|
|
Effective glucosamine dosage for osteoarthritis/arthritis/tendenitis cure:
Glucosamine HCl (HCI) dosage: 1500 mg
Glucosamine Sulfate dosage (NaCl): 2000 mg
Recommended daily dosage of glucosamine for therapeutic effect:
Dosage of Glucosamine HCI (HCl): 500 mg
Dosage of Glucosamine Sulfate: 700 mg
Typical dose of glucosamine chondroitin complex is:
for 3 weeks - 2 months: glucosamine 1500 mg and chondroitin 1200 mg
later: 1000 mg glucosamine and 800 mg chondroitin
Those doses are for average body: 80 kg.
Warning: Read drug dosage instructions carefully!
Thanks
Osteoarthritis involves a deterioration of the cartilage. This overpowering disease touches a great proportion of the people. Marketed in the United States in the form of complements dietetic, glucosamine could attenuate the pains which are associated for him. But the proof of its effectiveness is long in coming…
Osteoarthritis can be the cause of handicaps and important pains, on the level of the articulations of the nape of the neck, the bottom of the back, the knees, the hips and the fingers. Articulations having undergone a traumatism or too intensive requests, can also be touched. The destruction of the cartilage which plays the part of shock absorbers involves pains very handicapping. A beneficial action on the long termMany studies allot to glucosamine a beneficial effect in the treatment of osteoarthritis on the short term. But according to criteria's of the World Health Organization, the studies should last three years to be validated and to evaluate the side effects of this compound on the long term. In a publication of the Newspaper of the Medical American Association (JAMA) 1, the pr. Thimothy Mc Alidon of Boston University reviewed the 15 clinical trials published on the subject. And all or almost seemed to comprise many skews. The first stage thus consisted with the establishment of a comparison between glucosamine and a placebo on the long term. Belgian scientists have just carried out this first step thanks to a study published in the famous English review The Lancet2. The researchers of the university of Liege divided 212 patients arthrosic in two groups: the first receiving a daily amount of 1.500 Mg sulphates glucosamide during three years and the second receiving only one placebo. The researchers took then radiographies of the knees of the patients at the time of an effort one year and three years after the beginning of the treatment. They then noted an important reduction of space between the bones of the knee among patients receiving a placebo. This reduction by 0,31 mm testifies to the advance of the disease. In parallel, no reduction of this space could be observed at the people treated with glucosamine. An improvement of 25% of the symptoms was also noted, whereas a light aggravation was noted in the other group. Results to confirm Not having shown its effectiveness, glucosamine had not been recorded like a drug by Food and Drug Administration. Thus, it is distributed on the other side of the Atlantic only in the form of food complement. Very popular among the people suffering from osteoarthritis, its sales annually constitute a market of 400 million dollars. In Germany and Italy, it is distributed like drug. In France, the lack of scientific literature valid on the subject had led to the abandonment of this product. This last study should thus less make skeptics unquestionable expert and consequently occasion increase the glucosamine sales. In France, the lack of scientific literature valid on the subject had led to the abandonment of this product. The hormonal treatment protects the articulationsIt was known already that the substitute hormonal therapy (THS) of the menopause could have a protective effect with respect to the osteoporosis. But a new study suggests today that it could also prevent the loss of cartilage which deadens the articulation of the knee, thus preventing the appearance of rheumatic pains. While following 81 post-menopause women, the Australian researchers found that the users of THS on the long term presented thicker cartilages at the level of the knees compared to those while having never used. The cartilage is the fabric making it possible to deaden the pressures exerted on the bones on the level of the articulations. Thus, osteoarthritis is marked by the disappearance of this shock absorber. The THS could offer a means of protection against this degenerative disease. The researchers of University Monash have even estimated the volume of cartilage among women under THS for 5 years compared to the not-users. The investigators found that on average, the thickness of the cartilage was higher than 8% for the first group. his protective effect will have to be confirmed by fuller studies. The most waited remains without any doubt the vast international investigation Women Health Initiative led near 10.000 women whose results are awaited for 2004.
