Glucosamine is a commonly used ‘over the counter’ dietary supplement. Previous research has identified an association between glucosamine use and several positive health outcomes. However, a plausible biological mechanism for these associations has not yet been identified, meaning the causality of these relationships remains unclear. A protective effect of glucosamine on the vascular endothelium has been suggested as one such possible mechanism. Albuminuria is an early marker of endothelial dysfunction within the kidney and is associated with progression of kidney disease and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. In order to provide insights into the potential biological mechanisms underlying a protective association of glucosamine use with health outcomes, we evaluated evidence for an association between glucosamine use and albuminuria in UK Biobank (N=436 200).

Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression were performed to evaluate evidence for an association between self-reported glucosamine use and albuminuria (measured as urine albumin creatinine ratio (uACR) categories). As a secondary analysis, we performed Mendelian randomisation (MR) to demonstrate the difficulties in inferring causality in this relationship using currently available data, using summary genetic data from UK Biobank and CDKGen (N=67 452).

We found that people who used glucosamine were more likely to be in a lower uACR group (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.83, px10^–16). This association was robust to sensitivity analyses and was maintained after adjustment for age, sex and measures of obesity. In our MR analysis, we found little evidence for an association of genetically proxied glucosamine use on albuminuria (change in log uACR (mg/g) per SD change in genetic liability=1.11, 95% CI –3.01 to 5.23, p=0.60).

We found that detectable albuminuria was common in UK Biobank participants and we are the first to show that use of glucosamine supplements was associated with lower levels. Though this fits with a plausible biological role of the vascular endothelium in a potential protective effect of glucosamine use on many health outcomes, whether this relationship is causal or confounded remains unclear. We further discuss the inherent difficulties in using genetic instruments to proxy supplement use in MR analyses and highlight the need for a genome-wide association study of measured circulating glucosamine levels.

Older crime victims may be particularly vulnerable to psychological distress.

To compare the clinical effectiveness of a Victim Improvement Package (VIP) to treatment as usual (TAU) for reducing continued crime-associated distress.

A three-step parallel-group single-blind randomised controlled trial.

Police-reported victims of community crime aged 65 and over were recruited from 12 local authority areas in a major urban city in England, UK.

Selection criteria—inclusion: victims of community crime aged 65 years or more, with significant Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-2) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) distress associated with the crime. Exclusion: type of crime, diagnosis, receipt of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) in the last 6 months; an inability to participate in CBT; cognitive impairment. Participants were typical of our local authority population; 71% were female, 69% white, with the majority of crimes associated with burglary (35%) and theft (26%). 67% (88/131) of the randomised participants were included in the primary analysis.

TAU was compared with TAU plus up to 10 sessions of a cognitively-behaviourally informed VIP, delivered by a mental health charity over 12 weeks.

Timings are in relation to the crime; baseline (3 months), post-VIP intervention (6 months) and follow-up (9 months). The primary outcome was a composite of the Beck Anxiety and Beck Depression Inventories. The primary endpoint was 6 months.

24% (4255/17 611) of reported crime victims were screened, 35% (1505/4255) were distressed. Of 60% (877/1505) rescreened at 3 months, 49% (427/877) remained distressed. Out of our target of 226, 131 participants were randomised; 65 to VIP and 66 to TAU alone. 68% (89/131) completed the primary outcome (post-intervention). The VIP showed no overall benefit; mean VIP –0.41 (SD 0.89) vs mean TAU –0.19 (SD 1.11); standardised mean difference –0.039; 95% CI (–0.39, 0.31), although stratified analyses suggested an effect in burglary victims (n=27, standardised mean difference –0.61; 95% CI (–1.22, –0.002), p=0.049).

Community crime had long-lasting impacts. The police are ideally placed to screen for distress, present in 35% of victims, but only 58% of participants were recruited and the cognitive–behavioural therapy was not delivered competently. Further research on victim care and improving the delivery and quality of therapy is required.

All procedures were approved by the University College London (UCL) Research Ethics Committee on 17 March 2016 (6960/001). International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number is ISRCTN16929670: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16929670.