Lucio Claudio Rovati

Long-term effects of glucosamine sulphate on osteoarthritis progression: a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND Treatment of osteoarthritis is usually limited to short-term symptom control. We assessed the effects of the specific drug glucosamine sulphate on the long-term progression of osteoarthritis joint structure changes and symptoms. METHODS We did a randomised, double-blind placebo controlled trial, in which 212 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned 1500 mg sulphate oral glucosamine or placebo once daily for 3 years. Weightbearing, anteroposterior radiographs of each knee in full extension were taken at enrolment and after 1 and 3 years. Mean joint-space width of the medial compartment of the tibiofemoral joint was assessed by digital image analysis, whereas minimum joint-space width--ie, at the narrowest point--was measured by visual inspection with a magnifying lens. Symptoms were scored by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index. FINDINGS The 106 patients on placebo had a progressive joint-space narrowing, with a mean joint-space loss after 3 years of -0.31 mm (95% CI -0.48 to -0.13). There was no significant joint-space loss in the 106 patients on glucosamine sulphate: -0.06 mm (-0.22 to 0.09). Similar results were reported with minimum joint-space narrowing. As assessed by WOMAC scores, symptoms worsened slightly in patients on placebo compared with the improvement observed after treatment with glucosamine sulphate. There were no differences in safety or reasons for early withdrawal between the treatment and placebo groups. INTERPRETATION The long-term combined structure-modifying and symptom-modifying effects of gluosamine sulphate suggest that it could be a disease modifying agent in osteoarthritis.

Glucosamine sulfate compared to ibuprofen in osteoarthritis of the knee.

Glucosamine sulfate is able to stimulate proteoglycan synthesis by chondrocytes and has mild anti-inflammatory properties. In clinical trials, glucosamine sulfate was more effective than placebo in controlling the symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA). In order to better characterize this therapeutic activity, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of glucosamine sulfate 500 mg t.i.d. vs ibuprofen 400 mg t.i.d., orally for 4 weeks. The study included 200 hospitalized patients with active OA of the knee, symptoms for at least 3 months and a Lequesnes index of at least 7 points. Patients were evaluated weekly. Response was defined as a reduction in the Lequesnes index by at least 2 points if the enrollment value was higher than 12 points, or by at least 1 point if the enrollment value was 12 or less points, together with a positive overall assessment by the investigator. The improvement tended to be sooner under ibuprofen (48% responders vs 28% after the 1st treatment week; P = 0.06, Fishers Exact test), but there was no difference from the 2nd week onward, with a success rate of 52% in the ibuprofen group and of 48% in the glucosamine group (P = 0.67) at the end of treatment. The average Lequesnes index at enrollment was around 16 points and decreased by over 6 points in both groups, again with the above described trend. On the other hand, 35% of patients on ibuprofen reported adverse events, mainly of gastrointestinal origin, vs 6% adverse events with glucosamine (P < 0.001, Fishers Exact test). The number of adverse event related drop-outs was different between the two groups (7% vs 1%, respectively; P = 0.035). Glucosamine sulfate was therefore as effective as ibuprofen on symptoms of knee OA. These data confirm glucosamine sulfate as a safe symptomatic Slow Acting Drug for OA.

Glucosamine sulfate in osteoarthritis of the knee

Glucosamine sulfate is a drug used for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), based on its pharmacological and metabolic activities on the cartilage and chondrocytes, complemented by mild anti-inflammatory properties and a favorable pharmacokinetic profile. The aim of this study was to define the activity and safety of glucosamine sulfate on the symptoms of patients with OA, using a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study design. The study included 252 outpatients with OA of the knee (Lequesnes criteria), radiological stage between I and III, and Lequesnes severity index of at least 4 points and symptoms for at least 6 months. Patients were treated with either placebo or oral glucosamine sulfate 500 mg t.i.d. for 4 weeks, with weekly, with weekly clinic visits. Responders to treatment were defined as patients with a reduction of at least 3 points in the Lequesnes index with a positive overall assessment by the investigator. The Lequesnes index was 10.6 +/- 0.45 S.E.M. points in both groups at the start of the study. This decreased to 7.45 +/- 0.5 points in the treatment group (average 3.2) and 8.4 +/- 0.4 points in the placebo group (average 2.2) (P < 0.05, Students t-test). The responder rate in the evaluable patients was 55% with glucosamine (N = 120) vs 38% with placebo (N = 121). These proportions were 52% vs 37% in an intention-to-treat analysis (P = 0.014 and 0.016, respectively; Fishers Exact Test). The medications were well tolerated throughout the study, with no difference between the glucosamine and placebo treated groups. It is concluded that glucosamine sulfate may be a safe and effective symptomatic Slow Acting Drug for OA.

Glucosamine sulfate reduces osteoarthritis progression in postmenopausal women with knee osteoarthritis: evidence from two 3-year studies

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of glucosamine sulfate on long-term symptoms and structure progression in postmenopausal women with knee osteoarthritis (OA). DesignThis study consisted of a preplanned combination of two three-year, randomized, placebo-controlled, prospective, independent studies evaluating the effect of glucosamine sulfate on symptoms and structure modification in OA and post-hoc analysis of the results obtained in postmenopausal women with knee OA. Minimal joint space width was assessed at baseline and after 3 years from standing anteroposterior knee radiographs. Symptoms were scored by the algo-functional WOMAC index at baseline and after 3 years. All primary statistical analyses were performed in intention-to-treat, comparing joint space width and WOMAC changes between groups by ANOVA. ResultsOf 414 participants randomized in the two studies, 319 were postmenopausal women. At baseline, glucosamine sulfate and placebo groups were comparable for demographic and disease characteristics, both in the general population and in the postmenopausal women subset. After 3 years, postmenopausal participants in the glucosamine sulfate group showed no joint space narrowing [joint space change of +0.003 mm (95% CI, −0.09 to 0.11)], whereas participants in the placebo group experienced a narrowing of −0.33 mm (95% CI, −0.44 to −0.22; P < 0.0001 between the two groups). Percent changes after 3 years in the WOMAC index showed an improvement in the glucosamine sulfate group [−14.1% (95%, −22.2 to −5.9)] and a trend for worsening in the placebo group (5.4% (95% CI, −4.9 to 15.7) (P = 0.003 between the two groups). ConclusionThis analysis, focusing on a large cohort of postmenopausal women, demonstrated for the first time that a pharmacological intervention for OA has a disease-modifying effect in this particular population, the most frequently affected by knee OA.

Inhibition of food intake in response to intestinal lipid is mediated by cholecystokinin in humans

Intraduodenal fat inhibits gastric emptying and exerts early satiation in animals and humans, but it is not clear whether the effects are mediated by cholecystokinin (CCK) in humans. Here, we tested whether CCK-A receptors mediate the inhibition of fat on food intake. Two sequential, double-blind, crossover studies were performed in 24 male subjects. First, subjects received either intraduodenal fat or saline together with a preload of either water or banana shake. Second, 12 subjects received either intraduodenal fat or saline perfusion plus a concomitant infusion of saline or loxiglumide, a specific CCK-A receptor antagonist, together with a preload of banana shake. In both studies, subjects were free to eat and drink as much as they wished. Fat induced a reduction in calorie intake ( P < 0.05) compared with controls. Furthermore, a decrease in hunger feelings was observed. Infusion of loxiglumide abolished the effects of fat. Duodenal fat interacts with an appetizer to modulate energy intake in humans. This effect is mediated by CCK-A receptors.

The Effect of Sodium Monofluorophosphate Plus Calcium on Vertebral Fracture Rate in Postmenopausal Women with Moderate Osteoporosis. A Randomized, Controlled Trial

