Background:There is some evidence from epidemiological studies suggesting that CS and glucosamine could play a role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention (1-4).Studies to date have included prevalent users, therefore a bias that overestimates protection cannot be excluded.Objectives:To test the hypothesis that chondroitin sulphate (CS) or glucosamine reduce the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Methods:Case-control study nested in a primary cohort composed of patients aged 40 to 99 years, with at least one year of follow-up in the BIFAP database during the 2002-2015 study period. From this cohort of patients, we identified incident cases of AMI and randomly selected five controls per case, matched by exact age, gender, and index date. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI)) were calculated through a conditional logistic regression. Only new users of CS or glucosamine were considered.Results:A total of 23,585 incident cases of AMI and 117,405 controls were included. The mean age was 67.0 (SD 13.4) years and 71.75% were male, in both groups. 558 (2.37%) cases and 3,082 (2.62%) controls used or had used CS. The current use of CS was associated with a lower risk of AMI (AOR 0.57; 95%CI: 0.46–0.72) and disappeared after discontinuation (recent and past users). The reduced risk among current users was observed in both short-term (<365 days AOR 0.58; 95%CI: 0.45-0.75) and long-term users (>364 days AOR 0.56; 95%CI 0.36-0.87), in both sexes (men, AOR=0.52; 95%CI:0.38-0.70; women, AOR=0.65; 95%CI: 0.46-0.91), in individuals over or under 70 years of age (AOR=0.54; 95%CI:0.38-0.77, and AOR=0.61; 95%CI:0.45-0.82, respectively) and in individuals at intermediate (AOR=0.65; 95%CI:0.48-0.91) and high cardiovascular risk (AOR=0.48;95%CI:0.27-0.83), but not in those at low risk (AOR=1.11; 95%CI:0.48-2.56). In contrast, the current use of glucosamine was not associated with either increased or decreased risk of AMI (AOR= 0.86; CI95% 0.66-1.08)Conclusion:Our results support a cardioprotective effect of CS, while no effect was observed with glucosamine. The highest protection was found among subgroups at higher cardiovascular risk.References:[1]Ma H, Li X, Sun D, Zhou T, Ley SH, Gustat J, et al. Association of habitual glucosamine use with risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective study in UK Biobank. BMJ. 2019;365(Journal Article):l1628.[2]de Abajo FJ, Gil MJ, Garcia Poza P, Bryant V, Oliva B, Timoner J, et al. Risk of nonfatal acute myocardial infarction associated with non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs, non-narcotic analgesics and other drugs used in osteoarthritis: a nested case-control study. PharmacoepidemiolDrug Saf. 2014;23(11):1128–38.[3]Li Z-H, Gao X, Chung VC, Zhong W-F, Fu Q, Lv Y-B, et al. Associations of regular glucosamine use with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a large prospective cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Apr 6;annrheumdis-2020-217176.[4]King DE, Xiang J. Glucosamine/Chondroitin and Mortality in a US NHANES Cohort. J Am Board Fam Med. 2020 Dec;33(6):842–7.Disclosure of Interests:Ramón Mazzucchelli Speakers bureau: UCB, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Sara Rodriguez-Martin: None declared, Alberto García-Vadillo: None declared, Miguel Gil: None declared, Antonio Rodríguez-Miguel: None declared, Diana Barreira-Hernández: None declared, Alberto García-Lledó: None declared, Francisco de Abajo: None declared
The unbearable heaviness of reductionism: the paradigm of the antiatherogenic diet
