Glucosamine Chondroitin: interpreting the research

When interpreting research on dietary supplements, it sometimes pays to look between the lines and recognize that pharmaceutical companies don’t have much interest in letting people know that over-the-counter dietary supplements are at times a reasonable option for addressing a medical condition. Yes, it’s true, the pharmaceutical companies and their researchers can display, shall we say, bias in assessing the relative merits of prescrpiton drugs and supplements.

Here’s a brief case study from the NYBC archives:

…a good illustration of the dangers of the influence of The Media and Big Business on our healthcare system was recently discussed by New York Buyers’ Club’s Treatment Director, George M. Carter: this past year, the National Institutes of Health released the results of a study that the popular media interpreted as decrying the effectiveness of the popular supplement, glucosamine-chondroitin. However, read in its entirety, the study found that the combination didn’t work well specifically for mild arthritis of the knee but neither did the prescription drug Celebrex, also included in the study. It is interesting to note that many of the researchers involved had received monies from Pfizerthe makers of Celebrex. It is also worth noting that for moderate to severe arthritic pain, the glucosamine-chondroitin combination actually worked much better than Celebrex – and that the researchers didn’t even use its most potent form (glucosamine sulfate) in the study.

For more on this issue, see the NYBC website:

Interpreting the research on glucosamine chondroitin

Advertisements