0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review |

Glucosamine and Chondroitin for Treatment of Osteoarthritis A Systematic Quality Assessment and Meta-analysis

Timothy E. McAlindon, DM; Michael P. LaValley, PhD; Juan P. Gulin, MD; David T. Felson, MD
JAMA. 2000;283(11):1469-1475. doi:10.1001/jama.283.11.1469.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context Glucosamine and chondroitin preparations are widely touted in the lay press as remedies for osteoarthritis (OA), but uncertainty about their efficacy exists among the medical community.

Objective To evaluate benefit of glucosamine and chondroitin preparations for OA symptoms using meta-analysis combined with systematic quality assessment of clinical trials of these preparations in knee and/or hip OA.

Data Sources We searched for human clinical trials in MEDLINE (1966 to June 1999) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using the terms osteoarthritis, osteoarthrosis, degenerative arthritis, glucosamine, chondroitin, and glycosaminoglycans. We also manually searched review articles, manuscripts, and supplements from rheumatology and OA journals and sought unpublished data by contacting content experts, study authors, and manufacturers of glucosamine or chondroitin.

Study Selection Studies were included if they were published or unpublished double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of 4 or more weeks' duration that tested glucosamine or chondroitin for knee or hip OA and reported extractable data on the effect of treatment on symptoms. Fifteen of 37 studies were included in the analysis.

Data Extraction Reviewers performed data extraction and scored each trial using a quality assessment instrument. We computed an effect size from the intergroup difference in mean outcome values at trial end, divided by the SD of the outcome value in the placebo group (0.2, small effect; 0.5, moderate; 0.8, large), and applied a correction factor to reduce bias. We tested for trial heterogeneity and publication bias and stratified for trial quality and size. We pooled effect sizes using a random effects model.

Data Synthesis Quality scores ranged from 12.3% to 55.4% of the maximum, with a mean (SD) of 35.5% (12%). Only 1 study described adequate allocation concealment and 2 reported an intent-to-treat analysis. Most were supported or performed by a manufacturer. Funnel plots showed significant asymmetry (P≤.01) compatible with publication bias. Tests for heterogeneity were nonsignificant after removing 1 outlier trial. The aggregated effect sizes were 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.64) for glucosamine and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.60-0.95) for chondroitin, but they were diminished when only high-quality or large trials were considered. The effect sizes were relatively consistent for pain and functional outcomes.

Conclusions Trials of glucosamine and chondroitin preparations for OA symptoms demonstrate moderate to large effects, but quality issues and likely publication bias suggest that these effects are exaggerated. Nevertheless, some degree of efficacy appears probable for these preparations.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Figures

Figure 1. Forest Plot of Effect Sizes for Trials and Pooled Effects
Graphic Jump Location
95% confidence intervals are shown using lines extending from the symbols. Effect size is based on the scale proposed by Cohen36 in which 0.8 reflects a large effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.2 a small effect.
Figure 2. Funnel Plot of Glucosamine and Chondroitin Trials
Graphic Jump Location
Effect size is based on the scale proposed by Cohen36 in which 0.8 reflects a large effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.2 a small effect.

Tables

References

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

12,681 Views
452 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
Jobs
×
brightcove.createExperiences();