Liquid combination of hyaluronan, glucosamine, and chondroitin as a dietary supplement for knee osteoarthritis patients with moderate knee pain: A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronan (HA), glucosamine, and chondroitin sulfate are widely consumed as dietary supplements for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of a dietary liquid supplement mixture containing HA, glucosamine, and chondroitin in patients with knee OA who had moderate knee pain (visual analogue scale of 4-6 points). METHODS: This was a short-term, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Subjects were allocated to administer either a bottle of 20 mL supplement mixture (50 mg HA plus 750 mg glucosamine plus 250 mg chondroitin, namely A + HA) or placebo once daily for 8 weeks. Outcome measures included the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36), Chinese version of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and incidence of adverse event were evaluated at the end of week 8. Efficacy analyses were conducted in the modified intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: Of the 80 subjects in the modified intent-to-treat population, 39 received A + HA while 41 received placebo. After 8 weeks of treatment, the A + HA group failed to demonstrate a significant symptomatic efficacy and quality of life improvement in terms of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, SF-36, and Chinese version of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index as compared to the placebo group. However, the mean changes in most of the SF-36 scale scores were numerically higher in the A + HA group than in the placebo group. No treatment-related adverse event was reported in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This present study found that the combination of liquid low molecular weight HA, glucosamine, and chondroitin oral supplement did not effectively improve knee OA pain and symptoms after short-term use in knee OA patients with moderate knee pain. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the intrinsic limitation of the study design.

The effect of oral low molecular weight liquid hyaluronic acid combination with glucosamine and chondroitin on knee osteoarthritis patients with mild knee pain: An 8-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of dietary supplements for knee osteoarthritis (OA) management is on the rise; however, their effects are still debated. METHODS: This study aimed to investigate the effect of an oral low molecular weight liquid hyaluronic acid supplement in the treatment of knee OA patients with mild knee pain (visual analogue scale [VAS] ≤ 3) in Taiwan population. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Forty-seven subjects were enrolled and randomly allocated to either the A+HA or the placebo groups. The subjects were required to drink a bottle contained 20 mL of A+HA or placebo daily throughout an 8-week study period. The efficacy was assessed by using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: At Week 8, significant reductions from baseline in the WOMAC pain (-2.6 ±â€Š1.68, P < .0001), stiffness (-1.2 ±â€Š1.50, P = .007), physical function (-5.8 ±â€Š4.39, P < .0001), and total (-9.4 ±â€Š5.82, P < .0001) scores were observed in the A+HA group but not in the placebo group. Significant differences in the mean change of WOMAC scores from baseline at Week 8 between groups were detected (P < .01). At Week 8, the A+HA group also showed significant improvements in SF-36 physical functioning (2.7 ±â€Š3.10, P = .001) and bodily pain (0.7 ±â€Š1.50, P < .05) domains. Although the A+HA group had a higher increase in the SF-36 total score than the placebo group but the difference was not statistically significant (2.1 ±â€Š12.75 vs 0.3 ±â€Š19.66, P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Oral administration of low molecular weight liquid HA appeared to be effective for knee OA patients with mild knee pain (VAS ≤ 3) in the relief of knee OA symptoms, particularly in pain and physical function.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04352322.

Glucosamine and Chondroitin Use in Relation to C-Reactive Protein Concentration: Results by Supplement Form, Formulation, and Dose.

