The efficacy of glucosamine sulfate in osteoarthritis: Financial and nonfinancial conflict of interest

Typology of conflict of commitment (COC) in the era of inappropriate foreign influence in research

Conflicts, in the form of conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment, have become increasingly prominent discussion points for US federal funding agencies and academic research institutions in the era of inappropriate foreign influence in research. Conflict of interest, specifically financial conflict of interest, is precisely defined within U.S. federal regulation precipitating the subsequent establishment of institutional processes for conflict of interest evaluation. Conflicts of commitment, however, have been increasingly referenced but less frequently codified. The variety of scenarios to which conflict of commitment may be applied is also vast, with no typology being presented heretofore. Therefore, a review of the typology of conflict of commitment, particularly as it is used to address research security concerns stemming from inappropriate foreign influence in research, is timely and relevant. This manuscript will review the history of conflicts of commitment in the scientific literature, correlate the focus on inappropriate foreign influence with conflict of commitment, and suggest a contemporary typology for conflict of commitment for practical and regulatory use based on significant references to COI in the literature and federal government documents.

Home sleep apnea tests: Conflicts of interest and funding

OBJECTIVE

Pediatric otolaryngologists rely on HSAT literature to guide their diagnostic methods related to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Our objectives were to review the rates of presence of funding and/or potential conflict of interest (COI), as well as its relationship to the overall quality of HSAT publications in the literature over the last two decades.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Web of Science and Embase databases.

REVIEW METHODS

A review was performed reviewing publications from January 2000 to December 2021. Oxford Level of Evidence (OLE) was used as a quality metric. COI and funding were recorded verbatim as self-declared in the text of the manuscript.

RESULTS

Literature search yielded 4257 articles with 400 articles included in final analysis. The odds of higher quality studies (LOE 1 or 2) were higher in the last five years from 2016 to 2021 (OR, 3.6; 95% CI 1.4 to 6.9). Nearly half of all articles (43.0%) lacked a statement regarding funding or COI. There was a positive correlation between level of evidence and industry funding. The largest source of funding was from industry, comprising 39.6% of all studies that had a funding statement. Of these industry-funded studies, 37.5% reported no COI or lacked a COI statement.

CONCLUSION

Despite a growing interest in HSATs for OSA evaluation, there is heterogeneity in reporting of COI and high prevalence of industry funding and COI. Re-evaluation and consensus amongst journals on guidelines for reporting disclosures are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

2021 revised algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis-the Chinese viewpoint

AIM

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is available worldwide from 2014, but in 2019 an update was published. Based on this algorithm, a Working Group (WG), including ESCEO members and Chinese experts, wished to see how the new ESCEO algorithm was perceived by Chinese experts in knee OA and how it was integrated into their clinical practice.

METHODS

A WG was held between members of the international ESCEO task force and a group of Chinese experts.

RESULTS

Non-pharmacological approach should be combined with pharmacological interventions. In step 1, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOA) are the most important background drugs. Evidence, supported by high-quality research, is available only for crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) and chondroitin sulfate. Topical NSAIDs could be used as an additional option. In step 2, oral NSAIDs could be useful, but cardiovascular/renal/gastrointestinal profiles of the patients should be considered. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids are alternative to oral NSAIDs, but the evidence is still limited. If steps 1 and 2 are not sufficient, weak opioids could be used. Overall, the conclusions of the ESCEO algorithm are accepted in China for products available in this country. The WG suggests the importance of economic studies, specifically made in China.

CONCLUSION

This work provides evidence-based advice to establish a treatment algorithm in knee OA, for practical implementation in clinical practice in China.

2019 revised algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis: the Southeast Asian viewpoint

Background

Since 2014, the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is available worldwide.

Aim

Based on this document, a Southeast Asia Working Group (SEAWG) wished to see how the new ESCEO algorithm developed in 2019 was perceived by Southeast Asian experts and how it was integrated into their clinical practice.

Methods

A SEAWG was set up between members of the international ESCEO task force and a group of Southeast Asian experts.

Results

Non-pharmacological management should always be combined with pharmacological management. In step 1, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis are the main background therapy, for which high-quality evidence is available only for the formulations of patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate and chondroitin sulfate. In step 2, oral NSAIDs are a useful option, considering the cardiovascular/renal/gastrointestinal profiles of the individual patient. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids are a possible alternative to oral NSAIDs, but limited evidence is available. If steps 1 and 2 do not give adequate relief of symptoms, tramadol can be used, but its safety is debated. In general, the indications of the ESCEO algorithm are important in Southeast Asian countries, but the reimbursement criteria of local health systems are an important aspect for adherence to the ESCEO algorithm.

Conclusion

This guidance provides evidence-based and easy-to-follow advice on how to establish a treatment algorithm in knee OA, for practical implementation in clinical practice in Southeast Asian countries.

