| Literature DB >> 25905057 |
Alireza Ostadrahimi1, Akbar Taghizadeh2, Majid Mobasseri3, Nazila Farrin1, Laleh Payahoo1, Zahra Beyramalipoor Gheshlaghi2, Morteza Vahedjabbari4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a global health problem in the world. Probiotic food has anti-diabetic property. The aim of this trial was to determine the effect of probiotic fermented milk (kefir) on glucose and lipid profile control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Entities:
Keywords: Diabetes; Glucose; Kefir; Lipid profile; Probiotic fermented milk
Year: 2015 PMID: 25905057 PMCID: PMC4401881
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Public Health ISSN: 2251-6085 Impact factor: 1.429
Fig.1:Flow chart of the study
Colony count of probiotic strains in probiotic fermented milk
| 25×10 6 | 12×10 6 | 5×10 6 | 3×10 6 | |
| 15×10 6 | 10×10 6 | 4×10 6 | 2×10 6 | |
| 8×10 6 | 6×10 6 | 2×10 6 | 0.5×10 6 |
The demographic data in the probiotic fermented milk(kefir) and conventional fermented milk (dough) groups
| Sex | 0.84 | ||
| Female n (%) | 12(40) | 14(46.66) | |
| Male n(%) | 18(60) | 16(53.33) | |
| Body Mass Index (kg/m 2 ) | 28.89±4.77 | 27.47±3.55 | 0.23 |
| Duration of Diseases | 6.47±0.90 | 7.36±0.84 | 0.10 |
Weight and dietary intake of subjects before and after intervention
| Before | 77.46±13.26 | 74.92±11.48 | 0.46 |
| After intervention | 77.78±12.78 | 75.40±11.27 | 0.47 |
| Before | 1994.13±405.02 | 1806.13±380.89 | 0.13 |
| After intervention | 2015.13±402.45 | 1927.65±402.25 | 0.39 |
| Before | 225.13±69.78 | 252.20±52.30 | 0.87 |
| After intervention | 246.25±60.56 | 248.98±54.51 | 0.88 |
| Before | 67.72±19.13 | 61.17±18.54 | 0.26 |
| After intervention | 66.01±18.66 | 66.54±20.62 | 0.93 |
| Before | 80.10±22.33 | 63.27±17.13 | 0.01
|
| After intervention | 82.09±29.19 | 66.23±19.47 | 0.08 |
Significant difference between groups at baseline (P=0.01, independent sample t -test )
Blood levels of serum glucose, HbA1Cand lipid profiles at baseline and at the end of the study
| Before | 161.63±57.71 | 183.42±74.76 | 0.22 |
| After intervention | 139.22±46.66
| 182.16±73.78 | 0.01
|
| Before | 7.61±1.22 | 6.98±1.63 | 0.12 |
| After intervention | 6.40±1.91
| 7.00±1.98 | 0.26
|
| Before | 197.86±51.99 | 204.56±42.85 | 0.60 |
| After intervention | 186.07±61.03
| 195.96±54.85 | 0.52
|
| Before | 179.25±87.84 | 176.67±98.65 | 0.92 |
| After intervention | 170.11±118.66 | 171.76±78.47 | 0.95 |
| Before | 102.65±30.04 | 102.78±31.56 | 0.92 |
| After intervention | 98.19±39.23 | 92.80±34.43 | 0.74 |
| Before | 45.36±11.14 | 43.37±13.03 | 0.53 |
| After intervention | 44.00±13.30 | 43.64±11.44 | 0.96 |
differences within the group (P=0.05, paired t-test)
difference between two groups (P=0.03), adjusting for baseline value according to ANCOVA model
difference within group (P=0.001, paired t-test).
difference between two groups (P=0.02), adjusting for serum levels of glucose, baseline values of HbA1c and energy intake according to ANCOVA model
differences within the group (P=0.07, paired t-test), analysis was performed for 27 patients.
difference between two groups (P=0.08). Near to significance. Adjusting for baseline values, energy and fat intake according to ANCOVA model