been established. To answer this question, we searched in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening multiple databases. We identified 11 systematic reviews including 35 randomized trials answering the question of interest. We extracted data, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. We concluded it is not clear whether glucosamine decreases pain or improves functionality in osteoarthritis because the certainty of the evidence is very low.
