Deal C L, Moskowitz R W
Division of Rheumatology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, University Hospitals, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 1999 May;25(2):379-95. doi: 10.1016/s0889-857x(05)70074-0.
There are a sufficient number of short-term studies with these agents suggesting efficacy equal to that seen in the symptomatic treatment of OA using NSAIDs. Two recent meta-analyses by McAlindon and colleagues and Towheed et al reviewed clinical trials of glucosamine and chondroitin in the treatment of osteoarthritis. The study by McAlindon and co-workers included all double-blind placebo-controlled trials of greater than 4 weeks' duration, testing oral or parenteral glucosamine or chondroitin for treatment of hip or knee osteoarthritis. Thirteen trials (six with glucosamine, seven with chondroitin) met eligibility criteria. The authors used global pain score or the Lequesne index in the index joint as the primary outcome measure and considered the trial positive if improvement in the treatment group was equal to or greater than 25% compared with the placebo group, and was significant (P < or = .05). All 13 studies reviewed were classified as positive, demonstrating large effects, compared with placebo (39.5% [S.D. 21.9] for glucosamine, 40.2% [S.D. 6.4] for chondroitin). The authors concluded that clinical trials of these two agents showed substantial benefit in the treatment of osteoarthritis but provided insufficient information about study design and conduct to allow definitive evaluation. Towheed and colleagues reviewed nine randomized, controlled trials of glucosamine sulfate in osteoarthritis. In seven of the randomized controlled trials, in which they compared glucosamine with placebo, glucosamine was always superior. In two randomized controlled trials comparing glucosamine to ibuprofen, glucosamine was superior in one and equivalent in one. Methodologic problems, including lack of standardized case definition of osteoarthritis and lack of standardized outcome assessment led the authors to conclude that further studies are needed to determine if route of administration is important and whether the therapeutic effect is site specific. A meta-analysis of chondroitin sulfate trials has also been published. Of the 12 published trials, 4 randomized double-blind placebo or NSAID-controlled trials with 227 patients on chondroitin sulfate were entered into the analysis. All four studies showed chondroitin sulfate to be superior to placebo, with respect to Lequesne index, visual analog scale for pain and medication consumption. Significant changes (P < or = .05) were seen in those treated from day 60 to the study endpoints (150 to 180 days). Pooled data demonstrated at least 50% improvement in the study variables in the chondroitin treated group. Discrepancies in some of the study findings reported in the literature may relate to the composition of the nutritional supplements used. Studies in the United States have revealed that a number of preparations claiming to contain certain doses of glucosamine or chondroitin sulfate have significantly less (or none) of the dosages described. Accordingly, it is essential that studies performed with these agents use preparations that are carefully defined in manufacture. The amounts generally administered are glucosamine, 1500 mg, and chondroitin sulfate, 1200 mg, daily. Although glucosamine has been described as effective when used alone, it is probably reasonable to use the combination pending further studies. The average cost is approximately $30 to $45 per month. In the interim, what should physicians tell their patients when they ask whether these agents are effective, or whether they should or should not take them? The authors emphasize that these agents are not FDA-evaluated or recommended for the treatment of OA. They are available as health food supplements, and the number of studies of toxicity, particularly with respect to long-term evaluations, is limited. The pros and cons of these agents and the published data are described so that patients can make a reasonably informed decision as to whether they wish to proceed with use of these agents in therapy. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
有大量针对这些药物的短期研究表明,其疗效等同于使用非甾体抗炎药对症治疗骨关节炎的疗效。McAlindon及其同事以及Towheed等人近期进行的两项荟萃分析回顾了氨基葡萄糖和软骨素治疗骨关节炎的临床试验。McAlindon及其同事的研究纳入了所有持续时间超过4周的双盲安慰剂对照试验,这些试验测试口服或胃肠外给予氨基葡萄糖或软骨素治疗髋或膝骨关节炎的效果。13项试验(6项使用氨基葡萄糖,7项使用软骨素)符合纳入标准。作者将指标关节的总体疼痛评分或Lequesne指数作为主要结局指标,并认为如果治疗组与安慰剂组相比改善程度等于或大于25%且具有显著性(P≤0.05),则该试验为阳性。所有13项纳入回顾的研究均被归类为阳性,与安慰剂相比显示出显著效果(氨基葡萄糖为39.5%[标准差21.9],软骨素为40.2%[标准差6.4])。作者得出结论,这两种药物的临床试验显示在治疗骨关节炎方面有显著益处,但提供的关于研究设计和实施的信息不足,无法进行确定性评估。Towheed及其同事回顾了9项硫酸氨基葡萄糖治疗骨关节炎的随机对照试验。在7项将氨基葡萄糖与安慰剂进行比较的随机对照试验中,氨基葡萄糖总是更优。在两项将氨基葡萄糖与布洛芬进行比较的随机对照试验中,氨基葡萄糖在一项试验中更优,在另一项试验中效果相当。方法学问题,包括骨关节炎缺乏标准化的病例定义以及缺乏标准化的结局评估,导致作者得出结论,需要进一步研究以确定给药途径是否重要以及治疗效果是否具有部位特异性。一项关于硫酸软骨素试验的荟萃分析也已发表。在12项已发表的试验中,4项随机双盲安慰剂或非甾体抗炎药对照试验共227例使用硫酸软骨素的患者被纳入分析。所有4项研究均显示硫酸软骨素在Lequesne指数、疼痛视觉模拟量表和药物消耗方面优于安慰剂。在从第60天到研究终点(150至180天)接受治疗的患者中观察到显著变化(P≤0.05)。汇总数据显示硫酸软骨素治疗组的研究变量至少有50%的改善。文献中报道的一些研究结果存在差异可能与所用营养补充剂的成分有关。美国的研究表明,许多声称含有一定剂量氨基葡萄糖或硫酸软骨素的制剂所含剂量明显较少(或不含)所述剂量。因此,使用这些药物进行的研究必须使用生产中经过仔细定义的制剂。一般每日给药量为氨基葡萄糖1500毫克和硫酸软骨素1200毫克。尽管氨基葡萄糖单独使用时已被描述为有效,但在进一步研究之前联合使用可能是合理的。平均费用约为每月30至45美元。在此期间,当患者询问这些药物是否有效,或者他们是否应该服用时,医生应该告诉他们什么呢?作者强调,这些药物未经美国食品药品监督管理局评估或推荐用于治疗骨关节炎。它们作为健康食品补充剂出售,关于毒性的研究数量有限,尤其是长期评估方面。描述了这些药物的利弊以及已发表的数据,以便患者能够就是否希望在治疗中使用这些药物做出合理明智的决定。(摘要截选)