Glucosamine sulphate: an umbrella review of health outcomes

Background and Aims:

Glucosamine sulphate (GS) can be used as background therapy in people affected by knee osteoarthritis (OA). Knowledge regarding the efficacy and safety of GS is of importance since its use worldwide is increasing. Therefore, the present study aimed to map and grade the diverse health outcomes associated with GS using an umbrella review approach.

Methods:

Medline, Cinahl and Embase databases were searched until 1 April 2020. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was carried out. The evidence from the RCTs was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool.

Results:

From 140 articles returned, 11 systematic reviews, for a total of 21 outcomes (37 RCTs; 3949 participants; almost all using 1500 mg/day), were included. No systematic reviews/meta-analyses of observational studies were included. Regarding the findings of the meta-analyses, 9/17 outcomes were statistically significant, indicating that GS is more effective than placebo. A high certainty of evidence, as assessed by GRADE, supported the use of GS (versus placebo) in improving the Lequesne Index, joint space width change, joint space width change after 3 years of follow up, joint space narrowing and OA progression. No difference in terms of adverse effects was found between GS and placebo. In systematic reviews, GS was associated with a better glucose profile and a better physical function performance than placebo.

Conclusion:

GS, when used as a prescription drug (i.e. crystalline glucosamine sulphate) at 1500 mg daily dosage, can positively affect the cartilage structure, reduce pain, improve function and glucose metabolism in people with knee OA, without having a greater incidence of adverse effects than placebo.

An updated algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

OBJECTIVES

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) sought to revisit the 2014 algorithm recommendations for knee osteoarthritis (OA), in light of recent efficacy and safety evidence, in order to develop an updated stepwise algorithm that provides practical guidance for the prescribing physician that is applicable in Europe and internationally.

METHODS

Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process, a summary of evidence document for each intervention in OA was provided to all members of an ESCEO working group, who were required to evaluate and vote on the strength of recommendation for each intervention. Based on the evidence collected, and on the strength of recommendations afforded by consensus of the working group, the final algorithm was constructed.

RESULTS

An algorithm for management of knee OA comprising a stepwise approach and incorporating consensus on 15 treatment recommendations was prepared by the ESCEO working group. Both "strong" and "weak" recommendations were afforded to different interventions. The algorithm highlights the continued importance of non-pharmacological interventions throughout the management of OA. Benefits and limitations of different pharmacological treatments are explored in this article, with particular emphasis on safety issues highlighted by recent literature analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated ESCEO stepwise algorithm, developed by consensus from clinical experts in OA and informed by available evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatments, provides practical, current guidance that will enable clinicians to deliver patient-centric care in OA practice.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and osteoarthritis (OA) are common diseases that frequently co-exist, along with overweight/obesity. While the mechanical impact of excess body weight on joints may explain lower limb OA, we sought to explore whether T2DM is linked to OA outside of excess weight and whether T2DM may play a role in OA pathophysiology. The consequence of T2DM on OA outcomes is a question of research interest.

METHODS

We conducted a critical review of the literature to explore the association between T2DM and OA, whether any association is site-specific for OA, and whether the presence of T2DM impacts on OA outcomes. We also reviewed the literature to assess the safety of anti-OA treatments in patients with T2DM.

RESULTS

T2DM has a pathogenic effect on OA through 2 major pathways involving oxidative stress and low-grade chronic inflammation resulting from chronic hyperglycemia and insulin resistance. T2DM is a risk factor for OA progression and has a negative impact on arthroplasty outcomes. Evidence is mounting for safety concerns with some of the most frequently prescribed anti-OA medications, including paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroid injections, while other anti-OA medications may be safely prescribed in OA patients with T2DM, such as glucosamine and intra-articular hyaluronic acid.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research is needed to better understand whether diabetes control and prevention can modulate OA occurrence and progression. The selection of therapy to treat OA symptoms in patients with T2DM may require careful consideration of the evidence based to avoid untoward safety issues.

Questioning a publication bias between industry-funded and non-industry-funded randomized controlled trials on biological and small molecule therapy for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

There has been a significant increase in financial support of clinical research by the pharmaceutical industry.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive systematic literature review to determine whether there is publication bias for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) studies between industry-funded and non-industry funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and between RCTs with positive results (PRs) and those with negative results (NRs) of FDAapproved biological and small molecule drug therapy for RA. Each RCT was classified as having either a PR or a NR, and as having received commercial funding or not.

RESULTS

Most (297/349, 85.18%) of the RCTs were commercially funded. There was no significant difference in PRs or association with publication between commercially and noncommercially funded RCTs. Sample size was significantly larger in commercially funded RCTs and in those with PRs, and it was the only significant parameter that predicted publication in higher impact factor journals in the field of RA.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant association between commercial funding and the publication of positive results or the publication of an RCT in higher impact factor journals.

Safety of Symptomatic Slow-Acting Drugs for Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) are an important drug class in the treatment armamentarium for osteoarthritis (OA).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to re-assess the safety of various SYSADOAs in a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials, using, as much as possible, data from full safety reports.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and random-effects meta-analyses of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with various SYSADOAs in patients with OA. The databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL) and Scopus were searched. The primary outcomes were overall severe and serious AEs, as well as AEs involving the following Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system organ classes (SOCs): gastrointestinal, cardiac, vascular, nervous system, skin and subcutaneous tissue, musculoskeletal and connective tissue, renal and urinary system.

