Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2007 Oct 31:7:34.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-7-34.

Comparison of glucosamine sulfate and a polyherbal supplement for the relief of osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN25438351]

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of glucosamine sulfate and a polyherbal supplement for the relief of osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN25438351]

Komal Mehta et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. .

Abstract

Background: The efficacy and safety of a dietary supplement derived from South American botanicals was compared to glucosamine sulfate in osteoarthritis subjects in a Mumbai-based multi-center, randomized, double-blind study.

Methods: Subjects (n = 95) were screened and randomized to receive glucosamine sulfate (n = 47, 1500 mg/day) or reparagen (n = 48, 1800 mg/day), a polyherbal consisting of 300 mg of vincaria (Uncaria guianensis) and 1500 mg of RNI 249 (Lepidium meyenii) administered orally, twice daily. Primary efficacy variable was response rate based on a 20% improvement in WOMAC pain scores. Additional outcomes were WOMAC scores for pain, stiffness and function, visual analog score (VAS) for pain, with assessments at 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks. Tolerability, investigator and subject global assessments and rescue medication consumption (paracetamol) were measured together with safety assessments including vital signs and laboratory based assays.

Results: Subject randomization was effective: age, gender and disease status distribution was similar in both groups. The response rates (20% reduction in WOMAC pain) were substantial for both glucosamine (89%) and reparagen (94%) and supported by investigator and subject assessments. Using related criteria response rates to reparagen were favorable when compared to glucosamine. Compared to baseline both treatments showed significant benefits in WOMAC and VAS outcomes within one week (P < 0.05), with a similar, progressive improvement over the course of the 8 week treatment protocol (45-62% reduction in WOMAC or VAS scores). Tolerability was excellent, no serious adverse events were noted and safety parameters were unchanged. Rescue medication use was significantly lower in the reparagen group (p < 0.01) at each assessment period. Serum IGF-1 levels were unaltered by treatments.

Conclusion: Both reparagen and glucosamine sulfate produced substantial improvements in pain, stiffness and function in subjects with osteoarthritis. Response rates were high and the safety profile was excellent, with significantly less rescue medication use with reparagen. Reparagen represents a new natural productive alternative in the management of joint health.

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25438351.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study profile including enrollments and outcomes.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Sequential response rates as determined by a 20% reduction in the WOMAC pain scores in reparagen (red, n = 48) and glucosamine sulfate (blue, n = 47).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Sequential changes in WOMAC pain scores for reparagen (red, n = 48) and glucosamine sulfate (blue, n = 47). Both treatments resulted in a significant reduction in WOMAC pain levels within one week of treatment (p < 0.001) compared to baseline values. Sustained administration resulted in a time-dependent decrease in pain scores (p < 0.001)
Figure 4
Figure 4
Sequential changes in WOMAC stiffness scores for reparagen (red, n = 48) and glucosamine sulfate (blue, n = 47). Both treatments resulted in a significant reduction in baseline stiffness scores from week 2 onwards (p < 0.001), but only the reparagen treated group was significant at week 1 (p < 0.01). Sustained administration resulted in a time-dependent decrease in stiffness scores (p < 0.001)
Figure 5
Figure 5
Sequential changes in WOMAC function scores for reparagen (red, n = 48) and glucosamine sulfate (blue, n = 47). Both treatments resulted in a significant improvement in function within one week (reparagen p < 0.01, glucosamine p < 0.05) with continued improvements with sustained administration (p < 0.001).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Sequential changes in total WOMAC scores (pain, stiffness and function) for reparagen (red, n = 48) and glucosamine (blue, n = 47). Both treatments resulted in a significant reduction in baseline WOMAC total scores from week 1 (reparagen p < 0.01, glucosamine p < 0.05), with further improvements with sustained administration (p < 0.001).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Sequential changes in VAS pain scores for reparagen (red, n = 38) and glucosamine sulfate (blue, n = 41). Both treatments resulted in a significant reduction in baseline VAS pain scores within one week (p < 0.01), with further reductions with sustained administration (p < 0.001).
Figure 8
Figure 8
The average weekly consumption of paracetamol (acetominophen) in reparagen (red, n = 38) and glucosamine sulfate (blue, n = 41) treated subjects. For each time period the consumption of paracetamol was lower in the reparagen treated group as well as cumulative consumption, depicted as week 0 – week 8 (*, p < 0.01). Results are depicted as the average number of tablets (500 mg) consumed per week.

References

    1. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. The Global Burden of Disease. Boston: Harvard University Press; 1996.
    1. Felson DT, Zhang Y. An update on the epidemiology of knee and hip osteoarthritis with a view to prevention. Arthritis Rheum. 1998;41:1343–1355. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199808)41:8<1343::AID-ART3>3.0.CO;2-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grainger R, Cicuttini FM. Medical management of osteoarthritis of the knee and hip joints. Med J Aust. 2004;180:232–236. - PubMed
    1. Hogenmiller MS, Lozada CJ. An update on osteoarthritis therapeutics. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2006;18:256–260. doi: 10.1097/01.bor.0000218945.96988.0a. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ameye LG, Chee WSS. Osteoarthritis and nutrition. From nutraceuticals to functional foods: a systemic review of the scientific evidence. Arthritis Res Therap. 2006;8:R127. doi: 10.1186/ar2016. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources