Glucosamine Sulphate by drdoc on-line                   


Health and nutrition stores recently have promoted nutritional supplements of glucosamine sulfate as a treatment for nonspecific arthritis. Consumers may be under the impression that this is an arthritis medication. Glucosamine is a substance synthesized in the body.It plays an important role in the repair and maintenance of Articular cartilage. Glucosamine sulfate is an artificially synthesized salt of glucosamine. This compound has been tried experimentally in the treatment of osteoarthritis.Osteoarthritis is a form of degenerative arthritis occurring when the cartilage that cushions the ends of bone joints breaks down, causing pain, stiffness and deformity.

Based on animal models of arthritis, glucosamine sulfate has been reported to have the potential to slow the degradation of cartilage.Its mode of action is believed to involve stimulation of cartilage cells to synthesize glycosaminoglycans and proteoglycans, the building blocks of cartilage. It also has been reported to have anti-inflammatory properties through a mechanism that inhibits the activity of proteolytic enzymes.

In the early 1980s, a number of small, controlled human trials were conducted in Europe and Asia to study the clinical use of glucosamine sulfate in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Small trials were then done in the early 1990's. These tended to be poor design and of limited general acceptance.

Recent publication in the Lancet Vol 357 Jan 2001 showed optimistic results with an increase in joint space (cartilage) when used over 3 years.

This suggests a fairly definite positive response

Therefore in my personal opinion there is no evidence that there is any benefit in this product with Rheumatoid Arthritis, but a potential benefit in osteoarthritis - based on other previously reported animal data. The medication has never fully been studied in a scientific manner - and perhaps a large study in osteoarthritis may be appropriate.

The USA FDA position:

No drug company in the United States has submitted an application on this compound for FDA review and approval.
Glucosamine sulfate therefore has not been approved by the FDA for the treatment of arthritis.
Substances promoted as dietary supplements, including glucosamine salts such as glucosamine sulfate and glucosamine hydrochloride do not require premarket review by the FDA. Manufacturers only are required to comply with FDA safety guidelines and to have substantial evidence regarding claims to a compound¹s benefit. There are no criteria defining substantial evidence, and suppliers are not required to share this information with the FDA.The FDA has not reviewed any studies to confirm or refute the claims made for glucosamine dietary supplements.The studies conducted during the past 10 years appear promising. However, more recent, long-term, rigorously controlled studies with a large number of patients are needed to evaluate the value of glucosamine sulfate as a treatment for osteoarthritis.
Studies should use outcome measures other than pain and disability, include markers of cartilage stabilization or deterioration and use state-of-the-art technology to evaluate cartilage.
The studies conducted during the past 10 years do not indicate that glucosamine sulfate benefits other forms of arthritis. People with arthritis should seek proper medical care from their family physician or a rheumatologist and should check with their doctor before self-treating with products claimed to help arthritis.

Several studies have now been in progress and some results  were presented at some of the conferences, which I attended.

These are illustrated below :

1. Eular 2000 Nice France.

Efficacy and Safety of Glucosamine SULFATE IN OSTEOARTHRITIS OF THE SPINE: A PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMISED, DOUBLE-BLIND STUDY

K.K. Förster1, K. Schmid1, G. Giacovelli2, L.C. Rovati2 1Dept. of Clinical Research, Opfermann Arzneimittel, Wiehl; 2Dept. of Clinical Pharmacology, Rotta Research Lab., Monza (I), Germany

Objective: Control of symptoms of cervical and/or lumbar spondylarthrosis in comparison with placebo Six weeks of treatment plus four weeks of follow-up. 160 patients were enrolled, randomly assigned to either the verum group (80 patients: 66 women, 14 men; mean age of 64.2 years) or to the placebo group (80 patients: 65 women, 15 men; mean age of 62.0 years).

Results: 52.5% GS patients showed either "definitely improved" or "improved" symptoms, versus 33.7% placebo group patients (p = 0.034).

Global assessment, figures were higher: 67.5 versus 58.8% (not significant, n.s.). Conclusions: GS has a significantly better symptomatic efficacy than placebo in controlling pain and movement limitation in spondylarthrosis. This effect lasts on after the end of treatment, whereby safety of GS is very good and comparable to that of placebo.

2. 1998 ACR conference in San Diego

Abstract: 995
November 10, 1998
Poster Session D: Osteoarthritis: Clinical Trials
12:30-2:00 pm, Hall B1/C

 GLUCOSAMINE SULPHATE IN OSTEOARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

T.E. Towheed

Rheumatic Diseases Unit, Queen's University, Canada

 Glucosamine sulphate (GS) has been proposed as a slow acting drug in osteoarthritis (OA). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of GS in the management of OA were systematically reviewed. A MEDLINE search strategy, supplemented by a review of reference lists, was used to help identify English language RCTs published between 1966 and 1997. Quantitative review of the efficacy of GS in OA was performed by meta-analysis. Effect sizes were used to synthesize quantitative data that were measured with different scales, and Peto Odds Ratios (OR) were used for pooling dichotomous data. The search strategy identified a total of 9 RCTs. The average duration of the RCTs was 5.4 weeks. The mean number of subjects randomized subjects was 97. GS was administered orally in 5 RCTs, parenterally in 2, and a combined oral/parenteral route was used in 2 RCTs. 6 RCTs included subjects with only OA of the knee, 2 did not state the location of the OA, and 1 included subjects with OA at multiple sites. In the 7 RCTs that compared GS versus placebo, GS was always superior. 2 RCTs: compared GS versus ibuprofen;GS was superior in 1 and equivalent in 1. There were methodological problems with these RCTs, including a lack of standardization of the case definition of OA, and a lack of standardization of outcome assessment. The combined effect size for pain relief, comparing GS vs placebo (n = 5 studies) was 1.23 (95% CI, .93 to 1.53). The Peto OR, for overall favorable response comparing GS versus placebo (n = 2 studies) was 2.04 (95% CI, 1.38 to 3.02). GS was found to be extremely safe and superior to placebo, and at least similar in efficacy to ibuprofen. Further studies are needed to determine whether the route of administration of GS is clinically important, and whether the therapeutic effect of GS in OA is site specific.