Objectives: Glucosamine and chondroitin supplements have been associated with reduced inflammation, as measured by C-reactive protein (CRP). It is unclear if associations vary by formulation (glucosamine alone vs. glucosamine+chondroitin), form (glucosamine hydrochloride vs. glucosamine sulfate), or dose. Design, Subjects, Setting, Location: The authors evaluated these questions using cross-sectional data collected between 1999 and 2010 on 21,917 US adults, surveyed as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Exposures: Glucosamine and chondroitin use was assessed during an in-home interview; exposures include supplement formulation, form, and dose. Outcome/Analysis: CRP was measured using blood collected at interview. Survey-weighted linear regression was used to evaluate the multivariable-adjusted association between exposures and log-transformed CRP. Results: In early years (1999-2004), use of glucosamine (ratio = 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79-0.96) and chondroitin (ratio = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.72-0.95) was associated with reduced CRP. However, associations significantly varied by calendar time (p-interaction = 0.04 and p-interaction = 0.01, respectively), with associations nonsignificant in later years (ratio = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.94-1.28 and ratio = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.99-1.35, respectively). Consequently, all analyses have been stratified by calendar time. Associations did not significantly differ by formulation in either set of years; however, significant associations were observed for combined use of glucosamine+chondroitin (ratioearly = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.72-0.95; ratiolate = 1.16; 1.00-1.35), but not glucosamine alone. Associations also did not significantly differ by supplement form. Even so, a significant inverse association was observed only for glucosamine sulfate in the early years (ratio = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.64-0.95); no significant association was observed for glucosamine hydrochloride. No significant trends were observed by dose. Conclusions: Although a significant inverse association was observed for glucosamine and chondroitin and CRP in early years, this association did not hold in later years. This pattern held for combined use of glucosamine+chondroitin as well as glucosamine sulfate, although associations did not significantly vary by supplement form, formulation, or dose. Further study is needed to better understand these associations in the context of calendar time.

A randomised pilot equivalence trial to evaluate diamagnetically enhanced transdermal delivery of key ground substance components in comparison to an established transdermal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory formulation in males with prior knee injury.

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study assessed the efficacy of a knee guard device, which used magnetophoresis to transdermally deliver Glucosamine, Chondroitin and Hyaluronic Acid in a cohort of individuals with prior knee injury. The aim was to determine if the change in physical function and pain with the knee guard device was equivalent to the change produced by an established topical NSAID formulation containing diclofenac sodium 1%. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, equivalence trial evaluated outcomes following treatment with the knee guard device or NSAID formulation. The study recruited 114 male participants (aged 40-55 years). Participants were randomly allocated to wear the knee guard device or to use a NSAID gel daily for two weeks. The primary outcomes were the knee injury osteoarthritis function score (KOOS-F) and an aggregated function score (AFS). The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS), pain numerical rating scale (PNRS), global rating of change (GROC) and other KOOS scores were also evaluated. RESULTS: Multiple linear regression analyses indicated that there were no significant differences between the interventions for changes in the primary outcomes of AFS and KOOS_F. The 95% confidence interval (-2.89 to 5.15) of the estimated treatment difference for KOOS-F was within the lower (-5.61) and upper (5.61) bounds of the 7% equivalence margin for that measure, The mean value for the AFS was within, but the 95% CI (-3.11 to 7.37) exceeded the 7% equivalence margin (-2.97 to 2.97) for that measure. There was a significant difference in PNRS, which favored the knee guard device. CONCLUSION: The knee guard device demonstrated equivalence for the KOOS-F measure but not the AFS measure of function over the two week trial period when compared to a widely available NSAID gel that has been shown to be superior to placebo. The knee guard produced a greater reduction in pain report (p = 0.002) than the NSAID gel. Users of the knee guard device experienced more skin irritation than participants using the NSAID gel. Further research is required to fully evaluate the therapeutic potential of this innovative treatment approach.

Comparative effectiveness of glucosamine, chondroitin, acetaminophen or celecoxib for the treatment of knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

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.

Use of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements in relation to risk of colorectal cancer: Results from the Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals follow-up study.

Recent epidemiologic evidence has emerged to suggest that use of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements may be associated with reduced risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). We therefore evaluated the association between use of these non-vitamin, non-mineral supplements and risk of CRC in two prospective cohorts, the Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Regular use of glucosamine and chondroitin was first assessed in 2002 and participants were followed until 2010, over which time 672 CRC cases occurred. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) within each cohort, and results were pooled using a random effects meta-analysis. Associations were comparable across cohorts, with a RR of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.63-1.00) observed for any use of glucosamine and a RR of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.59-1.01) observed for any use of chondroitin. Use of glucosamine in the absence of chondroitin was not associated with risk of CRC, whereas use of glucosamine + chondroitin was significantly associated with risk (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.58-0.999). The association between use of glucosamine + chondroitin and risk of CRC did not change markedly when accounting for change in exposure status over follow-up (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.96), nor did the association significantly vary by sex, aspirin use, body mass index, or physical activity. The association was comparable for cancers of the colon and rectum. Results support a protective association between use of glucosamine and chondroitin and risk of CRC. Further study is needed to better understand the chemopreventive potential of these supplements.

