Efficacy and Safety of Two Chondroprotective Supplements in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hyaluronic acid (HA), glucosamine (Glc), and chondroitin sulfate (CS) are key ingredients commonly incorporated into dietary chondroprotective supplements for the management of osteoarthritis (OA). Despite their widespread use, there is a paucity of published data regarding their efficacy and safety, necessitating rigorous investigation in clinical settings. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to evaluate the effects of two commercially available multi-ingredient supplements on patients with mild-to-moderate knee OA. Methods: A total of 51 patients diagnosed with mild-to-moderate knee OA were enrolled in a four-week randomized study and allocated equally (1:1:1 ratio) into three groups: a control group (n = 17) that received no treatment, an HA group (n = 17) given Syalox® 300 Plus (1 tablet/day) containing HA (300 mg) and Boswellia serrata extract (100 mg), and a Glc + CS group (n = 17) given Cartijoint® Forte (1 tablet/day) containing Glc (415 mg), CS (400 mg), and curcuminoids from rhizomes of Curcuma longa L (50 mg). Physicians conducting evaluations were blinded to group assignments, whereas patients were not. All participants underwent assessments of pain relief, functional capacity improvement, and serum adropin levels, an emerging biomarker of knee OA, at baseline and after the four-week intervention period. Results: Both the HA and the Glc + CS groups exhibited improvements at the end of the study relative to baseline, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) observed in pain at rest, pain during movement, range of motion, and the overall Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, including its pain, stiffness, and physical function subscales. Notably, the HA group outperformed the Glc + CS group in the alleviation of pain at rest, pain during movement, and on the WOMAC pain subscale, with all differences being statistically significant (p < 0.05). Additionally, both groups showed a significant elevation in serum adropin levels from baseline (p < 0.05), with the HA group experiencing a more substantial increase when compared to the Glc + CS group (p < 0.05). Both supplements showed a limited number of treatment-emergent adverse events. Conclusion: Oral supplementation with either HA or Glc + CS demonstrated potential benefits for managing symptoms of mild-to-moderate knee OA. Notably, HA supplementation was associated with greater improvements in pain relief and higher elevations in serum adropin levels compared to Glc + CS supplementation. However, larger-scale and longer-term studies are necessary to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of these dietary supplements within the clinical management arsenal for knee 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".