The Pharmacologic therapy for the osteoartritis mainly consists of analgesias and antiinflammatory drugs nonsteroidal. Although these are the agents more commonly possible prescribed for this condition, can cause gastrointestinales adverse events and cardiovascular serious and they do not affect the underlying structural damage of the cartilage (1, 2). A disease-modification therapy would be more beneficial. The attempts have been made influence loss of the cartilage in osteoartritis administering the components such of the cartilage as chondroitin (3-8). The Chondroitin is a hidrofílica, highly gelificadora macro-molecule of the polisacárido one. Their hidrocoloideas characteristics transport much of the compresiva resistance of the cartilage. In spite of its great molecular size, chondroitin ingested is absorbed partially in intestine (9-12) and something of him can reach the joints (9, 13). Chondroitin oral to treat osteoartritis has gotten to be extensive (14). A previous put-analysis demonstrated moderate to the great effects on the symptoms (4) but it asked the quality of the studies including. The tests in great recently published of the high methodologic quality (3, 8) found results contradictory. We made a revision and a systematic put-analysis of tests selected at random, controlled all available to determine the effects of chondroitin in pain and width the space of the joint and to explore them if the disclosed beneficial effects could be explained by the diagonals that affected individual tests or diagonal of the publication.
Two of 3 reviewers independently determined the concealment of the allocation, to blind, and of the sufficiency of the treatment of the analyses (16). The concealment of the allocation was considered suitable if the investigators responsible for the patient selection could not suspect before the allocation that the treatment was following. The analyses were considered adapted if they analyzed to all the patients recruited in the group to that they assigned to you originally, without concerning the received treatment (intention-to-to treat the principle). Because there is discussion on how handling data that lack in the analyses of the continuous results (17), we did not determine if the methods that were used were appropriate. Table 2 of the appendix demonstrates the additional details with respect to the burden of the quality. The discords were solved by the discussion with a third reviewer and a subsequent consensus.
We used the put-analysis of the a the chance-effects of the standard (23) and calculated the I2 statistic, that describes the percentage of the total variation through tests that are attributable to the heterogeneity rather that to the occasion (24). The values I2 of 25%, 50%, and 75% correspond to the low, moderate heterogeneity, and discharge of the between-test. We investigated the association between the size of test and the effects of the treatment in funnel draw up drawing up so large of the effect in the vertical axis against their SES in the horizontal axis (25). We determined asymmetry by the difference of the coefficient of the asymmetry in effect we classified by increase of the unit in (26). Then we made the analyses stratified by the following characteristics of test: the concealment of the allocation, use of a control of placebo, blinding patient, sufficiency of analysis in agreement with intention-to-treats principle, the size of test, the financing, the route of the administration, the length of the recordativa letter, and differences in the use of cointerventions in the test groups. We used a specified short cut first of 200 patients randomly assigned to distinguish between tests in reduced great scale and and a short cut of 26 weeks to distinguish in the long term between the short term tests and. The models at random of the put-regression of the effects of Univariable (27) were used to examine if the sizes of the effect were affected by these factors. In addition, the 3 following continuous variables in the test level were including in the univariable put-regression: metering of chondroitin (in tests with the oral administration), duration of the treatment, and length of the recordativa letter. In order to explore if the small sizes of the effect could be explained by unusually high effects in the group of placebo, we used an analogous approach to the diagrams used by L'Abbé and the colleagues (28) and drew up changes in accounts of the pain in the control group against changes in the accounts of the pain in the group chondroitin, that were estandardizadas by the reunited SD (20). Finally, we restricted the analysis to the tests placebo-controlled in great (patient randomly assigned ≥200) with intention-to-we treated analysis. The differences in changes in minimum and bad common width of the space were reunited using original units in millimeters. In order to explore the magnitude of effects on the width of the common space, we expressed these differences like sizes of the effect, dividing the estimations reunited in millimeters by the reunited SD midpoint of 1,3 millimeters found for the minimum and bad common width of the space. We made analysis using Stata, version 9.2 (Stata Corp., station of the university, Roofing tiles).
Our revision is based on an ample literary investigation, and it looks like improbable that we lacked the excellent tests (49). The extraction of test of the selection and data, including the burden of the quality, was made independently by 2 authors to reduce to the minimum to the slant and the errors of the transcription (50). The components used for the burden of the quality are validated and they are disclosed to be associated to the diagonal (51). Like with any systematic revision, our study is limited by the quality of tests including. Most of the tests they had poor methodologic quality or inadequate spreading. Only 2 tests (3, 45) described how the allocation of patients was concealed (51), and only 3 tests (3, 8, 45) looked like to be analyzed according to intention-to-treat the principle (51). Two early tests that evaluated intramuscular uses were small and of particularly poor methodologic quality. One of these tests (42) little demonstrated a realistic size of the effect around twice of the magnitude of what it would hope for total the common replacement (18). Similar, 1 test in great (32) had methodologic disadvantages, such as confused spreading of the concealment of the allocation, a deficiency of the control of placebo, and no intention-to-treats analysis. The results of this test demonstrated a great size of the effect in favor of chondroitin, that was incompatible with the results of the tests in great rest. Clearly, the inclusion of such tests in an put-analysis sobrestima the advantages of chondroitin and inflates heterogeneity of the between-test. Several excellent variables were disclosed bad. For example, we could not deal with completely the potential for the diagonal the operation (16) extracting constant data on the concomitante treatment (the average meterings of acetaminophen or antiinflammatory drugs nonsteroidal seizures at the time of burdens of the pain). Cointervention unequal is a reason improbable of small sizes of the effect in recently of having published, great, methodologic the healthy tests. Opposite what would hope in the presence of diagonal of the operation, we found smaller advantages of chondroitin in the tests that more upper disclosed analgesic similar applications of cointerventions (to 3, 8, 32, 33, 47) compared with the remaining tests that they disclosed or a use of analgesias in control groups or provided no information. The tests of Clegg and the colleagues (3) and Michel and the colleagues (8), who found sizes of the effect near 0, had supervised and disclosed analgesic use and had not carefully found any evidence for a difference in cointerventions between the groups. In another test in great with a size of the effect near 0, Kahan (45) upper disclosed an antiinflammatory drug product nonsteroidal in the patients assigned to placebo. Nevertheless, the difference between the groups for the 3 months last of the test corresponded to an average difference in the daily metering of 67 that the magnesium of ibuprofen between the patients who receive chondroitin and those that receives placebo, that is little probable to explain the observed null results. Finally, in this test and the test of Clegg and of the colleagues (3), 24 hours required the analgesic patients to continue cointerventions before burdens of the pain, that makes diagonal of the still more improbable operation. Another explanation of the observed sizes of the effect near 0 in the great tests (3, 8, 32, 45, 47) is an abnormally great answer in control groups. We dealed with this drawing up estandardizados changes in accounts the pain in control groups against those in the experimental groups (picture 5) and found that the tests that observed sizes of the effect near 0 did not differentiate systematically from the remaining tests. For 2 tests only disclosed in the extracts of the conference (16, 51), we could not extract the sufficient information to calculate sizes of the effect. One of the tests recruited only 17 patients and would have contributed little to the analysis (36). According to the publication and to other diagonals of spreading, the second test recruited to more than 150 patients and found only the small advantages, clinical inapplicable of chondroitin (31). Nine additional tests (8, 29, 33, 34, 38, 45-48) did not provide the sufficient details to allow exact calculations of the sizes of the effect, and they had to us to use approaches to derive sizes from the effect. Although these approaches settle down for the put-analyses of the continuous results (22), their validity has not been evaluated systematically in the investigation of the osteoartritis. Our analysis was limited by the heterogeneity between component tests. Therefore we explored possible sources of the heterogeneity using the put-regression and análisis estratificados. Estos análisis se deben ver como hipótesis-generando. Son de observación en naturaleza y tienen las mismas desventajas que lo hacen otros estudios de observación (52, 53). Además, la multiplicidad de análisis ha aumentado la probabilidad de identificar asociaciones falsas.