Análisis de costo-efectividad del condroitín más glucosamina comparado con acetaminofén, AINEs y celecoxib para el tratamiento sintomático de adultos con osteoartrosis de rodilla y mano en Colombia / Cost-effectiveness analysis of chondroitin plus glucosamine compared to acetaminophen, AINEs and celecoxib for the symptomatic treatment of adults with knee and hand osteoarthrosis in Colombia

Problema de investigación: Analizar los costos y la efectividad del condroitín más glucosamina, cetaminofén, celecoxib y AINEs para pacientes mayores de 50 años con osteoartrosis sintomática (primaria y secundaria) en Colombia. Tipo de evaluación económica: Análisis de costo-efectividad. Población objetivo: Personas mayores de 50 años de edad (hombres y mujeres) con osteoartrosis sintomática (primaria y secundaria) en Colombia. intervención y comparadores: I: condroitín más glucosamina, C: acetaminofén, celecoxib y AINEs. Horizonte temporal: Se empleó como horizonte temporal la expectativa de vida promedio de los pacientes con OA mayores a 50 años en Colombia. Puesto que la expectativa de vida promedio en Colombia es de 74 años para la población general (hombres y mujeres), se utilizó un horizonte de tiempo del modelo de 24 años con base en las estadísticas vitales del DANE. Perspectiva: La del Sistema General de Seguridad Social en Salud (SGSSS). Tasa de descuento: Tanto los costos como los beneficios son descontados al valor presente, utilizando una tasa de descuento del 5%. Estructura del modelo: Se estructuró un modelo Markov reflejando el curso clínico de la enfermedad con ciclos anuales. Fuentes de datos de efectividad y seguridad: Revisión de ensayos clínicos, meta-análisis y literatura clínica para la obtención de los parámetros para la modelación dinámica de la osteoartrosis sintomática en Colombia, y para la determinación de la efectividad de las alternativas de comparación. Desenlaces y valoración: Años de vida ganados. Costos incluidos: Costo de medicamentos para el tratamiento, Costo relacionados al manejo de eventos adversos, Costo de procedimientos e insumos. Fuentes de datos de costos: SISMED, Manual tarifario ISS 2001, Guía de práctica clínica para el síndrome coronario agudo. Resultados del caso base: El costo esperado por año de vida ajustado por calidad ganado de condroitín más glucosamina fue de $ 4.218.759,75 por persona, de $5.694.205,75 con AINEs, de $3.312.855,30 con celecoxib y de $2.616.444,62 con acetaminofén. El acetaminofén resultó en el mayor número de años de vida ajustados por calidad ganados (6,917). Estos resultados implican que el acetaminofén sería costo-efectivo y que es una estrategia dominante respecto a sus comparadores. Análisis de sensibilidad: Los análisis de sensibilidad llevados a cabo sobre la tasa de descuento y las variables con mayor impacto sobre la RICE evidencian que ninguno de estos parámetros \r\nmodifica los resultados encontrados. La dominancia del acetaminofén es consistente ante los escenarios \r\nplanteados. Adicionalmente, con el umbral establecido de mínimo un PIB y máximo tres PIB per cápita, se observa que el acetaminofén tiene una probabilidad de cerca de 100% de ser más costo-efectivo que los otros medicamentos incluidos en este estudio. Conclusiones: En Colombia, desde la perspectiva del sistema general de seguridad social en salud, la terapia combinada de condroitín más glucosamina para el tratamiento sintomático de pacientes mayores de 50 años de edad con osteoartrosis de rodilla o mano, es una tecnología dominada, indicando que no sería una alternativa costo-efectiva para el país. Entre las opciones evaluadas, el acetaminofén es la tecnología con mejor costo-efectividad, pues se asocia con costos más bajos y un incremento en años de vida ajustados por calidad.(AU)

