Article

Effect of glucosamine sulfate with or without omega-3 fatty acids in patients with osteoarthritis.

Analyze & Realize AG, Berlin, Germany.
Advances in Therapy (Impact Factor: 2.44). 09/2009; 26(9):858-71. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-009-0060-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A total of 177 patients with moderate-to-severe hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) were tested over a period of 26 weeks in a two-center, two-armed, randomized, double-blind, comparison study. The aim was to see if a combination of glucosamine sulfate (1500 mg/day) and the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (group A), showed equivalence (noninferiority) or superiority as opposed to glucosamine sulfate alone (group B).
The primary therapy evaluation was performed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthrosis index (WOMAC) score. At the end of the study, a reduction in the pain score of > or =20% was required (primary target criterion) and the quantitative difference in the WOMAC subscores pain, stiffness, and function were analyzed (secondary target criteria).
When a minimal pain reduction of > or =20% was chosen, there was no statistically significant difference in the number of responders between the two groups (92.2% group A, 94.3% group B). A higher responder criterion (> or =80% reduction in the WOMAC pain score) was chosen. Therefore, the frequency of responders showed a therapeutic and statistical superiority for the combination product of glucosamine sulfate and the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients who complied with the study protocol (group A 44%, group B 32%; P=0.044). OA symptoms (morning stiffness, pain in hips and knees) were reduced at the end of the study: by 48.5%-55.6% in group A and by 41.7%-55.3% in group B. The reduction was greater in group A than in group B. There was a tendency toward superiority shown in the secondary target criteria and concurrent variables. In the global safety evaluation, both products have been demonstrated to be very safe in long-term treatment over 26 weeks. To our knowledge, this is the first clinical trial in which glucosamine was given in combination with omega-3 fatty acids to patients with OA.

3 Bookmarks
 · 
602 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the efficacies of different preparations of glucosamine for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). Systematic searches of the bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) concerning glucosamine treatment of OA. Effect size (ES) was estimated using Cohen's standardised mean difference. Consistency was evaluated via the I(2) index. Nineteen trials (3159 patients) contributed to the meta-analysis, revealing a large degree of inconsistency among the trials in terms of pain-reduction outcome: the combined ES in glucosamine sulphate (GS) trials was -0.22 [95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.48, 0.04], I(2) was 82.3%. The combined ES in glucosamine hydrochloride (GH) trials was -0.03 (95% CI -0.14, 0.08), with an absence of heterogeneity. No treatment ES was observed [-0.38 (95% CI -0.99, 0.23)] favouring GS in trials of less than 24 weeks duration and the I(2) remained high (I(2) = 88.5%). No significant treatment ES -0.09 (95% CI -0.21, 0.03) was observed in trials of more than 24 weeks duration compared with placebo, with a heterogeneity of zero. In terms of function-modifying outcomes, GS showed no significant effect on Lequesne Index reduction vs. placebo in trials of less than 24 weeks duration (ES -0.55 (95% CI -1.22, 0.11)) with a high degree of heterogeneity (I(2) = 92.9%). Pooling data from studies with durations of more than 24 weeks presented a significant combined ES of -0.36 (95% CI: -0.56, -0.17) with an absence of heterogeneity. No risk of publication bias could be detected using Egger test. GH is ineffective for pain reduction in patients with knee OA. GS may have function-modifying effects in patients with knee OA when administered for more than 6 months. However, it showed no pain-reduction benefits after 6 months of therapy.
    International Journal of Clinical Practice 06/2013; 67(6):585-94. · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To highlight seminal publications in the past year on the topic of non-pharmacologic management of osteoarthritis (OA). A systematic search of the PUBMED and Cochrane databases from September 2009 to September 2010 was conducted to identify articles reporting on studies examining the safety or efficacy of non-pharmacologic therapies in the management of OA. Non-pharmacologic therapies were those considered in the 2008 OARSI OA guidelines. Identified articles were reviewed for quality; those of highest quality and deemed to have greatest potential impact on the management of OA were summarized. The search identified 117 unique articles. Of these, four studies were chosen to highlight. A nested two-stage trial found that traditional Chinese acupuncture (TCA) was not superior to sham acupuncture, but that the providers' style affected both pain reduction and satisfaction with treatment, suggesting that the analgesic benefits of acupuncture may be partially mediated by the acupuncturists' behavior. A systematic review found little evidence of a significant effect for electrostimulation vs sham or no intervention on pain in knee OA. A single-blinded trial of Tai Chi vs attention controls found that 12 weeks of Tai Chi was associated with improvements in symptoms and disability in patients with knee OA. A randomized trial of early ACL reconstructive surgery and rehabilitation vs structured rehabilitation alone in subjects with acute anterior cruciate ligament tears found that, at 24 months following randomization, all study participants had improved, suggesting that a strategy of structured rehabilitation followed acute ACL injury may preclude the need for surgical reconstruction. High quality studies of the safety and efficacy of non-pharmacologic agents in the management of OA remain challenging due to difficulties with adequate blinding and appropriate selection of attention controls. High quality studies suggest modest, if any, benefit of many non-pharmacologic therapies over attention control or placebo, but a significant impact of both over no intervention at all.
    Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 02/2011; 19(4):366-74. · 4.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dietary supplements have inundated the commercial market in recent times. These so called "health" supplements are being marketed as beneficial in the prevention and regression of several common medical conditions that include osteoarthritis. This review provides an overview of osteoarthritis as a common disease and elucidates the disease process in relation to conventional therapeutic approaches. We also attempt to present perspectives about the dietary industry, focusing on the widely available dietary supplements for osteoarthritis; then we discuss the current available evidence regarding these common dietary supplements which are finally consolidated and enumerated as major key points.
    International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases 05/2011; 14(2):152-8. · 1.65 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
217 Downloads
Available from
May 17, 2014