RESULTS

Database searches initially identified 3815 records. After exclusions according to the selection criteria, 25 studies on various SYSADOAs were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 13 studies with adequate data were included in the meta-analyses. Next, from the studies previously excluded according to the protocol, 37 with mainly oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) permitted as concomitant medication were included in a parallel qualitative synthesis, from which 18 studies on various SYSADOAs were included in parallel meta-analyses. This post hoc parallel inclusion was conducted because of the high number of studies allowing concomitant anti-OA medications. Indeed, primarily excluding studies with concomitant anti-OA medications was crucial for a meta-analysis on safety. The decision for parallel inclusion was made for the purpose of comparative analyses. Glucosamine sulfate (GS), chondroitin sulfate (CS) and avocado soybean unsaponifiables (ASU; Piascledine®) were not associated with increased odds for any type of AEs compared with placebo. Overall, with/without concomitant OA medication, diacerein was associated with significantly increased odds of total AEs (odds ratio [OR] 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-3.13; I2 = 52.8%), gastrointestinal disorders (OR 2.85; 95% CI 2.02-4.04; I2 = 62.8%) and renal and urinary disorders (OR 3.42; 95% CI 2.36-4.96; I2 = 17.0%) compared with placebo. In studies that allowed concomitant OA medications, diacerein was associated with significantly more dermatological disorders (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.42-4.31; I2 = 0%) and more dropouts due to AEs (OR 3.18; 95% CI 1.85-5.47; I2 = 13.4%) than was placebo. No significant increase in serious or severe AEs was found with diacerein versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

GS and CS can be considered safe treatments for patients with OA. All eligible studies on ASU included in our analysis used the proprietary product Piascledine® and allowed other anti-OA medications; thus, the safety of ASU must be confirmed in future studies without concomitant anti-OA medications. Given the safety concerns with diacerein, its usefulness in patients with OA should be assessed, taking into account individual patient characteristics.

Cost Effectiveness of Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid and Disease-Modifying Drugs in Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The place of disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs) and intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in the therapeutic arsenal for knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains uncertain. Indeed, these treatments have demonstrated symptomatic efficacy but no efficacy for disease modification.

OBJECTIVE

This report reviews the cost effectiveness of IAHA and DMOADs used in the treatment of knee OA.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane databases was performed independently by two rheumatologists who used the same predefined eligibility criteria to identify relevant articles. Papers without abstracts and in languages other than English or French were excluded. Extracted costs were annualised and converted to 2015 euros (€) using the Consumer Price Index of the relevant countries and the 2013 Purchasing Power Parities between these countries and the European Union average.

RESULTS

A total of 95 abstracts were selected, and 13 articles were considered for the review: nine articles on IAHA and four on DMOADs. Only one article directly compared different IAHA compounds. Articles showed substantial heterogeneity in methodological approaches. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from €4000 to €57,550 and from €240 to €53,225 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for DMOADs and IAHA, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights substantial heterogeneity between studies, ranging from a cost saving (or dominating) position to very high ICERs, far above the acceptability threshold of €50,000/QALY. Additional research is needed to determine reliable and robust ICER estimates for knee OA therapies.

Inappropriate claims from non-equivalent medications in osteoarthritis: a position paper endorsed by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive joint disease, that occurs frequently in the aging population and is a major cause of disability worldwide. Both glucosamine and chondroitin are biologically active molecules that are substrates for proteoglycan, an essential component of the cartilage matrix. Evidence supports the use of glucosamine and chondroitin as symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) with impact on OA symptoms and disease-modifying effects in the long term. Glucosamine and chondroitin are administered in exogenous form as a sulfate salt and multiple formulations of these agents are available, both as prescription-grade products and nutritional supplements. However, while all preparations may claim to deliver a therapeutic level of glucosamine or chondroitin not all are supported by clinical evidence. Only patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) is shown to deliver consistently high glucosamine bioavailability and plasma concentration in humans, which corresponds to demonstrated clinical efficacy. Similarly, clinical evidence supports only the pharmaceutical-grade chondroitin sulfate. The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) advocates, through careful consideration of the evidence base, that judicious choice of glucosamine and chondroitin formulation is essential to maximize clinical benefit, patient adherence and satisfaction with treatment. In future, the ESCEO recommends that complex molecules with biological activity such as pCGS may be treated as "biosimilars" akin to the European Medicines Agency guidance on biological medicinal products. It seems likely that for all other complex molecules classed as SYSADOAs, the recommendation to use only formulations clearly supported by the evidence-base should apply.

