National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

HARDBACK
price:$59.95
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Dietary Supplements: A Framework for Evaluating Safety (2005)
Institute of Medicine (IOM)

Citation Manager

. "Appendix E: Glucosamine: Prototype Monograph Summary." Dietary Supplements: A Framework for Evaluating Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
364
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Dietary Supplements: A Framework for Evaluating Safety

placebo-control (7 studies) or reference-control (4 studies) clinical trials ranging in duration from 1 to 36 months and including a total of 716 participants (in the glucosamine arms). Many of these trials presented incomplete information about the systematic collection of data on adverse effects, and many did not examine or report clinical laboratory values systematically. Many of the trials relied only on passive reporting. In the placebo-controlled trials, the incidence of adverse effects among the treatment arms was almost identical, while in the NSAID comparison trials, adverse effect rates were higher among those taking NSAIDs (range of 15–35 percent). In general, the adverse effects reported were mild and most often related to gastrointestinal complaints. No data are available on the safety of glucosamine use in pregnant or lactating women or in children.

Classical animal toxicity studies for glucosamine have not been published; however, reviewers citing only unpublished data state that no toxicity was observed with glucosamine administered by oral administration or by gavage. These findings are corroborated by findings of only minimal toxicity with glucosamine administered by other routes of administration. For glucosamine, as for other substances endogenous to the body, LD50 values could not be determined due to the lack of toxicity observed except when supraphysiologic amounts were administered.

Animal studies using infusion of glucosamine in rats at high doses (approaching 1 mM in blood) and in in vitro studies (using the addition of glucosamine to cell-culture media at high concentrations) found that glucosamine inhibited the ability of pancreatic islet cells to increase insulin secretion in response to an increased concentration of glucose. It should be emphasized that these studies were designed to test hypotheses about the intracellular signaling pathways by which glucose exerts its regulatory effects and were not designed to examine the “toxicity” of glucosamine per se.

The pharmacokinetics of glucosamine become important to assessing its risk, as discussed below. Orally ingested glucosamine appears to be rapidly absorbed, but it is largely metabolized before it reaches the bloodstream.

The primary source of glucosamine in the United States is chitin, derived from shellfish (e.g., shrimp, crab). There may be a risk for antigen exposure if the product is incompletely purified. There is no systematic surveillance of contaminants of these products, and only a subset of the manufacturers apparently comply with U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) standards.

B. Conclusions and Recommendations About the Safety of the Ingredient Based on the Strength of the Scientific Evidence

From the evaluation of the available data, there appears to be no evi-

Page
364
Front Matter (R1-R20)
Executive Summary (1-18)
1 Introduction and Background (19-42)
2 Approaches Used by Others and Existing Safety Frameworks (43-84)
3 The Framework (85-125)
4 Categories of Scientific Evidence--Human Information and Data (126-155)
5 Categories of Scientific Evidence--Animal Data (156-174)
6 Categories of Scientific Evidence--Information About Related Substances (175-216)
7 Categories of Scientific Evidence--In Vitro Data (217-234)
8 Interactions (235-246)
9 Vulnerable Groups and Prevalance of Use (247-252)
10 Scientific Principles for Integrating and Evaluating the Available Data (253-268)
11 Applying the Framework: Case Studies Using the Prototype Safety Monographs (269-291)
12 Factors Influencing Use of the Safety Framework (292-296)
13 Findings and Recommendations (297-306)
Appendix A: Existing Frameworks or Systems for Evaluating the Safety of Other Substances (307-315)
Appendix B: Scope of Work and Comments to Initial July 2002 Framework (316-321)
Appendix C: Plant Family Information (322-355)
Appendix D: Chaparral: Prototype Monograph Summary (356-362)
Appendix E: Glucosamine: Prototype Monograph Summary (363-366)
Appendix F: Melatonin: Prototype Monograph Summary (367-371)
Appendix G: Chromium Picolinate: Prototype Monograph Summary (372-375)
Appendix H: Saw Palmetto: Prototype Monograph Summary (376-379)
Appendix I: Shark Cartilage: Prototype Monograph Summary (380-384)
Appendix J: Prototype Focused Monograph: Review of Liver-Related Risks for Chaparral (385-449)
Appendix K: Protoype Focused Monograph: Review of Anti-Androgenic Risks of Saw Palmetto Ingestion by Women (450-477)
Appendix L: Acknowledgements (478-480)
Appendix M: Biographical Sketches of Commitee Members (481-488)
Index (489-506)