Análisis de impacto presupuestal de condroitín más glucosamina comparado con acetaminofén, AINES y celecoxib para osteoartrosis sintomática (primaria y secundaria) de la rodilla en Colombia / Analysis of budgetary impact of chondroitin plus glucosamine compared to acetaminophen, AINES and celecoxib for symptomatic (primary and secondary) osteoarthritis of the knee in Colombia

Tecnologías evaluadas: Nuevas: condroitín más glucosamina y AINES (celecoxib y meloxicam) Actuales: acetaminofén y AINES (ibuprofeno, naproxeno y diclofenaco). Población: Pacientes mayores de 50 años con osteoartrosis sintomática (primaria y secundaria) en Colombia. Perspectiva: La perspectiva del presente AIP corresponde al tercero pagador, que en este caso es el Sistema General de Seguridad Social en Salud (SGSSS) en Colombia. Horizonte temporal: El horizonte temporal de este AIP en el caso base corresponde a un año. Adicionalmente se reportan las estimaciones del impacto presupuestal para los años 2 y 3, bajo el supuesto de la inclusión en el POS en el año 1. Costos incluidos: Costos por mg de los medicamentos analizados y costos de eventos adversos relacionados al uso de los medicamentos. Fuente de costos: Los precios de cada tecnología considerada fueron calculados con la base de datos SISMED 2014 y los precios relacionados con los eventos adversos fueron extraídos de la guía de práctica clínica para el síndrome coronario agudo. Escenarios: En el escenario 1 se considera que la adopción de las nuevas tecnologías no llevaría a ningún cambio en el mercado, debido a la fuerte preferencia de los médicos para el uso de las tecnologías actuales. En el escenario 2 se asume que la adopción de las nuevas tecnologías resultará en una disminución en el costo de dichas tecnologías, implicando un pequeño aumento en su participación de mercado. Resultados: Se requeriría una inversión de $324.848.741.965,21 para el año 1, $408.850.393.031,63 para el año 2 y $516.306.727.474,66 para el año 3 para la adopción de las terapias condroitín más glucosamina, meloxicam y celecoxib en el POS para el tratamiento de pacientes con osteoartrosis sintomática (primaria y secundaria) de la rodilla en Colombia, bajo el presupuesto que la inclusión de los nuevos medicamentos no llevaría a un cambio en la participación del mercado. Asumiendo que el precio de las nuevas terapias disminuyera y por tal razón la participación del mercado de dichas terapias aumentaría,\tel impacto presupuestal aumentaría a \r\n$33.328.838.947,92 en el año 1, de $44.301.385.949,68 en el año 2 y de $59.253.690.046,56 en el año 3.(AU)

Effects of glucosamine-chondroitin combination on synovial fluid IL-1ß, IL-6, TNF-α and PGE2 levels in internal derangements of temporomandibular joint.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of glucosamine-chondroitin sulphate combination on internal derangements of temporomandibular joint in clinical and biochemical manners. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This randomized clinical study included 31 cases reporting joint tenderness, in which disc displacement was detected on MR imaging. In all patients, synovial fluid sampling was performed under local anesthesia. In the study group, the patients were prescribed a combination of 1500 mg glucosamine and 1200 mg chondroitin sulphate, while patients in the control group were only prescribed 50 mg tramadol HCl (twice daily) for pain control. After 8 weeks, synovial fluid sampling was repeated in the same manner. The levels of pain, maximum mouth opening (MMO), synovial fluid IL-1ß, IL-6, TNF-α and PGE2 measured before and after pharmacological intervention were compared. RESULTS: The reduction in pain levels was significant in both groups. There was no significant difference between two groups in terms of pain reduction. The improvement in MMO was significant in the study group but it was not in the control group. The MMO improvement was significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group. In the study group, significant decrease was observed in PGE2 level, while the decreases in IL-1ß, IL-6 and TNF-α levels were not significant. In the control group, no significant decrease was observed in any of the inflammatory cytokines after 8 weeks, moreover IL-1ß and IL-6 levels were increased. Alterations of IL-1ß and IL-6 levels were significant in study group while TNF-α and PGE2 levels were not, compared to control group. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, these results might suggest that glucosamine-chondroitin combination significantly increases the MMO and decreases the synovial fluid IL1ß and IL6 levels in internal derangements of TMJ compared to tramadol. The modifications of synovial fluid TNF-α and PGE2 levels do not reach statistical significance. This combination also provides efficient pain relief in similar level with tramadol, a narcotic analgesic.

