Evaluation of glucosamine sulfate compared to ibuprofen for the treatment of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis: a randomized double blind controlled 3 month clinical trial

• Published in: Journal of rheumatology 2001-06, Vol.28 (6), p.1347-1355
• Main Authors: THIE, Norman M. R, PRASAD, Narasimha G, MAJOR, Paul W
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal - administration & dosage; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal - adverse effects; Biological and medical sciences; Bones, joints and connective tissue. Antiinflammatory agents; Double-Blind Method; Female; Glucosamine - administration & dosage; Glucosamine - adverse effects; Humans; Ibuprofen - administration & dosage; Ibuprofen - adverse effects; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Osteoarthritis - drug therapy; Pain - drug therapy; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Temporomandibular Joint; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0315-162X; 1499-2752

OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment potential of glucosamine sulfate (GS) and ibuprofen in patients diagnosed with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Forty women and 5 men received either GS (500 mg tid) or ibuprofen (400 mg tid) for 90 days in a randomized double blind study. Assessment: TMJ pain with function, pain-free, and voluntary maximum mouth opening, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaire and masticatory muscle tenderness were performed after a one week washout and at Day 90. Acetaminophen (500 mg) dispensed for breakthrough pain was counted every 30 days to Day 120. RESULTS: In total, 176 adults were interviewed, 45 (26%) qualified, 39 (87%) completed the study (21 GS, 18 ibuprofen). Four discontinued due to stomach upset (3 ibuprofen, one GS), one due to dizziness (GS), one due to inadequate pain control (ibuprofen). Within-group analysis revealed significant improvement compared to baseline of all variables in both treatment groups but no change in acetaminophen used. Fifteen GS (71%) and 11 ibuprofen (61%) improved, with positive clinical response taken as a 20% decrease in primary outcome (TMJ pain with function). The number of patients with positive clinical response was not statistically different between groups (p = 0.73). Between-group comparison revealed that patients taking GS had a significantly greater decrease in TMJ pain with function, effect of pain, and acetaminophen used between Day 90 and 120 compared with patients taking ibuprofen. CONCLUSION: GS and ibuprofen reduce pain levels in patients with TMJ degenerative joint disease. In the subgroup that met the initial efficacy criteria, GS had a significantly greater influence in reducing pain produced during function and effect of pain with daily activities. GS has a carryover effect.