| Literature DB >> 32724325 |
Jindong Zhao1, Yan Li2, Ling Xin3, Min Sun4, Chanjuan Yu1, Guobin Shi1, Taotao Bao1, Jian Liu1, Yingqun Ni1, RuiMin Lu1, Yuanyuan Wu1, Zhaohui Fang1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the clinical features of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and employ data mining technology to explore the rules of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) therapy.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32724325 PMCID: PMC7382735 DOI: 10.1155/2020/5795264
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Baseline characteristics.
| Variable | Value (mean ± SD) |
|---|---|
| Age (year) | 62.74 ± 11.25 |
| DOD (month) | 84.19 ± 62.20 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.16 ± 4.78 |
| FPG (mmol·L−1) | 8.54 ± 4.01 |
| HbA1c (%) | 9.91 ± 2.86 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.94 ± 1.76 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.59 ± 1.03 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.59 ± 1.03 |
| HCY (cm) | 18.98 ± 22.40 |
| MDNS (fraction) | 25.84 ± 1.12 |
Comparison of baseline characteristics in the two groups by DOD.
| Variable | ≥10 years | <10 years | Value |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male/female | 42/21 | 110/43 | 0.585 | 0.512 |
| Age (year) | 64.73 ± 11.77 | 61.92 ± 10.97 | 1.674 | 0.096 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.70 ± 4.36 | 25.35 ± 4.95 | −0.916 | 0.361 |
| FPG (mmol·L−1) | 8.00 ± 3.91 | 8.75 ± 4.04 | −1.253 | 0.212 |
| HbA1c (%) | 9.26 ± 2.63 | 10.17 ± 2.91 | −2.140 | 0.033 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.75 ± 1.42 | 2.02 ± 1.87 | −1.015 | 0.311 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.44 ± 0.94 | 4.64 ± 1.06 | −1.342 | 0.181 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.46 ± 1.07 | 2.63 ± 1.00 | −1.094 | 0.275 |
| HCY (cm) | 17.79 ± 18.99 | 19.47 ± 23.71 | −0.051 | 0.617 |
| MDNS (fraction) | 25.73 ± 5.25 | 25.89 ± 6.06 | −0.061 | 0.951 |
Figure 1Cluster analysis from baseline characteristics.
Figure 2Typical syndrome characteristics.
CHM frequencies and dose.
| Drug name | Frequency (%) | Dose (g) | Drug name | Frequency (%) | Dose (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 145 (67.12) | 24 | Tangerine peel | 74 (34.26) | 12 |
|
| 109 (50.46) | 15 | Radix Puerariae | 64 (29.63) | 16 |
|
| 106 (49.07) | 17 | Asari Radix et Rhizoma | 61 (28.24) | 6 |
| Radix Rehmanniae | 99 (45.83) | 16 | Radix Ophiopogonis | 54 (25.00) | 23 |
| Atractylodes rhizome | 97 (44.90) | 19 | Paeoniae Radix Alba | 53 (24.54) | 25 |
|
| 89 (41.20) | 10 | Moutan bark | 52 (24.07) | 22 |
|
| 88 (40.74) | 10 |
| 50 (23.15) | 13 |
| Cinnamomi Ramulus | 86 (39.81) | 22 | Typhonii Rhizoma | 49 (22.68) | 6 |
|
| 78 (36.11) | 14 |
| 39 (18.05) | 26 |
| Clematidis Radix et Rhizoma | 77 (35.64) | 27 |
| 39 (18.05) | 28 |
Figure 3Core prescriptions.
CHM correlation.
| CHM pair | Support (%) | Confidence (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| After item | Before item | ||
| Codonopsis pilosula | Radix Ophiopogonis | 81.82 | 96.38 |
|
| Radix Rehmanniae | 80.63 | 95.32 |
|
| Atractylodes rhizome | 82.84 | 93.88 |
|
|
| 81.87 | 92.64 |
| Tangerine peel | Paeoniae Radix Alba | 84.16 | 90.51 |
|
|
| 84.25 | 98.65 |
|
|
| 76.86 | 97.27 |
| Moutan bark |
| 80.83 | 96.04 |
Figure 4Cluster analysis from CHM.
CHM and correlation indicators.
| Drug | Indicators | Support (%) | Confidence (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| MDNS ↓ | 56.74 | 77.35 |
|
| MDNS ↓ | 50.25 | 74.31 |
| Radix Rehmanniae, Radix Ophiopogonis, and Radix Puerariae | FPG and HbA1c ↓ | 32.43 | 55.21 |
|
| FPG and HbA1c ↓ | 23.15 | 49.36 |
|
| LDL-C ↓ | 20.35 | 62.73 |