Randomized trial of glucosamine and chondroitin supplementation on inflammation and oxidative stress biomarkers and plasma proteomics profiles in healthy humans.

BACKGROUND: Glucosamine and chondroitin are popular non-vitamin dietary supplements used for osteoarthritis. Long-term use is associated with lower incidence of colorectal and lung cancers and with lower mortality; however, the mechanism underlying these observations is unknown. In vitro and animal studies show that glucosamine and chondroitin inhibit NF-kB, a central mediator of inflammation, but no definitive trials have been done in healthy humans. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study to assess the effects of glucosamine hydrochloride (1500 mg/d) plus chondroitin sulfate (1200 mg/d) for 28 days compared to placebo in 18 (9 men, 9 women) healthy, overweight (body mass index 25.0-32.5 kg/m2) adults, aged 20-55 y. We examined 4 serum inflammatory biomarkers: C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6, and soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors I and II; a urinary inflammation biomarker: prostaglandin E2-metabolite; and a urinary oxidative stress biomarker: F2-isoprostane. Plasma proteomics on an antibody array was performed to explore other pathways modulated by glucosamine and chondroitin. RESULTS: Serum CRP concentrations were 23% lower after glucosamine and chondroitin compared to placebo (P = 0.048). There were no significant differences in other biomarkers. In the proteomics analyses, several pathways were significantly different between the interventions after Bonferroni correction, the most significant being a reduction in the "cytokine activity" pathway (P = 2.6 x 10-16), after glucosamine and chondroitin compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: Glucosamine and chondroitin supplementation may lower systemic inflammation and alter other pathways in healthy, overweight individuals. This study adds evidence for potential mechanisms supporting epidemiologic findings that glucosamine and chondroitin are associated with reduced risk of lung and colorectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01682694.

Effects of glucosamine and chondroitin supplementation on knee osteoarthritis: an analysis with marginal structural models.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin in relieving knee symptoms and slowing disease progression among patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The 4-year followup data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative data set were analyzed. We used a "new-user" design, for which only participants who were not using glucosamine/chondroitin at baseline were included in the analyses (n = 1,625). Cumulative exposure was calculated as the number of visits when participants reported use of glucosamine/chondroitin. Knee symptoms were measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and structural progression was determined by measuring the joint space width (JSW). To control for the time-varying confounders that might be influenced by previous treatments, we used marginal structural models to estimate the effects on OA of using glucosamine/chondroitin for 3 years, 2 years, and 1 year. RESULTS: During the study period, 18% of the participants initiated treatment with glucosamine/chondroitin. After adjustment for potential confounders with marginal structural models, we found no clinically significant differences between users at all assessments and never-users of glucosamine/chondroitin in WOMAC pain (ß = 0.68 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -0.16 to 1.53]), WOMAC stiffness (ß = 0.41 [95% CI 0 to 0.82]), and WOMAC function (ß = 1.28 [95% CI -1.23 to 3.79]) or JSW (ß = 0.11 [95% CI -0.21 to 0.44]). CONCLUSION: Use of glucosamine/chondroitin did not appear to relieve symptoms or modify disease progression among patients with radiographically confirmed OA. Our findings are consistent with the results of meta-analyses of clinical trials and extend those results to a more general population with knee OA.

Efectividad y seguridad de condroitín comparado con acetaminofén, antiinflamatorios no esteroideos, glucosamina, condroitín más glucosamina, diacereina, ácido hialurónico ó fitoterapéuticos, en pacientes con osteoartrosis / Effectiveness and safety of chondroitin compared to acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucosamine, chondroitin plus glucosamine, diacerein, hyaluronic acid or phytotherapeutic agents in patients with osteoarthrosis