Abstract: 994
November 10, 1998
Poster Session D: Osteoarthritis: Clinical Trials
12:30-2:00 pm, Hall B1/C

GLUCOSAMINE (GL) AND CHONDROITIN (CH) TREATMENT FOR OSTEOARTHRITIS (OA) OF THE KNEE OR HIP: META-ANALYSIS AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF CLINICAL TRIALS

T.E. McAlindon, J. Gulin, D.T. Felson

Arthritis Ctr., Boston Univ., MA 02118, USA

 OA is a major cause of pain and disability in the population for which effective treatment is badly needed. GL and CH have been used for over 10 years in Europe, yet have been neglected as credible OA therapies in the US. Because of their safety, GL and CH would be of value even if only modestly effective. We performed a meta-analysis and quality assessment of clinical trials to evaluate their efficacy, and the quality of the evidence.

Studies eligible for inclusion were double-blind placebo-controlled trials of ³4 weeks duration, testing oral or parenteral GL or CH for knee or hip OA, which reported p values and size of treatment effect. Studies were sought using MEDLINE, manual searches of manuscripts and journal supplements, and by contacting authors of published manuscripts and content experts. Study quality was scored independently by two observers using a validated inventory with range 0-65, in which scores £ 33 are considered poor, 34-45 moderate, ³46 good (JAMA 1994; 272: 108). Disagreements were treated by adjudication, and by taking averages.

We decided a priori to (i) treat the global pain score in the index joint (or, if unavailable, the Lequesne Index) as the study 1° outcome (ii) classify a trial as positive if the score in the treated group at completion was ³25% lower than the placebo group and significant [p < .05]. We then computed the probability that the observed number of positive studies might have occurred by chance if the treatments were in fact ineffective using the sign test, and the number of negative studies which would be required to make this result null (p » .5).

13 trials met eligibility criteria: GL (4 papers, 2 abstracts), CH (5 papers, 2 abstracts). Inter-rater ICC for quality scoring was 0.87, p = .0001. Quality scores ranged 8-36, mean 21.1, 95% CI 16.9-25.2, and were substantially lower for abstracts compared with manuscripts (12.2 vs 25.0, p = .001). Deficiencies related to description of randomization, blinding, and completion rates. Only 2 included an intent-to-treat analysis. 5 of the 6 GS studies received industrial support. All studies were classified as positive, and demonstrated large effects - mean score reduction compared to placebo 39.5% (sd 21.9) for GS, 40.2% (6.4) for CS. The probabilities for this outcome in the absence of any true effect are p = .016 (GS), p = .008 (CS). The numbers of negative studies required to nullify these probabilities are 45 (GS) & 62 (CS).

Clinical trials of GL and CH show substantial benefits in the treatment of OA, but provide insufficient information about study design and conduct to allow definitive evaluation. We conclude that further studies are needed to test the efficacy of GS and CS.


Abstract: 689
November 10, 1998
Poster Session C: Osteoarthritis: Methodology and Animal Models
8:00-9:30 am, Hall B1/C

 GLUCOSAMINE SULFATE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED CARTILAGE DESTRUCTION IN A RABBIT MODEL OF OSTEOARTHRITIS

T. Conrozier, P. Mathieu, M. Piperno, S. Richard, M. Annefeld, M. Richard, E. Vignon

Claude Bernard University, 2B, CHLS, 69310 Pierre Benite, France

 Gluscosamine Sulfate (GS) is an effective symptomatic treatment of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) but the structure modifying effect of the drug is unknown.

OA was induced in both right and left knees of New Zealand White male rabbits by transection of the anterior cruciate ligament. GS (120 mg/kg daily) was added to the drinking water of 6 animals immediately after surgery and 6 animals were used as controls. All animals were sacrified 8 weeks after surgery. Cartilage lesions were evaluated in blind by the same observer by using both (1) a 8 grades macroscopic score (1 = softening, 2 = localized superficial fibrillation, 3 = large superficial fibrillation, 4 = small erosion, 5 = large erosion, 6 = small bone exposure, 7 = large bone exposure) and (2) an overall assessment of chondropathy using a 100 mm VAS according to the method of Ayral et al. (J Rheumatol 1996, 23, 698-706). Both scores were well correlated (R2 = 64%, p < 0.001). The mean gross score of the treated (12 knees) and control (11 knees) animals was 13.2 + 4 and 18.7 + 5.5 (p = .04) respectively. The mean overall assessment was 21.7 + 14.8 and 47.8 + 11.5 (p < 0.004) respectively. Intra and interobserver reproducibility of the VAS overall assessment was evaluated by using photographs of the femorotibial articular surfaces and was found satisfactorily (R2 = 82 and 66.5%, respectively).

The simple overall assessment of chondropathy used by arthroscopists is suggested as a reliable and sensitive method in such an animal study. GS was demonstrated as a structure modifying drug in this prophylactic study.


Back to fad / other therapies
Go to a book review of THE ARTHRITIS CURE by drdoc on line
Back to drdoc on-line homepage

Go to arthritis index page