Combined Treatment With Chondroitin Sulfate and Glucosamine Sulfate Shows No Superiority Over Placebo for Reduction of Joint Pain and Functional Impairment in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Six‐Month Multicenter, Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with chondroitin sulfate (CS) and glucosamine sulfate (GS) compared to placebo in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed in 164 patients with Kellgren/Lawrence grade 2 or grade 3 radiographic knee OA and moderate-to-severe knee pain (mean ± SD global pain score 62.1 ± 11.3 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]). Patients were randomized to receive either combined treatment with CS (1,200 mg) plus GS (1,500 mg) or placebo in a single oral daily dose for 6 months. The mean change from baseline in the VAS global pain score was set as the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included the mean change in the investigator's global assessment of disease activity, total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), pain and function subscale scores on the WOMAC, responder rates based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2004 response criteria, and rescue medication use. Adverse events were also recorded. A Data and Safety Monitoring Board was instituted to ensure patient safety and data accuracy. RESULTS: Intriguingly, in the modified intent‐to‐treat (mITT) population, CS/GS combination therapy was inferior to placebo in the reduction of joint pain (mean ± SEM change in VAS global pain score over 6 months −11.8 ± 2.4 mm [19% reduction] in patients receiving CS plus GS versus −20.5 ± 2.4 mm [33% reduction] in patients receiving placebo; peak between‐group difference in global pain score at 6 months 8.7 mm [14.2%], P < 0.03), but no between‐group differences were seen in the per‐protocol completers. Both placebo treatment and CS/GS combination treatment improved to a similar extent the total WOMAC score as well as the pain and function WOMAC subscale scores, both in the mITT population and in the per-protocol completers. Neither the OMERACT-OARSI responder rate nor the frequency of rescue medication use differed between the treatment groups. Severe adverse events were uncommon and equally distributed. CONCLUSION: The results of this trial demonstrate a lack of superiority of CS/GS combination therapy over placebo in terms of reducing joint pain and functional impairment in patients with symptomatic knee OA over 6 months. Further research might fully elucidate the suitability of CS/GS combination therapy in patients with OA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".