| Literature DB >> 32908567 |
Lili Legiawati1, Kusmarinah Bramono1, Wresti Indriatmi1, Em Yunir2, Siti Setiati2, Sri Widia A Jusman3, Erni H Purwaningsih4, Heri Wibowo5, Retno Danarti6.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (DM) is related to skin disorders, particularly dry skin. Pathogenesis of dry skin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) rises from the chronic hyperglycemia causing an increase in advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), proinflammatory cytokines, and oxidative stress. Combination of oral and topical Centella asiatica (CA) is expected to treat dry skin in T2DM patients more effectively through decreasing N(6)-carboxymethyl-lysine (CML) and interleukin-1α (IL-1α) and increasing superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32908567 PMCID: PMC7471832 DOI: 10.1155/2020/7253560
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1CONSORT flow diagram.
Demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics based on the intervention group (N = 159).
| Variable | CAo + CAt ( | Plo + CAt ( | Plo + Plt ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.04 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 52 (34–58) | 54 (26–59) | 53 (34–59) | |
| Gender, | 0.97 | |||
| Male | 13 (24.5) | 14 (26.4) | 12 (22.6) | |
| Female | 40 (75.5) | 39 (73.6) | 41 (77.4) | |
| Dry skin treatment history, | 19 (35.8) | 13 (24.5) | 13 (24.5) | 0.33 |
| Pruritus VAS, | 0.67 | |||
| Not pruritus | 39 (73.6) | 43 (81.1) | 39 (73.6) | |
| Low pruritus | 14 (26.4) | 9 (17) | 14 (26.4) | |
| Moderate pruritus | 0 (0) | 1 (1.9) | 0 (0) | |
| Dry skin duration, months | 0.38 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 12 (0–360) | 12 (0–420) | 12 (0–480) | |
| BMI median (min–max) (kg/m2) | 25.8 (18.8–38.2) | 26.6 (19–39.8) | 26.3 (20.4–35.3) | 0.82 |
| Hypertension, | 30 (56.6) | 33 (62.3) | 33 (62.3) | 0.79 |
| Atopy history, | 43 (81.1) | 42 (79.2) | 36 (67.9) | 0.23 |
| DM medication types, | ||||
| 1 type OHA | 23 (43.4) | 25 (47.2) | 23 (43.4) | 0.90 |
| 2 types OHA | 25 (47.2) | 22 (41.5) | 26 (49.1) | 0.72 |
| 3 types OHA | 3 (5.7) | 3 (5.7) | 3 (5.7) | 1 |
| Insulin | 14 (26.4) | 16 (30.2) | 9 (17) | 0.27 |
| HbA1c (%) | 0.33 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 7.7 (5.2–13.3) | 8.95 (5.5–14.9) | 7.4 (5–13.8) | |
| Triglyceride (mg/dL) | 0.14 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 144 (62–616) | 183 (64–1435) | 173.5 (69–708) | |
| RBG (mg/dL) | ||||
| D 1 | 0.18 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 172 (69–444) | 200 (66–473) | 159 (77–524) | |
| SGOT (U/L) | ||||
| D 1 | 0.62 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 18 (9–48) | 16 (8–48) | 17 (10–68) | |
| SGPT (U/L) | ||||
| D 1 | 1.00 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 21 (7–70) | 20 (6–57) | 21 (6–88) |
Pearson chi-square. Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to assess the difference. BMI = body mass index, OHA = oral antihyperglycemic agent, RBG = random blood glucose, SGOT = serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, and SGPT = serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase.
SRRC, SCap, CML, IL-1α, and SOD activity based on the intervention group (N = 159).
| Variable | CAo + CAt ( | Plo + CAt ( | Plo + Plt ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRRC | ||||
| D 1 | 0.07 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 4 (3–10) | 4 (3–8) | 5 (3–8) | |
| D 15 | 0.48 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 2 (0–6) | 3 (0–7) | 3 (0–7) | |
| D 29 | 0.71 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 2 (0–6) | 2 (0–7) | 2 (0–6) | |
| SCap (AU) | ||||
| D 1 | 0.34 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 27.7 (10.4–36.4) | 25.4 (10.7–37.8) | 26.2 (12.1–46) | |
| D 15 | 0.38 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 37.6 (14.5–61.6) | 35.9 (12.5–61) | 35 (16.1–59.9) | |
| D 29 | 0.39 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 43.5 (14.5–65.9) | 44.6 (13.1–64) | 38.5 (16.9–63.7) | |
| CML (pg/mg protein) | ||||
| D 1 | 0.79 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 87.2 (20.12–14559.42) | 77.2 (4.1–385.7) | 93.9 (14–407.8) | |
| D 29 | 0.41 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 119.8 (24.2–615.9) | 119.4 (25.2–1731.4) | 104.8 (22–748.1) | |
| IL-1 | ||||
| D 1 | 0.60 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 16.5 (2.9–167.3) | 16 (2.1–110.5) | 17.6 (4.4–114.6) | |
| D 29 | 0.68 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 19.7 (3.2–167.3) | 18.2 (4.9–69.6) | 17.6 (4.9–114.5) | |
| SOD (U/mg protein) | ||||
| D 1 | 0.31 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 4.6 (0.3–59.4) | 3.4 (0.3–41.5) | 3.9 (0.2–35) | |
| D 29 | 0.07 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 5.9 (1–59.4) | 4.3 (0.2–18.7) | 4.9 (0.1–23.6) |
Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to assess the difference.
