Advanced searchCitation search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Reviews17 April 2007

Meta-analysis: Chondroitin for Osteoarthritis of the Knee or Hip

    Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
    https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-8-200704170-00009
    Background:

    Previous meta-analyses described moderate to large benefits of chondroitin in patients with osteoarthritis. However, recent large-scale trials did not find evidence of an effect.

    Purpose:

    To determine the effects of chondroitin on pain in patients with osteoarthritis.

    Data Sources:

    The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1970 to 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to 2006), EMBASE (1980 to 2006), CINAHL (1970 to 2006), and conference proceedings; checked reference lists; and contacted authors. The last update of searches was performed on 30 November 2006.

    Study Selection:

    Studies were included if they were randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials that compared chondroitin with placebo or with no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. There were no language restrictions.

    Data Extraction:

    The authors extracted data in duplicate. Effect sizes were calculated from the differences in means of pain-related outcomes between treatment and control groups at the end of the trial, divided by the pooled SD. Trials were combined by using random-effects meta-analysis.

    Data Synthesis:

    20 trials (3846 patients) contributed to the meta-analysis, which revealed a high degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 92%). Small trials, trials with unclear concealment of allocation, and trials that were not analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle showed larger effects in favor of chondroitin than did the remaining trials. When the authors restricted the analysis to the 3 trials with large sample sizes and an intention-to-treat analysis, 40% of patients were included. This resulted in an effect size of −0.03 (95% CI, −0.13 to 0.07; I2 = 0%) and corresponded to a difference of 0.6 mm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale. A meta-analysis of 12 trials showed a pooled relative risk of 0.99 (CI, 0.76 to 1.31) for any adverse event.

    Limitations:

    For 9 trials, the authors had to use approximations to calculate effect sizes. Trial quality was generally low, heterogeneity among the trials made initial interpretation of results difficult, and exploring sources of heterogeneity in meta-regression and stratified analyses may be unreliable.

    Conclusions:

    Large-scale, methodologically sound trials indicate that the symptomatic benefit of chondroitin is minimal or nonexistent. Use of chondroitin in routine clinical practice should therefore be discouraged.