Introducción: la OA es la forma más común de enfermedad de las articulaciones y la principal causa de discapacidad de las personas de la tercera edad. Su alta prevalencia en una población que usualmente tiene comorbilidades asociadas que requieren otros medicamentos obliga a buscar otras alternativas terapéuticas con mínimos eventos adversos y pocas interacciones medicamentosas. Condroitín es un medicamento regenerador de cartílago que se ha usado en el manejo de estos pacientes. Esta evaluación tecnológica se desarrolló en el marco de la actualización integral del Plan Obligatorio de Salud para el año 2015. Objetivo: evaluar la efectividad y seguridad del uso de condroitín comparado con acetaminofén, antiinflamatorios no esteroideos, glucosamina, condroitín más glucosamina, diacereina, ácido hialurónico ó fitoterapéuticos, en pacientes osteoartrosis. Metodología: la evaluación fue realizada de acuerdo con un protocolo definido a priori por el grupo desarrollador. Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática en MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects y LILACS, con restricción al idioma inglés y español y limitada a revisiones sistemáticas publicadas en los últimos cinco años y ensayos clínicos sin restricción de tiempo. Las búsquedas electrónicas fueron hechas entre octubre y diciembre de 2014 y se complementaron mediante búsqueda manual en bola de nieve y una consulta con expertos temáticos. La tamización de referencias se realizó por un revisor. La selección de estudios fue realizada mediante la revisión en texto completo de las referencias preseleccionadas, verificando los criterios de elegibilidad. La calidad de los estudios fue valorada con la herramienta de riesgo de sesgo de la Colaboración Cochrane. Las características de los estudios fueron extraídas a partir de las publicaciones originales. Se realizó una síntesis narrativa de las estimaciones del efecto para las comparaciones y desenlaces de interés a partir de los estudios de mejor calidad. Se estimaron medidas combinadas del efecto a través de un metanálisis con el método de Mantel-Haenszel y un modelo de efectos aleatorios, empleando el programa RevMan 5.2. Resultados: condroitín es semejante a los AINEs, glucosamina y glucosamina más condroitín en mejorar los desenlaces como dolor y funcionalidad a los seis meses y el desenlace radiológico proporción de pacientes con progresión de la disminución de la amplitud del espacio articular. Los AINEs, glucosamina y glucosamina más condroitín son superiores en los desenlaces rigidez a los seis meses según puntaje en la escala WOMAC (RR=5.97 IC 95% 1.45, 10.49). Condroitín sulfato es no inferior a pascledina en estos mismos desenlaces. Además en relación a seguridad no se reportó ningún evento adverso serio a ninguno de los medicamentos evaluados, incluyendo condroitín. La adherencia al tratamiento fue muy buena tanto a los seis meses como a los 24 meses y la percepción de tolerancia fue superior al 94%. Conclusiones: condroitín es semejante en efectividad y seguridad a glucosamina, glucosamina más condroitín, AINEs y pascledina en pacientes con osteoartrosis.(AU)

Associations between glucosamine and chondroitin supplement use and biomarkers of systemic inflammation.

OBJECTIVES: Glucosamine and chondroitin supplements have been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties in both in vitro studies and animal models; however, little is known about these relationships in humans. The VITamins and Lifestyle (VITAL) biomarker study evaluated the associations between use of these supplements and a panel of circulating inflammatory biomarkers. DESIGN: Study participants included 217 men and women age 50-75 years living in the Seattle metropolitan area. Use of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements was ascertained by home interview/supplement inventory. Inflammation was assessed by using blood and urine collected at the time of home interview. Measures of systemic inflammation included plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, soluble TNF receptors I and II, and urinary prostaglandin E2-metabolite (PGE-M). Multivariate-adjusted linear regression was used to evaluate the associations between supplement use and biomarkers of inflammation. RESULTS: High users (14 or more pills/week) of chondroitin had 36% lower hsCRP (ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.04; p for trend=.03) and 27% lower PGE-M (ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.5-0.98; p for trend=.07) than nonusers. Compared with nonusers, high users of glucosamine had 28% lower hsCRP (ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.47-1.08; p for trend=.09) and 24% lower PGE-M (ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.97; p for trend=0.10). Use of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements was not associated with the other markers of inflammation. CONCLUSIONS: These results support prior research suggesting that use of glucosamine and chondroitin is associated with reduced hsCRP and PGE2, but further work is needed to more definitively evaluate the anti-inflammatory potential of these supplements.