Implications for the Total investigation, the quality of the spreading in the component tests was low. The future tests must adhere to the methodologic standards that reduce possible diagonals, including the concealed allocation, blind of patients and advisers of the result, measures to reduce retirements, and an analysis based on all the patients recruited without concerning the intervention (intention-to-to treat the analysis). On the other hand, the information of tests must adhere to the standards to disclose generally accepted the clinical tests (for example, the consolidated standards of the declaration of the tests of the spreading 58 [CONSORT] []). Made recently, to sound methodologic, the tests in great with effect laying classifies near 0 to include to one more a lower proportion of patients with osteoartritis of inferior quality that made it previous, smaller tests of a methodologic quality more loss, than they demonstrated moderate to the great sizes of the effect. Therefore, the confusion could exist between the methodologic characteristics of tests and the proportion of patients with osteoartritis of inferior quality: The greatest advantage of chondroitin in previous tests could not only be related to a methodologic quality more loss but also with one it leaves high from patients with osteoartritis of inferior quality. Although we judged improbable that the patients with osteoartritis outpost will benefit, we cannot exclude an excellent clinical effect from chondroitin in patients with osteoartritis of inferior quality. A placebo-controlled test rigorous designed, suitably driven, selected at random restricted to the patients with osteoartritis of inferior quality would be required to treat this. A search of clinical registries of test did not reveal any test in course, and it looks like improbable that the advisable evidence will get to be available in the future next. Implications for the practice No robust evidence supports the use of chondroitin in osteoartritis. The tests in great, healthy indicate methodologic that the symptomatic advantage is minimum to nonexisting. The effect of chondroitin in narrowing common of the space was determined in only some tests. This effect is probable to be small, and its clinical meaning is uncertain. In patients with osteoartritis of inferior quality, the use of chondroitin is due to restrict to at random selected tests, controlled. For the patients with osteoartritis outpost, an excellent clinical advantage is improbable and the use of chondroitin must be discouraged.
In this awaited multicenter for a long time NIH-supported the test, investigators glucosamine examined the dietetic supplements and sulphate of chondroitin in patients with osteoartritis of the knee. The test at least included to 1583 patients with pain the knee 6 months, plus the radiográfica evidence of the osteoartritis of the knee. They selected to the patients at random to receive placebo, the hydrochlorate of glucosamine (500 magnesium 3 measures the time of the newspaper), the sulphate of chondroitin (400 magnesium 3 measures the time of the newspaper), both supplements, or celecoxib (200 magnesium newspaper). An answer to the treatment was defined as a diminution of 20% of the pain in a scale estandardizada in 24 weeks.
The total rates of answer were 60%, 64%, 65%, 67%, and 70% in placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, glucosamine/el chondroitin, and the groups of celecoxib, respectively. Only the answer to celecoxib was statistical significant compared with placebo. In a sub-group of patients with the moderate-to-severe pain (22% of participants), the rates of answer were 54%, 66%, 61%, 79%, and 69%, respectively. Only the answer of 79% to glucosamine/a chondroitin combined was statistical significant compared with placebo. The global burdens of the patients of the answer to the therapy were not statistical significant for any active treatment (compared with placebo) in the smooth or moderate-to-severe sub-groups.
Commentary: In this test, the hydrochlorate of glucosamine, the sulphate of chondroitin, or the therapy of the combination conferred no advantage in patients with smooth osteoartritis of the knee. The observed advantage of the therapy combined in the sub-group with moderate-to-severe symptoms is provocative and deserves additional study. A editorialista skirts several warnings on this study and questions if the results for hydrochlorate of glucosamine (used in this study) can be extrapolated to sulphate of glucosamine (used in many put products). Another report on the effect of these supplements in the radiográfica progression delay.
The side effects of glucosamine and chondroitin are generally of a serious nature nao. This is in accordance with what I found in searching this subject. When not demonstrated or told in the studies, it has others 2 possible side effects of glucosamine and chondroitin that you can want to consider. If any reader to need to know, glucosamine and chondroitin are ingredients in a popular dietary supplement. The peoples of the main reason are making examination of this supplement are for the painful knees of the relief due to common osteodistrofia degenerative of aka of the illness.
First, glucosamine is derived from chitin in shields crustacean. The peoples who are allergic to the things as shrimp, the lobster and seafood must be cliente of this. Why? Because to be so safe as possible, if you allergy will have this, it is recommended that you: to number one, to be cliente of the possibility of a reaction; number two, either prepared for it; e third, if you you allergic will have any type of the history of worsening reactions you must certainly consult with its doctor before starting in glucosamine. A precaution that you can make examination is to get the same formula of glucosamine and chondroitin that he is used in a majority of the studies. That participants had only been given fine highly and to the ingredients purified, they cannot be a great reason to be no reaction there allergic in the studies. One another consideration must to the fact that chondroitin is derived from tracheae of the Bovídeos (cattle). Thus, in the theory, it could have a linking to the illness insane person of the cow. No occurrence was told, but it is an illness that makes examination of a long time if to reveal.
