PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9606479

Glucosamine.

T S Barclay·C Tsourounis·G M McCart
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of glucosamine and critically evaluate currently available literature regarding its safety and efficacy. DATA SOURCE: A MEDLINE search was conducted between January 1965 and May 1997. Key words used in the search were osteoarthritis, osteoarthrosis, gonarthrosis, and glucosamine. In addition, references cited in articles obtained from the MEDLINE search were reviewed for additional literature. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All articles were considered for inclusion in the review. Articles were excluded from critical evaluation for lack of randomization, lack of a control group, 30 or fewer study participants, inconsistent treatment regimen, incomplete dosing information, or incomplete reporting of results. DATA SYNTHESIS: Osteoarthritis affects approximately 12% of the US population; the incidence increases with increasing age. Currently used pharmacologic treatments, including acetaminophen and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, do not slow or reverse the degenerative process in osteoarthritis. Glucosamine has recently received a great deal of attention from the public as a potential treatment of osteoarthritis, prompting healthcare professionals to investigate its clinical usefulness and potential for adverse effects. The drug has been proposed to stop and possibly reverse the degenerative process in osteoarthritis. Following absorption of an oral dose, glucosamine is incorporated into plasma proteins during first-pass metabolism, resulting in 26% bioavailability. Unbound glucosamine is concentrated in the articular cartilage. Each of the three critically evaluated studies reported a decrease in the symptoms of osteoarthritis (e.g., decreased Lequesne index, decreased pain severity, increased range of motion) for the glucosamine group, which was greater than that obtained in the control group. Flaws in study design, however, prevent the use of these results in modifying current clinical practice. Reported short-term adverse effects include mild gastrointestinal problems, drowsiness, skin reactions, and headache. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in the symptoms of osteoarthritis associated with the use of glucosamine has been observed in clinical trials; however, those trials have flaws in design and data analysis. Further research needs to be conducted before glucosamine can be recommended as a treatment for osteoarthritis.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicGlucosamineHumansMetabolic Clearance RateOsteoarthritisJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T S Barclay, C Tsourounis, G M McCart. 1998. Glucosamine.. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.17235

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1999

Indexes of contrast and quantitative significance for comparisons of two groups.

Although boundaries for 'large' and 'small' differences are needed to plan research and interpret results, the diverse indexes of descriptive contrast for the central indexes, A and B, of two groups, have not received intensive attention. For two means, the increment of mid R:A-Bmid R: reflects the slope of a line showing the 'effect', but is altered by different units of measurement. Division of mid R:A-Bmid R: by the common standard deviation produces the standardized increment (SI), which is sometimes called the 'effect size'. Despite many advant ages, it does not contrast the relative magnitudes of A and B. For the latter contrast, the relative change or proportionate increment (mid R:A-Bmid R:/B) is particularly easy to understand, and the relative translocation (mid R:A-Bmid R:/[A+B]) produces a bounded range from -1 to +1. Nevertheless, all indexes of relative magnitude ablate the scales of measurement, thereby increasing difficulty in interpretation. Although seldom applied, proportionate reduction in overall system variance can be highly useful. Its square root leads to eta, the analogue of a correlation coefficient, which corresponds to a standardized slope for the direct increment. The values of eta usually approximate (SI)/2. Although arbitrary levels have been proposed for 'quantitative significance' of the SI, the proportionate reduction in overall system variance is often regarded as ineffectual unless >/=10 per cent. With this belief, minimum boundaries for quantitative significance can often be set at eta>/=0.3 and SI>/=0.6. In indexes of relative magnitude for two proportions (or rates), p(A) and p(B), confusion is produced if q(A) and q(B) are alternatively chosen for the denominators. The odds ratio, (p(A) q(B)/p(B) q(A)), avoids these choices, but is often difficult to interpret. For easy understanding and communication, the preferred index is NNE, the number needed to produce one excess effect, calculated as the inverse of the direct increment, that is, 1/mid R:p(A)-p(B)mid R: The standardized increment, mid R:p(A)-p(B)mid R:/ radical(PQ), (where P is the average of p(A) and p(B) and Q=1-P) could offer a single index applicable to both dimensional and binary data, but when P becomes quite small, that is, <0.01, radical(PQ) requires special calculations and also approaches the value of radicalP. Boundaries of 'quantitative significance' are particularly difficult to establish for comparisons of two rates, because of additional consequences in populational extrapolations and clinical implications. Nevertheless, the principles of quantitative significance can aid the ad hoc construction of boundaries that must be set for medical importance when sample sizes are calculated and when results are interpreted for studies of either efficacy or equivalence.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