[The feasibility of the application of cryotherapy and radonotherapy for the treatment of the patients presenting with osteoarthritis]

Osteoarthritis (OA) is currently considered to be one of the most widespread diseases. Its main clinical symptoms include pain and dysfunction of joints. In the present review of the foreign and domestic literature, the questions of pathogenesis and risk factors underlying the development of osteoarthritis are discussed. The understanding of OA pathogenesis have altered essentially in the recent years which made necessary the search for the novel approaches to the treatment of this pathology. According to the modern views of OA origin and progression, its therapy should be based on the application of the combination of medicamentous and non-medicamentous modalities including, in particular, collective and individual activities focused on the implementation of the programs of therapeutic physical training as an obligatory component of ОА prophylaxis and treatment. The present review gives evidence of the feasibility of the application of the methods of cryotherapy and radonotherapy for the management of the patients suffering from osteoarthritis. It is emphasized that many recent publications report extensive investigations of the clinical and pathogenetic aspects of the application of these methods for the combined regenerative treatment of the patients presenting with gonarthrosis. The influence of cryotherapy and radonotherapy on the neuroendocrine and immune systems is discussed with special reference to the possibility of regulation of the metabolic processes and retardation of inflammation. It is concluded that the introduction of the above methods into the compulsory individual program for the regenerative treatment of patients presenting with osteoarthritis is pathologically substantiated since it greatly contributes to the reduction of pain and retardation of the progress of the disease. The main pharmaceutical preparations for the OA treatment remain to be slow-acting symptomatic medicines possessed of the chondro-protective effect.

THE EUROPEAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF OSTEOPOROSIS AND OSTEOARTHRITIS (ESCEO) ALGORITHM FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS IS APPLICABLE TO RUSSIAN CLINICAL PRACTICE: A CONSENSUS STATEMENT OF LEADING RUSSIAN AND ESCEO OSTEOARTHRITIS EXPERTS

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) treatment algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), published in December 2014, provides practical guidance for the prioritization of interventions. This current paper represents an assessment and endorsement of the algorithm by Russian experts in OA for use in Russian clinical practice, with the aim of providing easy-to-follow advice on how to establish a treatment flow in patients with knee OA, in support of the clinicians’ individualized assessment of the patient. Medications recommended by the ESCEO algorithm are available in Russia. In step 1, background maintenance therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOA) is advised, for which high-quality evidence is provided only for the formulations of patented crystalline glucosamine sulphate (pCGS) (Rottapharm/Meda) and prescription chondroitin sulfate. Paracetamol may be added for rescue analgesia only, due to limited efficacy and increasing safety signals. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may provide additional symptomatic treatment with the same degree of efficacy as oral NSAIDs but without the systemic safety concerns. To be effective, topical NSAIDs must have high bioavailability, and among NSAIDs molecules like etofenamate have high absorption and bioavailability alongside evidence for accumulation in synovial tissues. Oral NSAIDs maintain a central role in step 2 advanced management of persistent symptoms. However, oral NSAIDs are highly heterogeneous in terms of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profile, and patient stratification with careful treatment selection is advocated to maximize the risk: benefit ratio. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid as a next step provides sustained clinical benefit with effects lasting up to 6 months after a short-course of weekly injections. As a last step before surgery, the slow titration of sustained-release tramadol, a weak opioid, affords sustained analgesia with improved tolerability.

A review of glucosamine for knee osteoarthritis: why patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate should be differentiated from other glucosamines to maximize clinical outcomes

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) treatment algorithm for knee osteoarthritis (OA) recommends symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) first line for the medium to long term management of OA, due to their ability to control pain, improve function, and delay joint structural changes. Among SYSADOAs, glucosamine is probably the most widely used intervention. In the present review of glucosamine for knee OA, we have investigated whether the evidence is greater for the patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) preparation (Rottapharm/Meda) than for other glucosamine formulations. Glucosamine is actually widely available in many forms, as the prescription-grade pCGS preparation, generic and over-the-counter formulations of glucosamine sulfate (GS) and food supplements containing glucosamine hydrochloride (GH), which vary substantially in molecular form, pharmaceutical formulation and dose regimens. Only pCGS is given as a highly bioavailable once daily dose (1500 mg) with a proven pharmacological effect. pCGS consistently reaches the plasma levels of around 10 μM required to inhibit interleukin-1 induced expression of genes involved in the pathophysiology of joint inflammation and tissue destruction, compared with sub-therapeutic levels achieved with GH. It is evident, from careful consideration of the evidence base, that only the pCGS formulation of glucosamine reliably provides an effect size on pain that is higher than that of paracetamol and equivalent to that provided by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In comparison, the effect size on pain of non-crystalline GS preparations and GH from randomized controlled trials is repeatedly demonstrated to be zero. In addition, there is evidence that chronic administration of pCGS has disease-modifying effects, with a reduction in the need for total joint replacement surgery lasting for at least 5 years after treatment cessation. Consequently, the pCGS preparation (Rottapharm/Meda) is the logical choice, with demonstrated medium-term control of pain and lasting impact on disease progression.

