Logo

Comparative effectiveness of glucosamine, chondroitin, acetaminophen or celecoxib for the treatment of knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

  1. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province, P.R. China.
  2. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province, P.R. China.
  3. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province, P. R. China
  4. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province, P. R. China
  5. Department of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province, P. R. China
  6. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province, P. R. China
  7. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province, P. R. China
  8. Collaborative Research Centre, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Shanghai; and Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nantong University, Jiangsu Province, P.R. China.

CER10709 Submission on line
2018 Vol.36, N°4 - PI 0595, PF 0602
Full Papers

Free to view (click on article PDF icon to read the article)

Rheumatology Article
Rheumatology Article

 

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:
To compare the efficacies of oral glucosamine, chondroitin, the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin, acetaminophen and celecoxib on the treatment of knee and/or hip osteoarthritis.
METHODS:
We searched electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and the reference lists of relevant articles published from inception to October 23, 2017. A Bayesian hierarchical random effects model was used to examine the overall effect size among mixed multiple interventions.
RESULTS:
We identified 61 randomised controlled trials of patients with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis. There was no obvious difference in the results between the traditional meta-analysis and the network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that celecoxib was most likely the best option (SMD, -0.32 [95% CI, -0.38 to -0.25]) for pain, followed by the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin. For physical function, all interventions were significantly superior to oral placebo except for acetaminophen. In terms of stiffness, glucosamine (SMD, -0.36 [95% CI, -0.67 to -0.06]) and celecoxib (SMD, -0.29 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.08]) were significantly better compared to placebo. In view of safety, compared to placebo only, celecoxib and acetaminophen presented significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS:
Given the effectiveness of these non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and symptomatic slow-acting drugs, oral celecoxib is more effective than placebo on relieving pain and improving physical function, followed by the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin. Acetaminophen is likely the least efficacious intervention option. This information, accompanied by the tolerability and economic costs of the included treatments, would be conducive to making decisions for clinicians.

PMID: 29465368 [PubMed]

Received: 25/07/2017 - Accepted : 17/11/2017 - In Press: 31/01/2018 - Published: 19/07/2018