| Glucosamine, 
        Part II: Forms G. 
        Douglas Andersen, DC, DACBSP, CCN 
         Volume 
        16, number 13, 6/15/98, page 26Forms of glucosamine are discussed along with medical bias at the time.
 
 Before we discuss which form of glucosamine to use, we must answer the 
        question, "Does glucosamine work?" Although the answer may seem 
        obvious to those of us in the chiropractic and nutrition communities, 
        many scientists and doctors do not feel glucosamine supplementation is 
        beneficial for arthritis and related connective tissue dysfunction. Editors 
        of both the Harvard and Berkeley health letters last year were not impressed 
        with glucosamine. Both cited lack of research, and the Berkeley letter 
        stated, "American researchers really are searching for an arthritis 
        cure and important studies are underway. Many agents are under intensive 
        study as potential cartilage regenerators. Glucosamine and chondroitin 
        sulfate are not actually very high on this list."1
 
 All that most chiropractors want is the truth, and the truth is that there 
        has been very little U.S. research on glucosamine, but the same cannot 
        be said of Europe. There have been more than 300 investigations including 
        20 double-blind studies in the early 1980s on glucosamine.2 The Italian 
        company Rotta states that over 6,500 people with osteoarthritis (including 
        2,000 with knee degenerative joint disease and 2,000 with spinal DJD) 
        have now been studied using glucosamine sulfate with an across-the-board 
        average of 80% of patients reporting benefits from glucosamine. These 
        benefits were the reduction of joint pain and an increase in joint mobility.3
 
 Many of the European studies compared glucosamine sulfate to nonsteroid 
        anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In those studies the trend was for the 
        nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory groups to feel better initially, but after 
        three to six weeks the glucosamine groups would, on average, feel as good 
        or better than the people taking the NSAIDs. Furthermore, the rate of 
        side effects is consistently much lower in all glucosamine groups.
 
 Glucosamine is now registered as an aid for osteoarthritis in over 70 
        countries and sometimes classified as a "slow-acting" drug for 
        osteoarthritis.
 
 Forms of Glucosamine
 
 Glucosamine sulfate (stabilized with sodium chloride). This is usually 
        provided in 500 mg capsules and is the type of preparation used in the 
        vast majority of positive human studies.
 
 Glucosamine sulfate (stabilized with potassium chloride). Anecdotal reports 
        from my patients who use this form fall in line with the research on people 
        who used glucosamine sulfate stabilized with sodium chloride; that is, 
        approximately 80% of patients who take it feel a benefit.
 
 N-acetyl Glucosamine (NAG). In last year's best seller, The Arthritis 
        Cure, by Theodosakis, Adderly and Fox, the authors stated that it did 
        not matter which form of glucosamine a person takes -- they will all work.4 
        However, the majority of experts in the field feel that the NAG form is 
        not effective for arthritis and should be avoided. NAG is metabolized 
        differently than other forms of glucosamine. Instead of being absorbed 
        relatively intact, the intestinal bacteria digest it rapidly and other 
        tissues of the gastrointestinal tract absorb it before it can reach cartilage.
 
 Glucosamine hydrochloride. Some researchers now feel that glucosamine 
        hydrochloride may be the best form because it has a slightly higher concentration 
        of glucosamine in the molecule (83% versus 80% for glucosamine sulfate) 
        and has better stability.5
 
 Debate
 
 There is no argument that almost all of the studies done on oral glucosamine 
        have used a glucosamine sulfate form stabilized with sodium chloride. 
        There is debate about glucosamine sulfate because some bargain basement 
        brands will have 500 mg capsules that contain 20% sulfate and 20% sodium, 
        leaving only 300 mg of elemental glucosamine. Patients who think they 
        are taking 1500 mg per day may actually only be getting 900 mg per day.
 
 Products that cater to health care professionals and are available to 
        chiropractors generally do not have this problem. Good brands will list 
        elemental totals and their base. For example, the product used in my office 
        is 500 mg glucosamine sulfate in a base of 666 mg of glucosamine sulfate, 
        and is stabilized with potassium chloride.
 
 The future for glucosamine hydrochloride looks bright; however, there 
        have been very few human studies on this form. The debate surrounding 
        glucosamine hydrochloride centers around sulfur. Proponents of glucosamine 
        hydrochloride feel that the sulfur portion of glucosamine sulfate is removed 
        during digestion and not utilized by cartilage. The body gets sulfur, 
        which is a critical nutrient for GAG synthesis, from high energy phosphate 
        compounds, sulfur-containing amino acids, and inorganic sulfate.6 
        Proponents of glucosamine sulfate disagree and feel that glucosamine sulfate 
        does provide chondrocytes with a sulfur source required for the manufacture 
        of chondroitin sulfate and keratan sulfate glycosaminoglycans.7
 
 Conclusion
 
 When human trials on glucosamine sulfate stabilized with potassium chloride 
        and glucosamine hydrochloride are performed, I expect that these preparations 
        will work as well as the glucosamine sulfate form stabilized with sodium 
        chloride. Based on current research, the N-acetyl glucosamine form is 
        not effective for treating joint problems in humans. There are ongoing 
        studies on various forms of glucosamine. The results of these studies, 
        positive or negative, will be reported in this column. Next month, we 
        will continue our discussion by focusing on dosing, safety and side effects.
 
 References
 1. University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter May 1997; 13(8):2.
 
 2. Murray MT. Which is better, glucosamine sulfate or chondroitin sulfate?
 
 3. American Journal of Natural Medicine May 1997, 4(4):6-8.
 
 4. Arthritis and articular cartilage: profile of glucosamine sulfate. 
        Rotta Pharm. Italy/Rotta Research Laboratorium.
 
 5. Theodosakis, Adderly, and Fox. The Arthritis Cure. New York: St. Martin's 
        Press, 1997.
 
 6. Bucci LR. Pain-Free. Ft. Worth, Texas: the Summit Group, 1995.
 Bucci LR. Nutrition Applied to Rehabilitation in Sports Medicine. CRC 
        Press, 1995.
 
 7. Murray MT. Glucosamine sulfate: effective osteoarthritis treatment. 
        American Journal of Natural Medicine September 1994, 1(1).
 
   916 
        E. Imperial Hwy.Brea, CA. 92821
 
 (714) 990-0824
 Fax: 
        (714) 990-1917
 gdandersen@earthlink.netwww.andersenchiro.com
   Copyright 
        2004, G. Douglas Andersen, DC, DACBSP, CCN, 916 E. Imperial Hwy, Brea, 
        CA 92821, (714) 990-0824 
 |