    References

    • 1. Smalley WE, Ray WA, Daugherty JR, Griffin MR. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the incidence of hospitalizations for peptic ulcer disease in elderly persons. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141:539-45. [PMID: 7900721] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 2. Felson DT, Lawrence RC, Hochberg MC, McAlindon T, Dieppe PA, Minor MA, et al. Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 2: treatment approaches. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:726-37. [PMID: 11074906] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 3. Clegg DO, Reda DJ, Harris CL, Klein MA, O'Dell JR, Hooper MM, et al. Glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and the two in combination for painful knee osteoarthritis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:795-808. [PMID: 16495392] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 4. McAlindon TE, LaValley MP, Gulin JP, Felson DT. Glucosamine and chondroitin for treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic quality assessment and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2000;283:1469-75. [PMID: 10732937] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Hochberg MC. Nutritional supplements for knee osteoarthritis—still no resolution [Editorial]. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:858-60. [PMID: 16495399] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6. Richy F, Bruyere O, Ethgen O, Cucherat M, Henrotin Y, Reginster JY. Structural and symptomatic efficacy of glucosamine and chondroitin in knee osteoarthritis: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1514-22. [PMID: 12860572] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7. Leeb BF, Schweitzer H, Montag K, Smolen JS. A metaanalysis of chondroitin sulfate in the treatment of osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:205-11. [PMID: 10648040] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 8. Michel BA, Stucki G, Frey D, De Vathaire F, Vignon E, Bruehlmann P, et al. Chondroitins 4 and 6 sulfate in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:779-86. [PMID: 15751094] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9. Ronca F, Palmieri L, Panicucci P, Ronca G. Anti-inflammatory activity of chondroitin sulfate. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1998; 6 Suppl A 14-21. [PMID: 9743814] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 10. Conte A, de Bernardi M, Palmieri L, Lualdi P, Mautone G, Ronca G. Metabolic fate of exogenous chondroitin sulfate in man. Arzneimittelforschung. 1991;41:768-72. [PMID: 1772467] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Volpi N. Oral bioavailability of chondroitin sulfate (Condrosulf) and its constituents in healthy male volunteers. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10:768-77. [PMID: 12359162] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 12. Owens S, Wagner P, Vangsness CT. Recent advances in glucosamine and chondroitin supplementation. J Knee Surg. 2004;17:185-93. [PMID: 15553585] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 13. Conte A, Volpi N, Palmieri L, Bahous I, Ronca G. Biochemical and pharmacokinetic aspects of oral treatment with chondroitin sulfate. Arzneimittelforschung. 1995;45:918-25. [PMID: 7575762] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14. Annual nutrition industry overview. Nutrition Business Journal. 2005;X:6-7. Google Scholar
    • 15. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:1286-91. [PMID: 7718048] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 16. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42-6. [PMID: 11440947] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 17. Wood AM, White IR, Thompson SG. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized, controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials. 2004;1:368-76. [PMID: 16279275] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18. Jüni P, Reichenbach S, Dieppe P. Osteoarthritis: rational approach to treating the individual. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2006;20:721-40. [PMID: 16979535] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 19. International Conference on Harmonisation. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guideline E6(R1). London: International Conference on Harmonisation; 1996. Google Scholar
    • 20. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. Google Scholar
    • 21. Deeks J. Are you sure that's a standard deviation? (part 1). Cochrane News. 1997;10:11-2. Google Scholar
    • 22. Follmann D, Elliott P, Suh I, Cutler J. Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:769-73. [PMID: 1619456] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 23. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177-88. [PMID: 3802833] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 24. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557-60. [PMID: 12958120] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing Up. The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge: Harvard Univ Pr; 1984. Google Scholar
    • 26. Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1046-55. [PMID: 11576817] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 27. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18:2693-708. [PMID: 10521860] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 28. L'Abbé KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:224-33. [PMID: 3300460] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 29. Soroka NF, Chyzh KA. Clinical efficiency and pharmacoeconomical evaluation of treatment by chondroitinsulphate (Structumc) in patients with primary osteoarthritis (POA). Ann Rheum Dis. 2002; 61 Suppl 1 AB0289. Google Scholar
    • 30. Fleisch AM, Merlin C, Imhoff A, Hodler J, Kissling R. A one-year randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with oral chondroitin sulfate in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1997; 5 Suppl A S70. Google Scholar
    • 31. Uebelhart D, Knussel O, Theiler R. Efficacy and tolerability of oral avian chondroitin sulfate in painful knee osteoarthritis. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1999;129:1174. Google Scholar