Comments on the discordant recommendations for the use of symptomatic slow-acting drugs in knee osteoarthritis

Despite the near concurrent publication by influential scientific organizations, there are important differences in interpretation of the evidence base and the conclusions derived from the recent Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines (concerning also hip and hand osteoarthritis) and the algorithm recommendations by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO). This is particularly evident for the drug class of symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis. In this paper, we highlight these differences and try to understand where they derive from, proposing an evidence-based interpretation.

An algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis in Europe and internationally: a report from a task force of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO)

OBJECTIVES

Existing practice guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) analyze the evidence behind each proposed treatment but do not prioritize the interventions in a given sequence. The objective was to develop a treatment algorithm recommendation that is easier to interpret for the prescribing physician based on the available evidence and that is applicable in Europe and internationally. The knee was used as the model OA joint.

METHODS

ESCEO assembled a task force of 13 international experts (rheumatologists, clinical epidemiologists, and clinical scientists). Existing guidelines were reviewed; all interventions listed and recent evidence were retrieved using established databases. A first schematic flow chart with treatment prioritization was discussed in a 1-day meeting and shaped to the treatment algorithm. Fine-tuning occurred by electronic communication and three consultation rounds until consensus.

RESULTS

Basic principles consist of the need for a combined pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment with a core set of initial measures, including information access/education, weight loss if overweight, and an appropriate exercise program. Four multimodal steps are then established. Step 1 consists of background therapy, either non-pharmacological (referral to a physical therapist for re-alignment treatment if needed and sequential introduction of further physical interventions initially and at any time thereafter) or pharmacological. The latter consists of chronic Symptomatic Slow-Acting Drugs for OA (e.g., prescription glucosamine sulfate and/or chondroitin sulfate) with paracetamol at-need; topical NSAIDs are added in the still symptomatic patient. Step 2 consists of the advanced pharmacological management in the persistent symptomatic patient and is centered on the use of oral COX-2 selective or non-selective NSAIDs, chosen based on concomitant risk factors, with intra-articular corticosteroids or hyaluronate for further symptom relief if insufficient. In Step 3, the last pharmacological attempts before surgery are represented by weak opioids and other central analgesics. Finally, Step 4 consists of end-stage disease management and surgery, with classical opioids as a difficult-to-manage alternative when surgery is contraindicated.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed treatment algorithm may represent a new framework for the development of future guidelines for the management of OA, more easily accessible to physicians.

Efficacies of different preparations of glucosamine for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacies of different preparations of glucosamine for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Crystalline glucosamine sulfate in the management of knee osteoarthritis: efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic properties

Glucosamine is an amino monosaccharide and a natural constituent of glycosaminoglycans in articular cartilage. When administered exogenously, it is used for the treatment of osteoarthritis as a prescription drug or a dietary supplement. The latter use is mainly supported by its perception as a cartilage building block, but it actually exerts specific pharmacologic effects, mainly decreasing interleukin 1-induced gene expression by inhibiting the cytokine intracellular signaling cascade in general and nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kB) activation in particular. As a whole, the use of glucosamine in the management of osteoarthritis is supported by the clinical trials performed with the original prescription product, that is, crystalline glucosamine sulfate. This is the stabilized form of glucosamine sulfate, while other formulations or different glucosamine salts (e.g. hydrochloride) have never been shown to be effective. In particular, long-term pivotal trials of crystalline glucosamine sulfate 1500 mg once daily have shown significant and clinically relevant improvement of pain and function limitation (symptom-modifying effect) in knee osteoarthritis. Continuous administration for up to 3 years resulted in significant reduction in the progression of joint structure changes compared with placebo as assessed by measuring radiologic joint space narrowing (structure-modifying effect). The two effects combined may suggest a disease-modifying effect that was postulated based on an observed decrease in the risk of undergoing total joint replacement in the follow up of patients receiving the product for at least 12 months in the pivotal trials. The safety of the drug was good in clinical trials and in the postmarketing surveillance. Crystalline glucosamine sulfate 1500 mg once daily is therefore recommended in the majority of clinical practice guidelines and was found to be cost effective in pharmacoeconomic analyses. Compared with other glucosamine formulations, salts, or dosage forms, the prescription product achieves higher plasma and synovial fluid concentrations that are above the threshold for a pharmacologically relevant effect, and may therefore justify its distinct therapeutic characteristics.

Role of glucosamine in the treatment for osteoarthritis

Over the last 20 years, several studies have investigated the ability of glucosamine sulfate to improve the symptoms (pain and function) and to delay the structural progression of osteoarthritis. There is now a large, convergent body of evidence that glucosamine sulfate, given at a daily oral dose of 1,500 mg, is able to significantly reduce the symptoms of osteoarthritis in the lower limbs. This dose of glucosamine sulfate has also been shown, in two independent studies, to prevent the joint space narrowing observed at the femorotibial compartment in patients with mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis. This effect also translated into a 50 % reduction in the incidence of osteoarthritis-related surgery of the lower limbs during a 5-year period following the withdrawal of the treatment. Some discrepancies have been described between the results of studies performed with a patent-protected formulation of glucosamine sulfate distributed as a drug and those having used glucosamine preparations purchased from global suppliers, packaged, and sold over-the-counter as nutritional supplements.

