chondroitin and dimethyl-sulfone

Osteoarthritis, the most common joint disease, is associated with substantial medical costs, lost productivity, and reduced quality of life. However, available pharmaceutical treatments have limitations in terms of efficacy and long-term safety.. In vitro evidence suggests that some natural products may possess anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative properties and may inhibit the release of key osteoarthritis-related cytokines. There is, therefore, ongoing interest in identifying natural products that safely promote joint health and treat osteoarthritis. Numerous plant extracts, including curcumin, Boswellia extract, and pycnogenol, have shown effect sizes (ES) for reducing pain and functional disability larger than those observed with analgesics and products such as glucosamine and chondroitin. The ES for methylsulfonylmethane and avocado/soybean unsaponifiables are also considered to be clinically relevant. Data from a small number of studies using natural products for treating osteoarthritis are promising but require confirmation in further well-designed clinical trials.

Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Biological Products; Boswellia; Chondroitin; Curcumin; Dietary Supplements; Dimethyl Sulfoxide; Flavonoids; Glucosamine; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Pain Management; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Salix; Sulfones

Over 30% of individuals use natural health products (NHPs) for osteoarthritis-related pain. The Deficit Model for the Public Understanding of Science suggests that if individuals are given more information (especially about scientific evidence) they will make better health-related decisions. In contrast, the Contextual Model argues that scientific evidence is one of many factors that explain how consumers make health-related decisions. The primary objective was to investigate how the level of scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of NHPs impacts consumer decision-making in the self-selection of NHPs by individuals with osteoarthritis.. The means-end chain approach to product evaluation was used to compare laddering interviews with two groups of community-dwelling Canadian seniors who had used NHPs to treat their osteoarthritis. Group 1 (n=13) had used only NHPs (glucosamine and/or chondroitin) with "high" scientific evidence of efficacy. Group 2 (n=12) had used NHPs (methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) and/or bromelain) with little or no scientific evidence supporting efficacy. Content analysis and generation of hierarchical value maps facilitated the identification of similarities and differences between the two groups.. The dominant decision-making chains for participants in the two scientific evidence categories were similar. Scientific evidence was an important decision-making factor but not as important as the advice from health care providers, friends and family. Most participants learned about scientific evidence via indirect sources from health care providers and the media.. The Contextual Model of the public understanding of science helps to explain why our participants believed scientific evidence is not the most important factor in their decision to use NHPs to help manage their osteoarthritis.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Biological Products; Bromelains; Chondroitin; Comprehension; Consumer Behavior; Decision Making; Dimethyl Sulfoxide; Evidence-Based Medicine; Family; Female; Friends; Glucosamine; Health Personnel; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoarthritis; Sociology; Sulfones; Treatment Outcome

Millions of Americans use dietary supplements with little knowledge about their benefits or risks. We examined associations of various herbal/specialty supplements with lung and colorectal cancer risk. Men and women, 50 to 76 years, in the VITamins And Lifestyle cohort completed a 24-page baseline questionnaire that captured duration (years) and frequency (days per week) of use of commonly used herbal/specialty supplements. Dose was not assessed due to the lack of accurate potency information. Supplement exposure was categorized as "no use" or "any use" over the previous 10 years. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated by multivariate Cox regression models. Incident lung (n = 665) and colorectal cancers (n = 428) were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry. Any use of glucosamine and chondroitin, which have anti-inflammatory properties, over the previous 10 years, was associated with significantly lower lung cancer risk: HR 0.74 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.58-0.94] and HR 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54-0.96) and colorectal cancer risk: HR 0.73 (95% CI, 0.54-0.98) and HR 0.65 (95% CI, 0.45-0.93), respectively. There were also statistically significantly inverse associations of fish oil: HR 0.65 (95% CI, 0.42-0.99), methylsulfonylmethane: HR 0.46 (95% CI, 0.23-0.93), and St. John's wort: HR 0.35 (95% CI, 0.14-0.85) with colorectal cancer risk. In contrast, garlic pills were associated with a statistically significant 35% elevated colorectal cancer risk. These results suggest that some herbal/specialty supplements may be associated with lung and colorectal cancer risk; however, these products should be used with caution. Additional studies examining the effects of herbal/specialty supplements on risk for cancer and other diseases are needed.

Topics: Aged; Chondroitin; Colorectal Neoplasms; Dietary Supplements; Dimethyl Sulfoxide; Female; Fish Oils; Garlic; Glucosamine; Humans; Hypericum; Incidence; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Proportional Hazards Models; Risk Factors; SEER Program; Sulfones; United States