During the past 30 years, fluoride salts have been studied as agents for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with the expectation that stimulation of osteoblastic proliferation and activity and the subsequent increase in bone formation would be followed by a significant decrease in fracture rates [1-3]. It is widely accepted that fluoride is effective in increasing trabecular bone mass in the spine [4]. However, discrepant results have been obtained from studies evaluating the effects of fluoride salts on cortical bone mass and, more important, on the quality of the newly synthesized bone and on vertebral and nonvertebral fracture rates [5-9]. These differences are probably related to differences in fluoride dose, formulation, and regimen; duration of therapy; and treated populations. Because bone-forming agents such as fluoride are expected to work mainly by increasing bone mineral content without restoring disrupted bone tissue integrity, they may be particularly useful in patients with mild to moderate osteoporosis in whom the microarchitecture of the skeleton is not excessively damaged. To test this hypothesis, we studied the effect of low-dose fluoride (sodium monofluorophosphate [MFP]) plus calcium in a 4-year, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial in postmenopausal women with moderately low bone mineral density (BMD) of the spine. Methods Patients Our study included white postmenopausal women with lumbar (L2 to L4) BMD of the spine below the 90th percentile of the distribution of BMD of the spine seen in Belgian women with osteoporosis [10, 11]. This degree of bone loss corresponded to a T-score of 2.5,in accordance with the operational definition of osteoporosis recently proposed by a World Health Organization study group [12]. Patients were included in the study regardless of whether they had previously had vertebral or nonvertebral fractures; most of the patients were thought to be free of vertebral fractures at enrollment. Previous hip fracture was an exclusion criterion. All patients were free of other causes of osteoporosis, such as diseases or medications known to interfere with bone metabolism; none had been treated with any drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis; and no such treatment was allowed during the study. Hormone replacement therapy was continued, for ethical reasons, in women for whom it had been prescribed before enrollment for purposes other than bone therapy. Randomization was not stratified with respect to hormone replacement therapy. Patients with bone diseases other than osteoporosis, renal insufficiency, hypochlorhydria, or severe chronic disorders that could have interfered with the study were excluded. Study Design Patients were randomly assigned in a blinded manner to one of two therapeutic groups. Every day for 4 years, they received either two chewable tablets that each contained 76 mg of MFP (10 mg of equivalent fluoride [fluoride ion]) and 1250 mg of calcium carbonate (500 mg of equivalent calcium) or two chewable tablets that each contained 1250 mg of calcium carbonate alone and were similar in appearance to the MFP-plus-calcium tablets. Total daily dosages, therefore, were 20 mg of equivalent fluoride plus 1000 mg of calcium in the MFP-plus-calcium group and 1000 mg of calcium in the calcium-only group. The two tablets were taken at different meals. We determined compliance at each study visit by asking each patient for the number of days on which she had not taken the tablets and by counting the unused tablets. Compliance was expressed as the percentage of tablets taken (100% if the patient had taken all of the tablets). Patients received randomization numbers sequentially. Randomization was computer generated in blocks of four according to a strict standard operating procedure by persons who had no contact with the persons in the center who assigned patients to study groups. The randomization code was kept at the study sponsors facility under secure conditions that were detailed in writing. The clinical research center was given opaque, sealed envelopes, each of which contained the code for one patient. Treatment assignment and other relevant information were thus concealed and were to be revealed only in the case of a medical emergency. Blinding was achieved by using the following procedures. First, the persons who did the visual readings of the spine radiographs saw the codes only after the results were analyzed. Second, the data were analyzed under blinded conditions: that is, a first analysis was done with groups A and B; the analysts did not know which group had received which treatment. Efficacy Evaluation Criteria The primary end point was the number of patients with new vertebral fractures during the 4-year treatment period, in accordance with recently published guidelines for the evaluation of drugs to be registered in Europe for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis [13]. Standardized lateral radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine were obtained at enrollment and at each year of follow-up, for up to 4 years, in a single radiology center. The radiographs were sent to an independent assessor. Films were digitized, and the anterior, middle, and posterior heights of each vertebral body from the fourth thoracic (T4) to the fifth lumbar (L5) were determined (accuracy of the digitizer, 0.025 mm) by a computer program. This was done by persons with no knowledge of treatment assignment or film sequence. A new vertebral fracture (incident fracture) was defined as a reduction of at least 20% and an absolute decrease of at least 4 mm in any height of at least one vertebral body between enrollment and the latest follow-up film. All fractures, including borderline cases, were confirmed by visual reading. This definition was applied to vertebrae that were not fractured at enrollment, whereas fractures present at enrollment were determined on the digitized enrollment radiographs by using the Melton-Riggs 25% unadjusted algorithm [14]. The possible progression of such baseline lesions was assessed with the Vertebral Deformity Index obtained for each vertebra (T5 through L5); these were then summed to obtain the Spine Deformity Index, a continuous measure of vertebral deformities [15]. The Spine Deformity Index was also used as a secondary variable in patients with incident or progressing vertebral deformities, in whom it was expressed as the mean change between the last observed value and baseline. Bone mineral density was measured by using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry on the same densitometer (Hologic QDR 1000, Waltham, Massachusetts) at 6-month intervals at the lumbar spine (L2 to L4) and the nondominant hip (total hip) after previously described and validated procedures were performed [11, 16]. In our hands, the long-term coefficients of variation of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry are 0.8% for BMD of the spine and 1.1% for BMD of the total hip [17]. Biochemical determinations of bone remodeling were made at 6-month intervals. Bone formation was assessed by radioimmunoassay of serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (Ostase, Hybritech, San Diego, California). For bone resorption, we measured the ratio of urinary hydroxyproline to creatinine on the second fasting urine spot (2-hour morning urine) (Hypronostikon kit, Organon Technika, Oss Boxtel, the Netherlands). All peripheral (nonvertebral) fractures that occurred during the study were recorded independently of the nature and severity of the trauma that may have determined them. Statistical Analysis All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat approach: that is, all patients who had at least one valid measurement after randomization were considered in the analysis, whether they were still taking the study drug or not. In the case of drop-out and, thus, discontinuation of therapy with the study medication, the patient was invited to return to the clinic at annual intervals (for 4 years, if possible) so that the radiography necessary to record outcome could be done. An exact-significance chi-square test was done to compare the number of patients with new vertebral fractures in the two groups. We calculated 95% CIs for vertebral fracture rates in each study group and for the difference in rates between the two groups, along with the point estimates of these rates. These rates were also expressed in terms of the number needed to treat for 4 years to prevent one fracture, including values for the lower and upper bounds of the 95% CIs. Changes in the Spine Deformity Index in patients with incident or progressing vertebral deformities were compared by analysis of variance. Analysis of variance for repeated measurements was used to compare the absolute values for BMD of the spine over the course of the study in the two groups. Analysis of variance for repeated measurements was also done to compare BMD of the total hip and percentage changes in biochemical markers of bone remodeling throughout the study. All P values are two-tailed. All statistical analyses were done with the SPS/WIN 6.2 statistical package (SPS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois). Role of Study Sponsor The trial was approved by the Ethical Committee of Liege University (registration no. 90/43-1262 of 14 May 1990), and all patients gave full informed consent before inclusion. The Rotta Research Group, which markets MFP and calcium combinations in Germany, Italy, and other countries, provided the drugs and funding for the study. Scientists from the Rotta Research Group were directly involved in the design, monitoring, and data management of the study and agreed to be listed as authors. However, the Rotta Research Group as a corporate entity had no control over the decision to approve or submit the manuscript for publication. Results Two hundred patients were enrolled in the study. The characteristics of the entire patient sample (100 patients were assigned to each group) at enrollment are shown in Table 1. The

A randomised, double-blind, controlled trial comparing two intra-articular hyaluronic acid preparations differing by their molecular weight in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis

Objectives To compare the effects of an intermediate molecular weight (MW) intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) with a low MW product on knee osteoarthritis (OA) symptoms. Methods Patients with symptomatic knee OA were enrolled inarandomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial with the possibility to shift to superiority. Patients were randomised to GO-ON(MW 800–1500 kD, 25 mg/2.5 ml) or Hyalgan(MW 500–730 kD, 20 mg/2 ml) injected at 3-weekly intervals. The primary outcome was 6-month change in the WOMAC pain subscale (0–100 mm). Sample size was calculated on a non-inferiority margin of 9 mm, lower than the minimum perceptible clinical improvement. Secondary endpoints included OARSI-OMERACT responder rates Results The intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations consisted of 217 and 209 patients and 171 and 172 patients in the GO-ON and Hyalgan groups, respectively. ITT WOMAC pain of 47.5±1.0(SE) and 48.8±1.0 mm decreased by 22.9±1.4 mm with GO-ON and 18.4±1.5 mm with Hyalgan after 6 months. The primary analysis was conducted in the PP population followed by the ITT population.Mean (95% CI) differences in WOMAC pain change were 5.2 (0.9 to 9.6)mm and 4.5 (0.5 to 8.5)mm, respectively,favouring GO-ON, satisfying the claim for non-inferiority (lower limit>−9 mm) and for statistical superiority (95% CI all>0, p=0.021). Ahigher proportion of OARSI/OMERACT responders was observed with GO-ONthan with Hyalgan (73.3% vs58.4%, p=0.001). Both preparations were well tolerated. Conclusions Treatment with 3-weekly injections of intermediate MW HA may be superior to low MW HA on knee OA symptoms over 6 months, with similar safety.

OARSI/OMERACT Initiative to Define States of Severity and Indication for Joint Replacement in Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis. An OMERACT 10 Special Interest Group

Objective. To define pain and physical function cutpoints that would, coupled with structural severity, define a surrogate measure of “need for joint replacement surgery,” for use as an outcome measure for potential structure-modifying interventions for osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. New scores were developed for pain and physical function in knee and hip OA. A cross-sectional international study in 1909 patients was conducted to define data-driven cutpoints corresponding to the orthopedic surgeons’ indication for joint replacement. A post hoc analysis of 8 randomized clinical trials (1379 patients) evaluated the prevalence and validity of cutpoints, among patients with symptomatic hip/knee OA. Results. In the international cross-sectional study, there was substantial overlap in symptom levels between patients with and patients without indication for joint replacement; indeed, it was not possible to determine cutpoints for pain and function defining this indication. The post hoc analysis of trial data showed that the prevalence of cases that combined radiological progression, high level of pain, and high degree of function impairment was low (2%–12%). The most discriminatory cutpoint to define an indication for joint replacement was found to be [pain (0–100) + physical function (0–100) > 80]. Conclusion. These results do not support a specific level of pain or function that defines an indication for joint replacement. However, a tentative cutpoint for pain and physical function levels is proposed for further evaluation. Potentially, this symptom level, coupled with radiographic progression, could be used to define “nonresponders” to disease-modifying drugs in OA clinical trials.

Bone effects of transdermal hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women as evaluated by means of ultrasound : An open one-year prospective study

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of transdermal oestrogen replacement therapy plus medrogestone (HRT) in postmenopausal bone loss prevention by means of US. METHODS We enrolled 112 healthy postmenopausal women in an open, prospective study. These women, after a gynaecological evaluation and an US assessment of the skeletal status, were advised to take cyclic sequential oestrogen/progestagen therapy: 50 microg/day of transdermal 17beta-oestradiol (Rotta Research Laboratorium) plus 5 mg/day of medrogestone, for 12 days per cycle (Wyeth-Ayerst). After 1 year we recalled these women: only 32 of them were taking HRT, while 49 had declined HRT without taking alternative therapies. The remaining women were excluded from the study as they were either unavailable for the check-up or they were taking prohibited therapies. We used DBM Sonic 1200 (Igea, Italy) to assess US parameter changes at phalanxes at enrollment and after 1 year. This device enabled us to evaluate US transmission velocity (AD-SoS) and US attenuation pattern (UBPS). In a previous study we had evaluated the intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of AD-SoS measurements (0.4 and 1.0% respectively). Using the same data we evaluated the intra- and inter-observer precision of UBPS. RESULTS The UBPS intra-operator reproducibilities were 5.3% and 6.1% (for the 1st and the 2nd operator, respectively), while inter-observer precision was 8.8%. Both AD-SoS and UBPS significantly decreased in the non-user group(-0.7%, P < 0.001 and -14.3%, P < 0.001 respectively). In the user group AD-SoS showed a significant increase (+0.7%, P < 0.01), while a slight but significant decrease was observed for UBPS (-2.8%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Our findings show that the effectiveness of transdermal HRT in slowing or even arresting postmenopausal bone loss can be monitored by quantitative US studies. The trend difference observed between AD-SoS and UBPS with and without therapy is at least partially explained by a different response to HRT with regard to bone density as well as structure.

Intravenous silibinin monotherapy shows significant antiviral activity in HCV-infected patients in the peri-transplantation period

BACKGROUND & AIMS Hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) is the main problem of most transplant programs. We aimed at assessing the antiviral activity and safety of intravenous silibinin (SIL) administered daily during the peri-transplant period. METHODS This was a single-centre, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study including 14 HCV-infected patients awaiting LT. Eleven patients received SIL and 3 placebo, for a maximum of 21 days before LT and 7 days after LT. RESULTS Among the patients who received more than 14 days of pre-LT treatment, the median decrease in viral load (VL) was 2.31 log(10) (range 0.6-4.2) in the SIL-treated group (n=9) versus 0.30 log(10) (0.1-0.6) in the placebo group (n=3) (p=0.016). During the post-LT treatment, HCV-RNA levels were consistently and significantly (p=0.002) lower in the SIL group compared to placebo and decreased below the limit of quantification in 2 patients and below the limit of detection in 2 additional patients (all in the SIL-treated group). Peri-transplant treatment with SIL was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS This proof-of-concept study in patients in the waiting list for LT indicates that daily intravenous silibinin has evident antiviral properties and is well tolerated in the peri-LT period. A longer treatment regimen with silibinin (alone or in combination with other agents) should be assessed in clinical trials for the prevention of hepatitis C recurrence.