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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Joerg Gruenwald, Jul 04, 2015
5 Followers
 · 
812 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Omega-3 (n-3) fatty acid supplementation is becoming increasingly popular. However given its antithrombotic properties the potential for severe adverse events (SAE) such as bleeding has safety implications, particularly in an older adult population. A systematic review of randomized control trials (RCT) was conducted to explore the potential for SAE and non-severe adverse events (non-SAE) associated with n-3 supplementation in older adults. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy using Medline and a variety of other electronic sources was conducted. Studies investigating the oral administration of n-3 fish oil containing eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or both against a placebo were sourced. The primary outcome of interest included reported SAE associated with n-3 supplementation. Chi-square analyses were conducted on the pooled aggregate of AEs. RESULTS: Of the 398 citations initially retrieved, a total of 10 studies involving 994 older adults aged >=60 years were included in the review. Daily fish oil doses ranged from 0.03 g to 1.86 g EPA and/or DHA with study durations ranging from 6 to 52 weeks. No SAE were reported and there were no significant differences in the total AE rate between groups (n-3 intervention group: 53/540; 9.8%; placebo group: 28/454; 6.2%; p = 0.07). Non-SAE relating to gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances were the most commonly reported however there was no significant increase in the proportion of GI disturbances reported in participants randomized to the n-3 intervention (n-3 intervention group: 42/540 (7.8%); placebo group: 24/454 (5.3%); p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: The potential for AEs appear mild-moderate at worst and are unlikely to be of clinical significance. The use of n-3 fatty acids and the potential for SAE should however be further researched to investigate whether this evidence is consistent at higher doses and in other populations. These results also highlight that well-documented data outlining the potential for SAE following n-3 supplementation are limited nor adequately reported to draw definitive conclusions concerning the safety associated with n-3 supplementation. A more rigorous and systematic approach for monitoring and recording AE data in clinical settings that involve n-3 supplementation is required.
    BMC Geriatrics 05/2013; 13(1):41. DOI:10.1186/1471-2318-13-41 · 2.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease that is characterized by increasing loss of cartilage, remodeling of the periarticular bone, and inflammation of the synovial membrane. Besides the common OA therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the treatment with chondroprotectives, such as glucosamine sulfate, chondroitin sulfate, hyaluronic acid, collagen hydrolysate, or nutrients, such as antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids is a promising therapeutic approach. Numerous clinical studies have demonstrated that the targeted administration of selected micronutrients leads to a more effective reduction of OA symptoms, with less adverse events. Their chondroprotective action can be explained by a dual mechanism: (1) as basic components of cartilage and synovial fluid, they stimulate the anabolic process of the cartilage metabolism; (2) their anti-inflammatory action can delay many inflammation-induced catabolic processes in the cartilage. These two mechanisms are able to slow the progression of cartilage destruction and may help to regenerate the joint structure, leading to reduced pain and increased mobility of the affected joint.
    International Journal of Rheumatology 08/2011; 2011:969012. DOI:10.1155/2011/969012
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis, and its incidence increases rapidly with age. Osteoarthritis is a progressive degenerative disease, and treatment must evolve with disease progression. Several classes of medications and treatment modalities have been used to relieve pain and preserve function. Most have been studied extensively but results of even well-designed trials can diverge. Furthermore, effect of a drug (beneficial or adverse) in an individual patient is not always predictable and may differ from the class effect. A short treatment trial may be necessary to determine efficacy. This potential discrepancy between statistical outcome and individual result is captured in the guidelines, to whatever extent possible. A summary of recommendations for select interventions compiled from multiple guidelines is presented in table II. In closing, interpretation of guideline recommendations, and how they were derived, must be clarified, since they have been a source of confusion and misinterpretation. Level of evidence (LoE) refers to the source from which the evidence was derived. It describes the quality of evidence and academic vigor, with meta-analysis of RCT being of strongest quality and expert opinion the lowest. The strength of effect describes how much of a clinical effect (usually benefit) is expected from the intervention. The strength of recommendation incorporates LoE and strength of effect, as well as cost, safety, and feasibility. An intervention with a high LoE does not necessarily trigger a strong recommendation. For example, NSAIDs have a greater effect on pain reduction than acetaminophen in most studies, but carries a lower recommendation due to concerns with long-term safety. Total knee arthroplasty has a LoE of III since no blinded RCT have studied the procedure, yet it carries a strong recommendation in advanced OA. In the five years between the publication of the EULAR and the OARIS guidelines (2003-2008), new studies were published explaining, in part, the difference in recommendations among the agencies. Future guidelines will undoubtedly evolve further.
    Le Journal médical libanais. The Lebanese medical journal 60(4):237-42.