Comparison of meloxicam and a glucosamine-chondroitin supplement in management of feline osteoarthritis. A double-blind randomised, placebo-controlled, prospective trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of meloxicam and a glucosamine-chondroitin (Glu-Ch) supplement in the management of feline osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Prospective, blinded, randomized clinical trial. Cats over eight years of age with clinical signs of chronic OA were assigned to one of two groups and Glu-Ch or meloxicam was administered orally for 70 days, followed by a placebo until day 98. Cats were assessed by a veterinarian on five occasions and the owner completed an assessment form at the same time. RESULTS: Data were collected from thirty cats. Pre-treatment disease scores were significantly higher in the meloxicam group for owner mobility (p=0.01) and veterinary lameness (p=0.02). Owner mobility scores at day 14 (p=0.01) and day 42 (p=0.002) were significantly improved compared to pre-treatment scores for the meloxicam group. When meloxicam and Glu-Ch were discontinued and the placebo commenced, a significant proportion of the meloxicam group showed worsening of all the owner-assessed scores between day 70 and day 98, when compared to the Glu-Ch group (mobility p=0.01; activity p=0.02; temperament p=0.04; lifestyle p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with meloxicam resulted in a significant improvement in mobility and activity levels of cats with OA until the placebo was introduced. A greater proportion of cats receiving meloxicam medication showed a significant worsening of owner assessment scores once the placed was introduced, when compared to the Glu-Ch group.

Specialty supplement use and biologic measures of oxidative stress and DNA damage.

BACKGROUND: Oxidative stress and resulting cellular damage have been suggested to play a role in the etiology of several chronic diseases, including cancer and cardiovascular disease. Identifying factors associated with reduced oxidative stress and resulting damage may guide future disease-prevention strategies. METHODS: In the VITamins And Lifestyle (VITAL) biomarker study of 209 persons living in the Seattle area, we examined the association between current use of several specialty supplements and oxidative stress, DNA damage, and DNA repair capacity. Use of glucosamine, chondroitin, fish oil, methylsulfonylmethane (MSM), coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), ginseng, ginkgo, and saw palmetto was ascertained by a supplement inventory/interview, whereas the use of fiber supplements was ascertained by questionnaire. Supplements used by more than 30 persons (glucosamine and chondroitin) were evaluated as the trend across number of pills/week (non-use, <14 pills/week, 14+ pills/week), whereas less commonly used supplements were evaluated as use/non-use. Oxidative stress was measured by urinary 8-isoprostane and PGF2α concentrations using enzyme immunoassays (EIA), whereas lymphocyte DNA damage and DNA repair capacity were measured using the Comet assay. Multivariate-adjusted linear regression was used to model the associations between supplement use and oxidative stress/DNA damage. RESULTS: Use of glucosamine (Ptrend: 0.01), chondroitin (Ptrend: 0.003), and fiber supplements (P: 0.01) was associated with reduced PGF2α concentrations, whereas CoQ10 supplementation was associated with reduced baseline DNA damage (P: 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Use of certain specialty supplements may be associated with reduced oxidative stress and DNA damage. IMPACT: Further research is needed to evaluate the association between specialty supplement use and markers of oxidative stress and DNA damage.

Use of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements and risk of colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Glucosamine and chondroitin are non-vitamin, non-mineral supplements which have anti-inflammatory properties. These supplements are typically used for joint pain and osteoarthritis and are commonly taken as either glucosamine alone or glucosamine plus chondroitin. An exploratory analysis conducted within the VITamins And Lifestyle (VITAL) study observed any use of glucosamine and chondroitin to be associated with reduced risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: With two additional years of follow-up, we have studied these associations in greater depth, including associations by frequency/duration of use and by formulation, and have evaluated whether observed associations are modified by factors associated with inflammation. Participants include 75,137 western Washington residents aged 50-76 who completed the mailed VITAL questionnaire between 2000 and 2002. Use of glucosamine and chondroitin was ascertained by questions about supplement use during the 10-year period prior to baseline, and participants were followed for CRC through 2008 (n = 557). Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Persons reporting use of glucosamine + chondroitin on 4+ days/week for 3+ years had a non-statistically significant 45 % lower CRC risk than non-users (HR: 0.55; 95 % CI 0.30-1.01; p-trend: 0.16). This association varied by body mass index (p-interaction: 0.006), with inverse association observed among the overweight/obese (p-trend: 0.02), but not among the underweight/normal weight. Use of glucosamine alone was not significantly associated with CRC risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is great need to identify safe and effective cancer preventive strategies, suggesting that glucosamine and chondroitin may merit further attention as a potential chemopreventive agent.