Effects of Glucosamine and Chondroitin Sulfate on Cartilage Metabolism in OA: Outlook on Other Nutrient Partners Especially Omega-3 Fatty Acids

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.

The Fate of Oral Glucosamine Traced by (13)C Labeling in the Dog

OBJECTIVE

It has remained ambiguous as to whether oral dosing of glucosamine (GlcN) would make its way to the joint and affect changes in the cartilage, particularly the integrity of cartilage and chondrocyte function. The objective of this study was to trace the fate of orally dosed GlcN and determine definitively if GlcN was incorporated into cartilage proteoglycans.

DESIGN

Two dogs were treated with (13)C-GlcN-HCl by oral dosing (500 mg/dog/d for 2 weeks and 250 mg/dog/d for 3 weeks). Cartilage was harvested from the tibial plateau and femoral condyles along with tissue specimens from the liver, spleen, heart, kidney, skin, skeletal muscle, lung, and costal cartilage. Percentages of (13)C and (13)C-GlcN present in each tissue sample were determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, respectively.

RESULTS

In the case of dog 1 (2-week treatment), there was an increase of 2.3% of (13)C present in the articular cartilage compared to the control and an increase of 1.6% of (13)C in dog 2 compared to control. As to be expected, the highest percentage of (13)C in the other tissues tested was found in the liver, and the remaining tissues had percentages of (13)C less than that of articular cartilage.

CONCLUSION

The results are definitive and for the first time provide conclusive evidence that orally given GlcN can make its way through the digestive tract and be used by chondrocytes in joint cartilage, thereby potentially having an effect on the available GlcN for proteoglycan biosynthesis.

Effects of glucosamine, chondroitin, or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of hip or knee: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of glucosamine, chondroitin, or the two in combination on joint pain and on radiological progression of disease in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Design Network meta-analysis. Direct comparisons within trials were combined with indirect evidence from other trials by using a Bayesian model that allowed the synthesis of multiple time points.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Pain intensity. Secondary outcome was change in minimal width of joint space. The minimal clinically important difference between preparations and placebo was prespecified at -0.9 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception to June 2009, expert contact, relevant websites. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Large scale randomised controlled trials in more than 200 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip that compared glucosamine, chondroitin, or their combination with placebo or head to head. Results 10 trials in 3803 patients were included. On a 10 cm visual analogue scale the overall difference in pain intensity compared with placebo was -0.4 cm (95% credible interval -0.7 to -0.1 cm) for glucosamine, -0.3 cm (-0.7 to 0.0 cm) for chondroitin, and -0.5 cm (-0.9 to 0.0 cm) for the combination. For none of the estimates did the 95% credible intervals cross the boundary of the minimal clinically important difference. Industry independent trials showed smaller effects than commercially funded trials (P=0.02 for interaction). The differences in changes in minimal width of joint space were all minute, with 95% credible intervals overlapping zero. Conclusions Compared with placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not reduce joint pain or have an impact on narrowing of joint space. Health authorities and health insurers should not cover the costs of these preparations, and new prescriptions to patients who have not received treatment should be discouraged.

Glucosamine sulphate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: cost-effectiveness comparison with paracetamol

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of glucosamine sulphate (GS) compared with paracetamol and placebo (PBO) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. For this purpose, a 6-month time horizon and a health care perspective was used.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The cost and effectiveness data were derived from Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index data of the Glucosamine Unum In Die (once-a-day) Efficacy trial study by Herrero-Beaumont et al. Clinical effectiveness was converted into utility scores to allow for the computation of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) For the three treatment arms Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio were calculated and statistical uncertainty was explored using a bootstrap simulation.

RESULTS

In terms of mean utility score at baseline, 3 and 6 months, no statistically significant difference was observed between the three groups. When considering the mean utility score changes from baseline to 3 and 6 months, no difference was observed in the first case but there was a statistically significant difference from baseline to 6 months with a p-value of 0.047. When comparing GS with paracetamol, the mean baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was dominant and the mean ICER after bootstrapping was -1376 euro/QALY indicating dominance (with 79% probability). When comparing GS with PBO, the mean baseline and after bootstrapping ICER were 3617.47 and 4285 euro/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that GS is a highly cost-effective therapy alternative compared with paracetamol and PBO to treat patients diagnosed with primary knee OA.

The need for a transparent, ethical, and successful relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry: a view of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES)

This paper provides recommendations for fair and unbiased relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry.

INTRODUCTION

Real or perceived problems in the relationship between academics and the industry have been the subject of much recent debate. It has been suggested that academic clinicians should sever all links with the industry-a view that is rarely challenged.

METHODS

Academic experts and members of the pharmaceutical industry were invited to an expert consensus meeting to debate this topic. This meeting was organized by the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science. Conflict of interest, competing interest, right and duties of academic scientist, authorship, and staff and student education were discussed.

