| Literature DB >> 35684140 |
Fernando Cánovas1, María Salud Abellán-Ruíz1, Ana María García-Muñoz1, Antonio Jesús Luque-Rubia1, Desirée Victoria-Montesinos1, Silvia Pérez-Piñero1, Maravilla Sánchez-Macarro1, Francisco Javier López-Román1,2.
Abstract
Osteoarthritis is a source of chronic pain and disability. Dietary supplements have been shown to be a more secure option than NSAIDS. Particularly, the eggshell membrane has demonstrated efficacy in relieving joint pain and stiffness. A clinical trial was designed in which three groups were assigned to two different doses of this supplement and compared to a placebo control group. The primary outcome variable was knee pain, which was assessed using a visual analogue scale. Secondary outcome variables were knee functional ability, quadriceps muscle strength (assessed by isometric and isokinetic trials), and quality of sleep. All groups showed a significant decrease in pain perception, although maximum values were obtained in the high-dose group. Isokinetic and isometric trials showed a significant increase in strength in the high-dose group. Eggshell membrane showed the potential to reduce pain and stiffness symptomatology. Here, for the first time, two quantitative variables (mobility and strength of knee joint) were used to accurately evaluate changes in the quality of life of subjects affected by knee joint pain. The results of this study indicate a dose-dependent response, which should be taken into account for later use in therapeutics to establish the correct dosage.Entities:
Keywords: dietary supplement; glycosaminoglycans; knee pain; stiffness
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35684140 PMCID: PMC9182852 DOI: 10.3390/nu14112340
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Figure 1Flowchart representing the different stages of the trial. Randomisation profile shows flow of patients in the three groups: high-dose (500 mg), low-dose (300 mg), and control group.
Demography characteristics of the 75 subjects who finished this study by group.
| Control ( | Exp 300 ( | Exp 500 ( | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 41.31 ± 14.36 | 37.38 ± 12.29 | 36.36 ± 13.54 | 38.44 ± 13.54 |
|
| 25.3 ± 4.0 | 25.4 ± 4.0 | 24.6 ± 3.0 | 25.1 ± 3.6 |
| BMI < 25; | 12 (46.2%) | 10 (41.7%) | 15 (60%) | 37 (49.3%) |
| BMI ≥ 25; | 14 (53.8%) | 14 (58.3%) | 10 (40%) | 38 (50.7%) |
|
| ||||
| Women | 16 (61.5%) | 12 (50.0%) | 11 (44.0%) | 39 (52.0%) |
| Men | 10 (38.5%) | 12 (50%) | 14 (56.0%) | 36 (48.0%) |
Visual analogue scale (VAS) for perceived pain, functional capacity by means of the WOMAC test, and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) for each of the visits and doses. Δ represents the increment from the start to the end of this trial. Significance level for the differences between values at the beginning and end of this trial.
| Control | Low Dose | High Dose | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 4.90 (1.48) | 4.67 (1.37) | 5.42 (1.48) |
|
| 3.64 (1.40) *** | 2.25 (1.66) *** | 1.90 (1.78) *** | |
|
| −1.269 | −2.417 | −3.52 | |
|
|
| 25.96 (13.42) | 26.29 (15.81) | 24.80 (10.92) |
|
| 20.32 (13.17) ** | 16.04 (12.28) *** | 14.52 (10.20) *** | |
|
| −5.64 | −10.25 | −10.28 | |
|
|
| 6.77 (2.82) | 6.00 (2.34) | 6.60 (3.76) |
|
| 6.27 (3.14) | 5.54 (2.89) | 5.00 (3.03) ** | |
|
| −0.5 | −0.46 | −1.6 | |
Significance levels: *** < 0.001 < ** < 0.01 < * < 0.05.
Weekly mean (standard deviation) of visual analogue scale (VAS) for perceived pain during the period of study. Δ represents the increment from the start to the end of this trial. Significance level for the differences between values at the beginning and end of this trial.
| Week1 | Week2 | Week3 | Week4 | Week5 | Week6 | Week7 | Week8 | Week9 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.75 (1.16) | 4.74 (1.72) | 4.62 (1.93) | 4.52 (2.27) | 4.43 (1.88) | 4.31 (2.27) | 4.13 (2.21) | 4.19 (2.29) | 3.91 (2.16) | −0.835 |
|
| 4.69 (1.18) | 4.37 (1.45) | 3.99 (1.47) | 3.77 (1.41) | 3.89 (1.17) | 3.53 (1.41) | 3.62 (1.42) | 3.32 (1.57) | 3.13 (1.43) | −1.559 |
|
| 5.23 (1.32) | 4.93 (1.55) | 4.3 (1.74) | 4.08 (1.7) | 3.84 (1.68) | 3.65 (1.81) | 3.4 (1.71) | 3.23 (1.59) | 2.98 (1.51) | −2.250 *** |
Significance levels: *** < 0.001 < ** < 0.01 < * < 0.05.
Isokinetic trials variables at 60°/s: muscle peak torque (PT), total work of the maximum repetition (TWMR), and total work (TW). Isometric trials assessed at 90°/s: muscle peak torque (PT) and maximum average peak torque (MAPT). Δ represents the increment from the start to the end of this trial. Significance level for the differences between values at the beginning and end of this trial. p values indicate significance level for comparison of groups by the duration of this trial for each variable. Units were measured in N × m.
| Isokinetic at 60°/s | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Low Dose | High Dose | ||
|
|
| 57.93 (22.36) | 62.15 (24.28) | 59.28 (26.52) |
|
| 56.45 (22.66) | 62.98 (24.92) | 66.48 (28.23) | |
|
| −1.48 | 0.83 | 7.2 *** | |
|
|
| 64.60 (28.48) | 68.91 (30.40) | 66.89 (31.94) |
|
| 64.66 (27.73) | 70.53 (30.17) | 76.93 (35.08) | |
|
| 0.06 | 1.62 | 10.04 *** | |
|
|
| 294.89 (137.08) | 309.38 (150.72) | 297.72 (147.07) |
|
| 291.68 (130.01) | 322.61 (144.70) | 345.13 (167.64) | |
|
| −3.21 | 13.23 | 47.42 *** | |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| 145.41 (61.07) | 137.99 (61.16) | 146.73 (70.07) |
|
| 145.00 (61.42) | 158.35 (56.72) | 171.92 (84.64) | |
|
| −0.41 | 20.36 ** | 25.18 *** | |
|
|
| 138.16 (58.35) | 137.40 (52.22) | 141.27 (57.34) |
|
| 139.17 (59.23) | 153.69 (52.52) | 161.04 (78.39) | |
|
| 1.01 | 16.29 | 20.76 *** | |
Significance levels: *** < 0.001 < ** < 0.01 < * < 0.05.