Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Different glucosamine sulfate products generate different outcomes on osteoarthritis symptoms
  1. Jean-Yves L Reginster1,
  2. Olivier Bruyere2,
  3. Cyrus Cooper3,4
  1. 1 Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liege, Belgium
  2. 2 Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium
  3. 3 MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
  4. 4 NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Jean-Yves L Reginster; jyreginster{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Runhaar and colleagues1 produced an elegant meta-analysis of various glucosamine-containing products in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA), based on individual patient data (IPD). Although they were able to access and analyse only 5 out 21 eligible studies, their results are in agreement with most glucosamine meta-analyses in OA: glucosamine products other than prescription crystalline glucosamine sulfate are not effective in hip or knee OA pain and function.

Such results, as acknowledged by the Authors, had already been demonstrated in several previous and more comprehensive meta-analyses, including a dedicated Cochrane Review2 and a recent effort by Eriksen et al 3 specifically investigating possible differences in efficacy among glucosamine products. Indeed, glucosamine exists in different forms for pharmaceutical use, as extensively reviewed by Altman.4 Among these, glucosamine hydrochloride (used in three out of …

View Full Text


  • Contributors All three authors have equally contributed to the preparation of the manuscript, the writing process and the review of the draft.

  • Funding J-YLR has received advisory board or speaker fees from Asahi-Kasei, Eli Lilly, IBSA-Genévrier, Nycomed-Takeda, PharmEvo, Radius Health, Roche, Servier, UCB, Will Pharma and Zodiac. OB has received grant support or consulting fees from Bayer, Genevrier, IBSA, Meda, MSD, Nutraveris, Novartis, Pfizer, Rottapharm, Servier, SMB and TRB Chemedica. CC has received consultancy, lecture fees and honoraria from AMGEN, GSK, Alliance for Better Bone Health, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Servier, Medtronic and Roche.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles