Cited by 1,329Osteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPharmacological Effects of Medicinal Plants

Glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and the two in combination for painful knee osteoarthritis

Open access
Clegg, Daniel O., Reda, Domenic J., Harris, Crystal L., Klein, Marguerite A., O'Dell, James R., Hooper, Michele M., Bradley, John D., Bingham, Clifton O. +17 more·2006·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are used to treat osteoarthritis. The multicenter, double-blind, placebo- and celecoxib-controlled Glucosamine/chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT) evaluated their efficacy and safety as a treatment for knee pain from osteoarthritis. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1583 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis to receive 1500 mg of glucosamine daily, 1200 mg of chondroitin sulfate daily, both glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate, 200 mg of celecoxib daily, or placebo for 24 weeks. Up to 4000 mg of acetaminophen daily was allowed as rescue analgesia. Assignment was stratified according to the severity of knee pain (mild [N=1229] vs. moderate to severe [N=354]). The primary outcome measure was a 20 percent decrease in knee pain from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 59 years, and 64 percent were women. Overall, glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate were not significantly better than placebo in reducing knee pain by 20 percent. As compared with the rate of response to placebo (60.1 percent), the rate of response to glucosamine was 3.9 percentage points higher (P=0.30), the rate of response to chondroitin sulfate was 5.3 percentage points higher (P=0.17), and the rate of response to combined treatment was 6.5 percentage points higher (P=0.09). The rate of response in the celecoxib control group was 10.0 percentage points higher than that in the placebo control group (P=0.008). For patients with moderate-to-severe pain at baseline, the rate of response was significantly higher with combined therapy than with placebo (79.2 percent vs. 54.3 percent, P=0.002). Adverse events were mild, infrequent, and evenly distributed among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate alone or in combination did not reduce pain effectively in the overall group of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Exploratory analyses suggest that the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate may be effective in the subgroup of patients with moderate-to-severe knee pain. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00032890.).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa052771

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Chondroitin sulfate is usually used as a material to relieve pain and promote cartilage regeneration.

    “Chondroitin sulfate (CS), a natural polysaccharide, is usually used as a material to relieve pain and promote cartilage regeneration [139].”

    From Mussel-Inspired Injectable Adhesive Hydrogels for Biomedical Applications (2024) · cites this paper as [139]

    The Background (p. 2) says chondroitin sulfate is used to treat osteoarthritis, and the Discussion (p. 13) describes it as a widely used supplement evaluated for knee pain. The paper does not say it promotes cartilage regeneration; its Results (p. 2) also found no significant pain reduction with chondroitin sulfate alone versus placebo. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [9]9. Copyright © 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society. RECEIVE IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION WHEN A JOURNAL ARTICLE IS RELEASED EARLY To be notified when an article is released early on the Web and to receive the table of contents of the Journal by e-mail every Wednesday evening, sign up through our Web site at www.nejm.org n engl j med 354;8 www.nejm.org february 23, 2006

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clegg, D. O., Reda, D. J., Harris, C. L., Klein, M. A., O'Dell, J. R., Hooper, M. M., Bradley, J. D., Bingham, C. O., Weisman, M. H., Jackson, C. G., Lane, N. E., Cush, J. J., Moreland, L. W., Schumacher, H. R., Oddis, C. V., Wolfe, F., Molitor, J. A., Yocum, D. E., Schnitzer, T. J., Furst, D. E., Sawitzke, A. D., Shi, H., Brandt, K. D., Moskowitz, R. W., & Williams, H. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Veterans Health Administration (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Texas Health Dallas (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Virginia Mason Medical Center (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2006-02-23
Volume
354
Issue
8
Pages
795-808
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2130513475
Cited by
1,329
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 72 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 72
FWCI
84.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (n01ar092236-003)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (N01AR92236)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Osteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Pharmacological Effects of Medicinal Plants
Keywords
glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, knee osteoarthritis, knee pain, celecoxib, combination therapy, placebo response, pain intensity, adverse events, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Celecoxib, Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal, Chondroitin Sulfates, Double-Blind Method, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Glucosamine, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Pyrazoles, Severity of Illness Index, Sulfonamides, Treatment Outcome, Osteoarthritis, Knee

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review