RESULTS

Guidelines for a transparent, ethical, strong, and successful partnership between the academic scientist and the pharmaceutical industry have been provided.

CONCLUSIONS

The Group support interactions between the industry and clinicians provided that it is transparent and ethical.

Is Phytalgic(R) a goldmine for osteoarthritis patients or is there something fishy about this nutraceutical? A summary of findings and risk-of-bias assessment

A food supplement containing fish oils, urtica dioica, zinc, and vitamin E (Phytalgic^®) for osteoarthritis (OA) has now been tested in a placebo-controlled trial for 3 months and according to the authors has a very large clinical effect, considerably larger than that of any other known product. Even experts endorsing nutraceuticals for OA symptoms would probably agree that a nutraceutical with an effect size above 0.5 is rarely seen. Despite our concerns about the fact that trial registration took place after the study was completed and the likelihood that patients would note the taste of fish, a circumstance that would lead to detection bias, we consider these data promising though with a high risk of bias.

The role of ADAMTSs in arthritis

The ADAMTS (a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with thrombospondin motifs) family consists of 19 proteases. These enzymes are known to play important roles in development, angiogenesis and coagulation; dysregulation and mutation of these enzymes have been implicated in many disease processes, such as inflammation, cancer, arthritis and atherosclerosis. This review briefly summarizes the structural organization and functional roles of ADAMTSs in normal and pathological conditions, focusing on members that are known to be involved in the degradation of extracellular matrix and loss of cartilage in arthritis, including the aggrecanases (ADAMTS-4 and ADAMTS-5), ADAMTS-7 and ADAMTS-12, the latter two are associated with cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP), a component of the cartilage extracellular matrix (ECM). We will discuss the expression pattern and the regulation of these metalloproteinases at multiple levels, including their interaction with substrates, induction by pro-inflammatory cytokines, protein processing, inhibition (e.g., TIMP-3, alpha-2-macroglobulin, GEP), and activation (e.g., syndecan-4, PACE-4).

The effects of oral glucosamine on joint health: is a change in research approach needed?

OBJECTIVE

Oral glucosamine (GlcN) has been widely studied for its potential therapeutic benefits in alleviating the pain and disability of osteoarthritis (OA). Its popularity has grown despite ongoing controversy regarding its effectiveness vs placebo in clinical trials, and lack of information regarding possible mechanisms of action. Here, we review the state of knowledge concerning the biology of GlcN as it relates to OA, and discuss a framework for future research directions.

METHODS

An editorial "narrative" review of peer-reviewed publications is organized into four topics (1) Chemistry and pharmacokinetics of GlcN salts (2) Biological effects of GlcN salts in vitro (3) Therapeutic effects of GlcN salts in animal models of OA and (4) GlcN salts in the treatment of clinical OA.

RESULTS

Data reporting potent pleiotropic activities of GlcN in in vitro cell and explant cultures are discussed in the context of the established pharmacokinetic data in humans and animals. The available clinical trial data are discussed to place the patient in the context of controlled research on disease management.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research to determine therapeutic mechanisms of GlcN salt preparations will require use of standardized and clinically relevant in vitro assay systems and in vivo animal models for testing, as well as development of new outcome measures for inflammation and pain pathways in human OA.

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

INTRODUCTION

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).

METHODS

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).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

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.

Oral glucosamine modulates the response of the liver and lymphocytes of the mesenteric lymph nodes in a papain-induced model of joint damage and repair

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether glucosamine (GlcN), an oral supplement commonly taken to relieve the symptoms of osteoarthritis, modulates the immune and inflammatory responses to joint injury in organs proximal to GlcN absorption; namely, the liver and the gut-draining lymph nodes.

METHOD

Using a papain-injected knee mouse model, standard histological methods were used to validate our model and document the impact of GlcN (100mg/kg/day) on groups of C57BL/6 mice (n=5). Circulating inflammatory cytokines were assessed by Luminex-based immunoassays and the relevance of this cytokine profile on proteoglycan biosynthesis evaluated using a patellar-cartilage assay. Real-time PCR was used to document the role of the liver in cytokine production. Finally, we appraised the activation of mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs) lymphocytes by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Papain significantly degraded the proteoglycans in the injected knees by 2 days. Cartilage proteoglycan content was significantly higher in GlcN-treated, papain-injected knees at Day 14. The peak concentration of serum pro-inflammatory cytokines occurred earlier and decreased sooner in the injected, GlcN-supplemented mice; this trend was in agreement with the expression of these factors by the liver. GlcN did not alter the percentage of MLN populations but accelerated their activation.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral GlcN alters the physiology of the liver and MLNs, which in turn, could indirectly alter the biology of the injured joint.

