Clinical efficacy and safety of glucosamine, chondroitin sulphate, their combination, celecoxib or placebo taken to treat osteoarthritis of the knee: 2-year results from GAIT.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a major cause of pain and functional limitation in older adults, yet longer-term studies of medical treatment of OA are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of glucosamine and chondroitin sulphate (CS), alone or in combination, as well as celecoxib and placebo on painful knee OA over 2 years. METHODS: A 24-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted at nine sites in the US ancillary to the Glucosamine/chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial, enrolled 662 patients with knee OA who satisfied radiographic criteria (Kellgren/Lawrence grade 2 or 3 changes and baseline joint space width of at least 2 mm). This subset continued to receive their randomised treatment: glucosamine 500 mg three times daily, CS 400 mg three times daily, the combination of glucosamine and CS, celecoxib 200 mg daily, or placebo over 24 months. The primary outcome was a 20% reduction in Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain over 24 months. Secondary outcomes included an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology/Osteoarthritis Research Society International response and change from baseline in WOMAC pain and function. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, the odds of achieving a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain were celecoxib: 1.21, glucosamine: 1.16, combination glucosamine/CS: 0.83 and CS alone: 0.69, and were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Over 2 years, no treatment achieved a clinically important difference in WOMAC pain or function as compared with placebo. However, glucosamine and celecoxib showed beneficial but not significant trends. Adverse reactions were similar among treatment groups and serious adverse events were rare for all treatments.

Pallidal versus subthalamic deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Deep-brain stimulation is the surgical procedure of choice for patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. The globus pallidus interna and the subthalamic nucleus are accepted targets for this procedure. We compared 24-month outcomes for patients who had undergone bilateral stimulation of the globus pallidus interna (pallidal stimulation) or subthalamic nucleus (subthalamic stimulation). METHODS: At seven Veterans Affairs and six university hospitals, we randomly assigned 299 patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease to undergo either pallidal stimulation (152 patients) or subthalamic stimulation (147 patients). The primary outcome was the change in motor function, as blindly assessed on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, part III (UPDRS-III), while patients were receiving stimulation but not receiving antiparkinsonian medication. Secondary outcomes included self-reported function, quality of life, neurocognitive function, and adverse events. RESULTS: Mean changes in the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the two study groups (P=0.50). There was also no significant difference in self-reported function. Patients undergoing subthalamic stimulation required a lower dose of dopaminergic agents than did those undergoing pallidal stimulation (P=0.02). One component of processing speed (visuomotor) declined more after subthalamic stimulation than after pallidal stimulation (P=0.03). The level of depression worsened after subthalamic stimulation and improved after pallidal stimulation (P=0.02). Serious adverse events occurred in 51% of patients undergoing pallidal stimulation and in 56% of those undergoing subthalamic stimulation, with no significant between-group differences at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Parkinson's disease had similar improvement in motor function after either pallidal or subthalamic stimulation. Nonmotor factors may reasonably be included in the selection of surgical target for deep-brain stimulation. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00056563 and NCT01076452.)

The effect of glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulfate on the progression of knee osteoarthritis: a report from the glucosamine/chondroitin arthritis intervention trial.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee causes significant morbidity and current medical treatment is limited to symptom relief, while therapies able to slow structural damage remain elusive. This study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate (CS), alone or in combination, as well as celecoxib and placebo on progressive loss of joint space width (JSW) in patients with knee OA. METHODS: A 24-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted at 9 sites in the United States as part of the Glucosamine/Chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT), enrolled 572 patients with knee OA who satisfied radiographic criteria (Kellgren/Lawrence [K/L] grade 2 or grade 3 changes and JSW of at least 2 mm at baseline). Patients with primarily lateral compartment narrowing at any time point were excluded. Patients who had been randomized to 1 of the 5 groups in the GAIT continued to receive glucosamine 500 mg 3 times daily, CS 400 mg 3 times daily, the combination of glucosamine and CS, celecoxib 200 mg daily, or placebo over 24 months. The minimum medial tibiofemoral JSW was measured at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. The primary outcome measure was the mean change in JSW from baseline. RESULTS: The mean JSW loss at 2 years in knees with OA in the placebo group, adjusted for design and clinical factors, was 0.166 mm. No statistically significant difference in mean JSW loss was observed in any treatment group compared with the placebo group. Treatment effects on K/L grade 2 knees, but not on K/L grade 3 knees, showed a trend toward improvement relative to the placebo group. The power of the study was diminished by the limited sample size, variance of JSW measurement, and a smaller than expected loss in JSW. CONCLUSION: At 2 years, no treatment achieved a predefined threshold of clinically important difference in JSW loss as compared with placebo. However, knees with K/L grade 2 radiographic OA appeared to have the greatest potential for modification by these treatments.

Chondroitin product selection for the glucosamine/chondroitin arthritis intervention trial.

OBJECTIVE: To select a high-quality chondroitin dosage form and/or an appropriate source of sodium chondroitin for the National Institutes of Health's Glucosamine/Chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT). DESIGN: Controlled experimental trials. SETTING: Laboratory. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Commercially available chondroitin products were reviewed, and purified sodium chondroitin from two suppliers was evaluated through tests (infrared and near-infrared identification, moisture content, pH, optical rotation, color and clarity of aqueous solutions prepared from the powders, protein contamination, total residue following ignition and nitrogen content, determination of sodium chondroitin molecular weight, disaccharide analysis, and measurement of chondroitin, sodium, and total glycosaminoglycan content) and an onsite supplier audit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Purity, potency, and quality of sodium chondroitin powders. RESULTS: No commercially available chondroitin product was deemed appropriate for use in GAIT. Samples of sodium chondroitin powder from two suppliers exhibited similar disaccharide and glycosaminoglycan content. Each contained approximately 2% hyaluronic acid and 8%-9% unsulfated disaccharide. Potency was inconsistent across groups, which might have resulted from different analytical methods and choice of reference standard. Mean potency obtained by five separate methods ranged from 82.2% to 95.5% for one supplier, 92.5% to 110.1% for another, and 95.1% to 112.5% for a commercially obtained reference standard. Critical issues raised by the results include choice of reference standard, selection of assay method, and the consistent appearance of an unidentifiable contaminant present in all three lots from one supplier. CONCLUSION: This blinded study determined methods to identify acceptable agents and provided results, which, in addition to regulatory compliance supplier audits, formed the basis for chondroitin product selection in GAIT.