Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Wang SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8500584 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of chondroitin sulfate plus glucosamine hydrochloride (CS+GH) versus celecoxib in patients with knee osteoarthritis and severe pain.MethodsDouble-blind Multicentre Osteoarthritis interVEntion trial with SYSADOA (MOVES) conducted in France, Germany, Poland and Spain evaluating treatment with CS+GH versus celecoxib in 606 patients with Kellgren and Lawrence grades 2-3 knee osteoarthritis and moderate-to-severe pain (Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score ?301; 0-500 scale). Patients were randomised to receive 400 mg CS plus 500 mg GH three times a day or 200 mg celecoxib every day for 6 months. The primary outcome was the mean decrease in WOMAC pain from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC function and stiffness, visual analogue scale for pain, presence of joint swelling/effusion, rescue medication consumption, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria and EuroQoL-5D.ResultsThe adjusted mean change (95% CI) in WOMAC pain was -185.7 (-200.3 to -171.1) (50.1% decrease) with CS+GH and -186.8 (-201.7 to -171.9) (50.2% decrease) with celecoxib, meeting the non-inferiority margin of -40: -1.11 (-22.0 to 19.8; p=0.92). All sensitivity analyses were consistent with that result. At 6 months, 79.7% of patients in the combination group and 79.2% in the celecoxib group fulfilled OMERACT-OARSI criteria. Both groups elicited a reduction >50% in the presence of joint swelling; a similar reduction was seen for effusion. No differences were observed for the other secondary outcomes. Adverse events were low and similarly distributed between groups.ConclusionsCS+GH has comparable efficacy to celecoxib in reducing pain, stiffness, functional limitation and joint swelling/effusion after 6 months in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis, with a good safety profile.Trial registration numberNCT01425853.

Project description: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.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to determine relationship between disease activity, systemic markers of cartilage degradation, urinary C-terminal cross-linking telopeptides of type II collagen (uCTX-II), and bone degradation, urinary C-terminal cross-linking telopeptides of type I collagen (uCTX-I), structural progression of osteoarthritis (OA) and potential therapeutic efficacy of type II collagen (COLLII) in combination with glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate (GC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational retrospective study, 1-year follow-up, on 104 patients with OA (nodular osteoarthritis of the hand, erosive osteoarthritis of the hand, EOA, osteoarthritis of the knee or hip) who were treated with GC or glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate and collagen type II (GCC). The following information was collected at entry: demographics, BMI, characteristics of OA, patient global assessment (VAS), C-terminal cross-linking telopeptides of collagen types I (uCTX-I) and II (uCTX-II) and radiographs. After 6 months: VAS, uCTX-I and uCTX-II. After 1 year: VAS, uCTX-I, uCTX-II and radiographs. RESULTS: After 6 months and 1 year of treatment VAS, uCTX-I and uCTX-II mean values were significantly lower than the baseline. 57 were treated with GCC and 47 with GC. The group that received GCC showed a similar VAS mean value after 6 months and 1 year when compared with the group treated with GC. uCTX-I and uCTX-II mean level was lower in the group treated with GCC (P < 0.05). Radiological score (Kellgren and Lawrence summarized score for hands) after 1 year showed a reduced progression compared to the baseline in the hand osteoarthritis group, especially after GCC treatment (P < 0.05). Finally, uCTX-I has better correlation with radiological score and with GC in the EOA subgroup (Pearson index: R = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: (a) uCTX-I and uCTX-II proved to be useful biomarkers in OA monitoring; (b) uCTX-I is better correlated with hand EOA and could represent a potential further marker to assess the evolution of EOA bone damage; (c) GC slow down OA progression; (d) finally COLLII could represent a further protective factor in OA cartilage.