Another time, can be that to pierce with chondroitin purified, better fine either a way good for minimizing this risk, however small can be.
The Glucosamine, a natural amino sugar has been available per decades and it is used to treat osteoartritis. It is used as the base for the synthesis of all proteins and lipids glycosylated, and sugars nitrogen-containing. It is produced by the body human and used like precursor in the molecule formation greater calls glycosaminoglycans that are necessary for the growth and the repair of the cartilage. Glycosaminoglycans is a dominant component of bones, sinews, ligaments and liquids in the joint.
The Glucosamine has three chemical forms: sulphate of glucosamine (glucosamine sulphate), hydrochlorate of glucosamine (glucosamine HCI) and n-acetyl-glucosamine. The hydrochlorate of the Glucosamine is concentrated that the form of sulphate and contains less sodium by effective dose comparativily. It makes important functions in the human body like the chemical decontamination of the liver and the kidney, and the protection of the liver against the inflammation. The hydrochlorate of the Glucosamine is used in the treatment of gastric ulcers, to cure the torn cartilages and to control the growth of cells. This form of Glucosamine is used extensively in the manufacture of antibiotics, against drugs of the cancer and cosmetics. It is prepared synthetic or derived from exoskeletons of marine creatures. The hydrochlorate of the Glucosamine is preferred on form of sulphate of the Glucosamine because he is more effective and less expensive. The reason of its effectiveness is that she is purer. It is near pure 99% and he is very stable.
The sulphate of the Glucosamine is done of hydrochlorate of glucosamine adding sulphate or potassium. This leads to the presence of impurities. Another reason of the preference of hydrochlorate of the Glucosamine is that its use assures the receipt 83 percents from glucosamine to the problematic areas that need the treatment with respect to the form the sulphate that gives only 62 percents. That is to say, you would have to take 1995 milligrams from sulphate of glucosamine to equal the effects of hydrochlorate of glucosamine.
The process of the digestion is also one of the important reasons as far as because hydrochlorate it is preferred on sulphate. The stomach contains the hidroclórico acid that is required for the digestion of the food. When the sulphate of glucosamine enters the stomach that cuts the molecule of sulphate and the molecule of hydrochlorate is united, transforming it with effectiveness into hydrochlorate of glucosamine. Therefore he is recommendable to take the form that is accepted easily and to prevent the undesired salts in your body.
Thanks
PS See new blog: Glucosamine Notes
The Glucosamine is a glucose that consist of compound and molecules of amine. Generally, one is not in our daily food and the body uses diverse blocks of building for its synthesis. Found mainly in the connective cartilage and fine weaves, glucosamine is watched as essential element in the maintenance of joints and healthy, strong and flexible cartilages. It provides to cushion around the joints, it helps in the production of the protective coating of mucous in the digestive zone and also it describes like raw material for the curative wound. With age, the production of glucosamine in the body is reduced and this one can lead to the reduced flexibility and the inflammation in the joints. In order to cover your deficiency in the oral supplements with the body to be available in the market, sourced mainly of the crustaceans such as shrimp, lobster, crabs etc.
Glucosamine artificial is available mainly under the form of sulphate of glucosamine and hydrochlorate of glucosamine. In Europe it is accepted as clinical medicine but is used mainly like dietetic supplement in America, because it has not been recognized like medical treatment by the administration of the food and the drug. The use of glucosamine as alternative medicine is very common through world; it continues being recommendable to consult to your doctor or the phamacist before buying a supplement. Whereas it does therefore, to go for a well-known and reliable affluent mark because the concentration and the purity in the supplements are not supervised close by very. The supplement is available in form of the capsule, the tablet, the liquid and the dust.
The clinical studies suggest the oral product of glucosamine is safe them human beings. Nevertheless, people with diabetes must have well-taken care of in her use whereas she suggests herself can be that she increases resistance of insulin in the body and creates the long term problems for the diabetics. This demand, although, not clinical test. Then the main source of glucosamine synthesized is crustaceans, the people who are allergic to the crustaceans must also have well-taken care of whereas she uses these supplements. Theoretically, although, it would appear to be so safe that the allergenic in the crustaceans are present in the meat of the animal and from glucosamine it is obtained from the substance called “quitina” found in the rind. Alternatively, it also has replaces available that glucosamine of the source by the fungicida fermentation of the maize.
Thank you,
Konec
|
