{"title":"Glucosamine supplementation contributes to reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes: Evidence from Mendelian randomization combined with a meta-analysis.","authors":"Shuai Zhou, Peiwen Zhou, Tianshi Yang, Junzhuo Si, Wenyan An, Yanfang Jiang","doi":"10.1177/03000605251334460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveObservational studies on glucosamine supplementation and type 2 diabetes risk have shown inconsistent results, necessitating the use of Mendelian randomization to clarify the true causal relationship.MethodsThe glucosamine supplementation-related genome-wide association study dataset was obtained from the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit consortium, whereas type 2 diabetes-related genome-wide association study datasets were obtained from the FinnGen consortium (discovery) and Xue et al.'s meta-analysis (validation). Two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses were performed separately in the discovery and validation datasets, followed by meta-analysis and multivariable Mendelian randomization analyses to verify the robustness of the results of two-sample Mendelian randomization. The estimation of the causal relationship was conducted through the inverse variance weighted method.ResultsGlucosamine supplementation exhibited a significant protective effect against type 2 diabetes, as identified by two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis in the FinnGen consortium (odds ratio: 0.13, 95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.89) and validated in Xue et al.'s meta-analysis (odds ratio: 0.06, 95%; confidence interval: 0.01-0.29). A combined meta-analysis (odds ratio: 0.08, 95%; confidence interval: 0.02-0.27) of the results of two-sample Mendelian randomization confirmed the robustness of these findings. Additionally, multivariable Mendelian randomization analysis (odds ratio: 0.12, 95%; confidence interval: 0.02-0.94), after adjusting for confounding factors, supported the results of two-sample Mendelian randomization. No evidence of heterogeneity or pleiotropy was observed.ConclusionOverall, our results revealed that genetically predicted glucosamine supplementation was inversely associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes, highlighting the potential importance of glucosamine supplementation in preventing type 2 diabetes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Medical Research","volume":"53 4","pages":"3000605251334460"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12041707/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605251334460","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ObjectiveObservational studies on glucosamine supplementation and type 2 diabetes risk have shown inconsistent results, necessitating the use of Mendelian randomization to clarify the true causal relationship.MethodsThe glucosamine supplementation-related genome-wide association study dataset was obtained from the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit consortium, whereas type 2 diabetes-related genome-wide association study datasets were obtained from the FinnGen consortium (discovery) and Xue et al.'s meta-analysis (validation). Two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses were performed separately in the discovery and validation datasets, followed by meta-analysis and multivariable Mendelian randomization analyses to verify the robustness of the results of two-sample Mendelian randomization. The estimation of the causal relationship was conducted through the inverse variance weighted method.ResultsGlucosamine supplementation exhibited a significant protective effect against type 2 diabetes, as identified by two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis in the FinnGen consortium (odds ratio: 0.13, 95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.89) and validated in Xue et al.'s meta-analysis (odds ratio: 0.06, 95%; confidence interval: 0.01-0.29). A combined meta-analysis (odds ratio: 0.08, 95%; confidence interval: 0.02-0.27) of the results of two-sample Mendelian randomization confirmed the robustness of these findings. Additionally, multivariable Mendelian randomization analysis (odds ratio: 0.12, 95%; confidence interval: 0.02-0.94), after adjusting for confounding factors, supported the results of two-sample Mendelian randomization. No evidence of heterogeneity or pleiotropy was observed.ConclusionOverall, our results revealed that genetically predicted glucosamine supplementation was inversely associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes, highlighting the potential importance of glucosamine supplementation in preventing type 2 diabetes.
期刊介绍:
_Journal of International Medical Research_ is a leading international journal for rapid publication of original medical, pre-clinical and clinical research, reviews, preliminary and pilot studies on a page charge basis.
As a service to authors, every article accepted by peer review will be given a full technical edit to make papers as accessible and readable to the international medical community as rapidly as possible.
Once the technical edit queries have been answered to the satisfaction of the journal, the paper will be published and made available freely to everyone under a creative commons licence.
Symposium proceedings, summaries of presentations or collections of medical, pre-clinical or clinical data on a specific topic are welcome for publication as supplements.
Print ISSN: 0300-0605