    • 32. Nasonova VA, Alekseeva LI, Arkhangel'skaia GS, Davydova AF, Karmil'tseva EA, Kogan KM, et al. [Results of the multicenter clinical trial of structum preparation in Russia]. Ter Arkh. 2001;73:84-7. [PMID: 11806217] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 33. Mazières B, Combe B, Phan Van A, Tondut J, Grynfeltt M. Chondroitin sulfate in osteoarthritis of the knee: a prospective, double blind, placebo controlled multicenter clinical study. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:173-81. [PMID: 11196521] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 34. Conrozier T. [Anti-arthrosis treatments: efficacy and tolerance of chondroitin sulfates (CS 4&6)]. Presse Med. 1998;27:1862-5. [PMID: 9856136] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 35. Malaise M, Marcolongo R, Uebelhart D, Vignon E. Efficacy and tolerability of 800 mg oral chondroitin 4&6 sulfate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre study versus placebo. Litera Rheumatologica. 1999;24:31-42. Google Scholar
    • 36. Kerzberg EM, Roldán EJ, Castelli G, Huberman ED. Combination of glycosaminoglycans and acetylsalicylic acid in knee osteoarthrosis. Scand J Rheumatol. 1987;16:377-80. [PMID: 3120308] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 37. Pavelka K, Manopulo R, Busci L. Double-blind, dose-effect study of oral chondroitin 4 & 6 sulfate 1200 mg, 800 mg, 200 mg, and placebo in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Litera Rhumatologica. 1999;24:21-30. Google Scholar
    • 38. Conrozier T, Vignon E. Die Wirkung von Chondroitinsulfat bei der Behandlung der Hüftgelenksarthrose: eine Doppelblindstudie gegen Placebo. Litera Rheumatologica. 1992;14:69-75. Google Scholar
    • 39. Mazières B, Loyau G, Menkès CJ, Valat JP, Dreiser RL, Charlot J, et al. [Chondroitin sulfate in the treatment of gonarthrosis and coxarthrosis. 5-months result of a multicenter double-blind controlled prospective study using placebo]. Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic. 1992;59:466-72. [PMID: 1485136] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 40. Bourgeois P, Chales G, Dehais J, Delcambre B, Kuntz JL, Rozenberg S. Efficacy and tolerability of chondroitin sulfate 1200 mg/day vs chondroitin sulfate 3 x 400 mg/day vs placebo. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1998; 6 Suppl A 25-30. [PMID: 9743816] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 41. Uebelhart D, Thonar EJ, Delmas PD, Chantraine A, Vignon E. Effects of oral chondroitin sulfate on the progression of knee osteoarthritis: a pilot study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1998; 6 Suppl A 39-46. [PMID: 9743819] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 42. Rovetta G. Galactosaminoglycuronoglycan sulfate (matrix) in therapy of tibiofibular osteoarthritis of the knee. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1991;17:53-7. [PMID: 1914837] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 43. Morreale P, Manopulo R, Galati M, Boccanera L, Saponati G, Bocchi L. Comparison of the antiinflammatory efficacy of chondroitin sulfate and diclofenac sodium in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 1996;23:1385-91. [PMID: 8856618] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 44. Bucsi L, Poór G. Efficacy and tolerability of oral chondroitin sulfate as a symptomatic slow-acting drug for osteoarthritis (SYSADOA) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1998; 6 Suppl A 31-6. [PMID: 9743817] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 45. Kahan A. STOPP (STudy on Osteoarthritis Progression Prevention): a new two-year trial with chondroitin 4&6 sulfate (CS). Accessed at www.ibsa-ch.com/eular_2006_amsterdam_vignon-2.pdf on 18 September 2006. Google Scholar
    • 46. Alekseeva LI, Benevolenskaia LI, Nasonov EL, Chichasova NV, Kariakin AN. [Structum (chondroitin sulfate)—a new agent for the treatment of osteoarthrosis]. Ter Arkh. 1999;71:51-3. [PMID: 10399232] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 47. Mazières B, Hucher MMH, Zam MMZ. Chondroitin sulfate in the treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(Suppl II):398. Google Scholar
    • 48. L'Hirondel JL. Klinische Doppelblind-Studie mit oral verabreichtem Chondroitinsulfat gegen Placebo bei der tibiofemoralen Gonarthrose (125 patients). Litera Rheumatologica. 1992;14:77-84. Google Scholar
    • 49. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-76. [PMID: 12583822] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 50. Egger M, Smith GD. Principles of and procedures for systematic reviews.. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analyis in Context. London: BMJ Books; 2001:23-42. Google Scholar
    • 51. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-12. [PMID: 7823387] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 52. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ. 1994;309:1351-5. [PMID: 7866085] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 53. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med. 2002;21:1559-73. [PMID: 12111920] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 54. Bjordal JM, Klovning A, Ljunggren AE, Slørdal L. Short-term efficacy of pharmacotherapeutic interventions in osteoarthritic knee pain: A meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. Eur J Pain. 2007;11:125-38. [PMID: 16682240] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 55. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629-34. [PMID: 9310563] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 56. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12. [PMID: 8721797] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 57. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054-60. [PMID: 10493204] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 58. CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:657-62. [PMID: 11304106] LinkGoogle Scholar
    Previous
    Next

    Submit a Comment

    Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest. Comments are moderated. Please see our information for authorsregarding comments on an Annals publication.
    *All comments submitted after October 1, 2021 and selected for publication will be published online only.
    Cancel