Prevalence and factors affecting glucosamine use in Korea: a survey-based study.

Glucosamine and chondroitin are widely used as pharmaceutical and dietary supplements. However, there is a lack of information regarding consumer consumption of glucosamine and chondroitin in the Republic of Korea. We investigated the prevalence and factors affecting the use of glucosamine products in the general population aged 40 years and older in the Republic of Korea. We conducted this descriptive and exploratory study using a telephone-based survey with a structured questionnaire. We randomly selected subjects using a proportional allocation method based on age, gender, and region. We started the survey on September 19, 2009, and continued the survey until we obtained 1,000 respondents who were currently taking glucosamine or chondroitin, which occured on September 30, 2009. Among the 8,135 people approached, the response rate was 29.6%. A total of 12.2% of respondents (n = 991) were current users of glucosamine, while only 0.1% (n = 9) were current users of chondroitin. Two-fifths of current glucosamine users were not diagnosed with osteoarthritis by a doctor nor did they experience arthritis pain. These participants used glucosamine to maintain and promote joint health. Information on glucosamine was mainly obtained through advertisements on television or the Internet. Seventy percent of current users indicated that they did not know the composition of the glucosamine they took. Appropriate information and guides concerning glucosamine or chondroitin usage should be provided by expert clinicians because of the accessibility of both these cartilage derivatives as supplements and medical drugs in the Republic of Korea.

Use of glucosamine and chondroitin in relation to mortality.

Glucosamine and chondroitin are products commonly used by older adults in the US and Europe. There is limited evidence that they have anti-inflammatory properties, which could provide risk reduction of several diseases. However, data on their long-term health effects is lacking. To evaluate whether use of glucosamine and chondroitin are associated with cause-specific and total mortality. Participants (n = 77,510) were members of a cohort study of Washington State (US) residents aged 50-76 years who entered the cohort in 2000-2002 by completing a baseline questionnaire that included questions on glucosamine and chondroitin use. Participants were followed for mortality through 2008 (n = 5,362 deaths). Hazard ratios (HR) for death adjusted for multiple covariates were estimated using Cox models. Current (baseline) glucosamine and chondroitin use were associated with a decreased risk of total mortality compared to never use. The adjusted HR associated with current use of glucosamine (with or without chondroitin) was 0.82 (95 % CI 0.75-0.90) and 0.86 (95 % CI 0.78-0.96) for chondroitin (included in two-thirds of glucosamine supplements). Current use of glucosamine was associated with a significant decreased risk of death from cancer (HR 0.87 95 % CI 0.76-0.98) and with a large risk reduction for death from respiratory diseases (HR 0.59 95 % CI 0.41-0.83). Use of glucosamine with or without chondroitin was associated with reduced total mortality and with reductions of several broad causes of death. Although bias cannot be ruled out, these results suggest that glucosamine may provide some mortality benefit.

Glucosamine and chondroitin: an appropriate adjunct treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability in the United States. Current treatment focuses on symptom relief and improving a patient's overall function. Pharmacological treatments aim to correct symptomatic complaints as well as structural problems in OA. Glucosamine (sulfate or hydrochloride) and chondroitin sulfate have been linked as an optional treatment in OA for several years. There is controversy, however, surrounding their use and efficacy. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons published clinical practice guidelines in 2008 that recommended against the use of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate (p. ii). Despite conflicting results on the degree of efficacy, the most current research suggested that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate have the potential to provide pain-relieving benefits as well as possibly decrease the effects of joint space narrowing. The purpose of this article was to document the most current research evidence on the use and efficacy of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate supplements for patients with symptomatic OA of the knee as well as create an evidence-based, best practice educational tool describing a treatment algorithm for nurse practitioners treating a patient with symptomatic OA of the knee.