Comparison of SRRC, percentage of SRRC decrement, and SCap subgroup analysis in well-controlled blood glucose subjects.
| Parameter | CAo + CAt | Plo + CAt | Plo + Plt |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRRC | ||||
| D 1 | 0.14 | |||
| | 18 | 16 | 21 | |
| Median (min–max) | 4 (3–10) | 5 (3–7) | 5 (3–8) | |
| D 15 | 0.77 | |||
| | 20 | 18 | 18 | |
| Median (min–max) | 2 (0–6) | 2.5 (0–4) | 2 (0–7) | |
| D 29 | 0.12 | |||
| | 20 | 17 | 18 | |
| Median (min–max) | 1 (0–5) | 2 (0–5) | 2 (0–6) | |
| Percentage of SRRC decrement | ||||
| D 15 | 0.55 | |||
| | 20 | 18 | 18 | |
| Median (min–max) | 50 (0–100) | 50 (0–100) | 33.3 (0–100) | |
| D 29 | 0.11 | |||
| | 20 | 17 | 18 | |
| Median (min–max) |
| 60 (0–100) |
| |
| SCap (AU) | ||||
| D 1 | 0.30 | |||
| | 18 | 16 | 21 | |
| Median (min–max) | 27.9 (15.6–36.4) | 24.3 (15–32.7) | 25.9 (13.8–46) | |
| D 15 | 0.36 | |||
| | 20 | 18 | 18 | |
| Median (min–max) | 40.5 (21.1–51.6) | 38.1 (21.8–58.5) | 36.1 (21.5–59.9) | |
| D 29 |
| |||
| | 20 | 17 | 18 | |
| Median (min–max) |
|
|
|
Kruskal–Wallis test amongst three groups, followed by the Mann–Whitney test, to assess the difference between each group. aCompared to Plo + Plt with p < 0.05.
Figure 2SRRC value of the CAo + CAt treatment group in various blood glucose control subgroups.
Figure 3SCap improvement of the CAo + CAt treatment group in various blood glucose control subgroups.
Comparisons of CML, IL-1α, and SOD analysis in the partially controlled blood glucose subgroup.
| Parameter | CAo + CAt | Plo + CAt | Plo + Plt |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D 1 | ||||
| | 13 | 9 | 14 | |
| CML (pg/mg protein) | 0.55 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 73.9 (26.7–219.9) | 153 (35.5–179.6) | 70.9 (27.5–279.4) | |
| IL-1 | 0.67 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 17.3 (7–32) | 17.9 (4.4–96.2) | 16.7 (6.8–47.1) | |
| SOD (U/mg protein) | 0.28 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 3.9 (0.3–11.2) | 6 (0.4–25.3) | 2.7 (0.2–16.4) | |
| D 29 | ||||
| | 13 | 7 | 14 | |
| CML (pg/mg protein) | 0.42 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 158 (26–524.6) | 82.7 (44.3–270.1) | 91.8 (22–422.1) | |
| IL-1 | 0.51 | |||
| Median (min–max) | 21.6 (7.9–65.9) | 17 (6.2–32.2) | 14.5 (4.9–80) | |
| SOD (U/mg protein) |
| |||
| Median (min–max) | 8.4 (1.3–25) | 2.4 (1.3–10.5) | 3.5 (0.2–8.1) |
Kruskal–Wallis test amongst the three groups, followed by the Mann–Whitney test, to assess the difference between each group. aCompared to Plo + Plt with p < 0.05.
Figure 4CML level of the CAo + CAt treatment group in various blood glucose control subgroups.
Figure 5IL-1α level of the CAo + CAt treatment group in various blood glucose control subgroups.
Figure 6SOD activity of the CAo + CAt treatment group in various blood glucose control subgroups.
Figure 7Scatter diagram showing relationships between (a) SOD activity versus CML level and (b) SOD activity versus IL-1α level in CAo + CAt with the well-controlled blood glucose group.
Figure 8The improvement of the SRRC score in the CAo + CAt intervention group through days 1, 15, and 29.
Figure 9Comparison of the mechanism of CAo + CAt in improving dry skin in T2DM patients (controlled blood glucose and uncontrolled blood glucose patients).