Evaluation of symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis using the GRADE system

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic slow-acting drugs (SYSADOA) have been largely studied over the last decade. The objective of this study is to prepare a document providing recommendations for the use of SYSADOA in osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

The following interventions were taken into consideration: avocado/soybean unsaponifiables, chondroitin sulfate, diacereine, glucosamine sulfate, hyaluronic acid, oral calcitonin, risedronate, strontium ranelate. Recommendations were based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The GRADE system is based on a sequential assessment of the quality of evidence, followed by assessment of the balance between benefits versus downsides and subsequent judgment about the strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

Chondroitin sulfate, diacereine, glucosamine sulfate, avocado/soybean unsaponifiables and hyaluronic acid have demonstrated pain reduction and physical function improvement with very low toxicity, with moderate to high quality evidence. Even if pre-clinical data and some preliminary in vivo studies have suggested that oral calcitonin and strontium ranelate could be of potential interest in OA, additional well-designed studies are needed.

CONCLUSION

In the benefit/risk ratio, the use of chondroitin sulfate, diacereine, glucosamine sulfate, avocado/soybean unsaponifiables and hyaluronic acid could be of potential interest for the symptomatic management of OA.

Effects of glucosamine on proteoglycan loss by tendon, ligament and joint capsule explant cultures

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of glucosamine on the loss of newly synthesized radiolabeled large and small proteoglycans by bovine tendon, ligament and joint capsule.

DESIGN

The kinetics of loss of (35)S-labeled large and small proteoglycans from explant cultures of tendon, ligament and joint capsule treated with 10mM glucosamine was investigated over a 10-day culture period. The kinetics of loss of (35)S-labeled small proteoglycans and the formation of free [(35)S]sulfate were determined for the last 10 days of a 15-day culture period. The proteoglycan core proteins were analyzed by gel electrophoresis followed by fluorography. The metabolism of tendon, ligament and joint capsule explants exposed to 10mM glucosamine was evaluated by incorporation of [(3)H]serine and [(35)S]sulfate into protein and glycosaminoglycans, respectively.

RESULTS

Glucosamine at 10mM stimulated the loss of small proteoglycans from ligament explant cultures. This was due to the increased loss of both macromolecular and free [(35)S]sulfate to the medium indicating that glucosamine affected the release of small proteoglycans as well as their intracellular degradation. The degradation pattern of small proteoglycans in ligament was not affected by glucosamine. In contrast, glucosamine did not have an effect on the loss of large or small proteoglycans from tendon and joint capsule or large proteoglycans from ligament explant cultures. The metabolism of cells in tendon, ligament and joint capsule was not impaired by the presence of 10mM glucosamine.

CONCLUSIONS

Glucosamine stimulated the loss of small proteoglycans from ligament but did not have an effect on small proteoglycan catabolism in joint capsule and tendon or large proteoglycan catabolism in ligament, tendon or synovial capsule. The consequences of glucosamine therapy at clinically relevant concentrations on proteoglycan catabolism in joint fibrous connective tissues need to be further assessed in an animal model.

Does the hip powder of Rosa canina (rosehip) reduce pain in osteoarthritis patients?--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)--of a hip powder of Rosa canina (rosehip) preparation for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), in order to estimate the empirical efficacy as a pain reducing compound.

METHOD

RCTs from systematic searches were included if they explicitly stated that OA patients were randomized to either rosehip or placebo. The primary outcome was reduction in pain calculated as effect size (ES), defined as the standardized mean difference (SMD). As secondary analysis the number of responders to therapy was analyzed as Odds Ratios (OR), and expressed as the Number Needed to Treat (NNT). Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) methods were applied for the meta-analyses using mixed effects models.

RESULTS

The three studies (287 patients and a median trial-duration of 3 months)--all supported by the manufacturer (Hyben-Vital International)--showed a reduction in pain scores by rosehip powder (145 patients) compared to placebo (142 patients): ES of 0.37 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13-0.60], P=0.002. Test for homogeneity seemed to support that the efficacy was consistent across trials (I(2)=0%). Thus it seems reasonable to assume that the three studies were measuring the same overall effect. It seemed twice as likely that a patient allocated to rosehip powder would respond to therapy, compared to placebo (OR=2.19; P=0.0009); corresponding to a NNT of six (95% CI: 4-13) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although based on a sparse amount of data, the results of the present meta-analysis indicate that rosehip powder does reduce pain; accordingly it may be of interest as a nutraceutical, although its efficacy and safety need evaluation and independent replication in a future large-scale/long-term trial.

European regulatory perspectives for innovative therapies

The current regulatory requirements offer accelerated assessment of innovative therapies in Europe. Future perspectives include the need for increased interaction between stakeholders in pharmaceutical development. Development of new, high quality, effective and safe medicines in Europe is the common goal of academia, pharmaceutical industry and regulatory authorities. To achieve this, it is important that regulatory requirements do not hinder innovation and vice versa, innovation cannot be allowed to proceed without concerns for public health. Interaction between stakeholders in pharmaceutical development is of the utmost importance. A dialogue has begun and in the future it will be the responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure continuous exchanges in an environment that is characterised by new scientific advances and global development programmes.