| Literature DB >> 34104201 |
Alireza Niknafs1, Mohammadreza Rezvanfar2, Mohammad Kamalinejad3, Seyed Amirhosein Latifi1, Amir Almasi-Hashiani4, Mehdi Salehi1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It has been well established in the world that lipid disorders promote the development of atherosclerosis and its clinical consequences. This study aimed to assess the impacts of a Persian medicinal (PM) compound on lipid profile.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34104201 PMCID: PMC8159633 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6631963
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Baseline characteristics.
| Total ( | Intervention arm ( | Control arm ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female sex | 43 (58.1%) | 20 (54.1%) | 23 (62.2%) |
| Male sex | 31 (41.9%) | 17 (45.9%) | 14 (37.8%) |
| Age, years | 48.7 ± 10.3 | 48.8 ± 10.7 | 48.6 ± 10 |
|
| |||
| Single | 6 (8.1%) | 3 (8.1%) | 3 (8.1%) |
| Married | 64 (86.5%) | 30 (81.1%) | 34 (91.9%) |
| Widowed/divorced | 4 (5.4%) | 4 (10.8%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| |||
| Unemployed | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (2.7%) | 0 (0%) |
| Self-employed | 9 (12.2%) | 3 (8.1%) | 6 (16.2%) |
| White collar worker | 25 (33.8%) | 12 (32.4%) | 13 (35.1%) |
| Blue collar worker | 3 (4.1%) | 2 (5.4%) | 1 (2.7%) |
| Housewife/retired | 36 (48.6%) | 19 (51.4%) | 17 (45.9%) |
| Height (cm) | 166.7 ± 8.6 | 167.7 ± 9.2 | 165.7 ± 7.9 |
| Weight (kg) | 77.8 ± 13.4 | 77.3 ± 12.9 | 78.3 ± 14.1 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 27.9 ± 3.5 | 27.4 ± 3.3 | 28.3 ± 3.8 |
| Smoking | 12 (16.2%) | 7 (18.9%) | 5 (13.5%) |
| Exercise | 7 (9.5%) | 3 (8.1%) | 4 (10.8%) |
| Alcohol consumption | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (2.7%) | 0 (0%) |
Data are represented as number (%) or mean ± standard deviation. BMI, body mass index; cm: centimeter; kg: kilogram; kg/m2: kilogram per square meter.
Comparison and changes in the lipid profile between intervention and placebo groups after 6 weeks (mean ± SD).
| Parameters | Intervention group ( | Baseline placebo group ( |
| Intervention group ( | After 6 weeks placebo group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serum cholesterol (mg/dL) | 234.56 ± 7.35 | 227 ± 6.85 | 0.46 | 198.65 ± 6.24 | 222.08 ± 6.38 | 0.01 |
| HDL (mg/dL) | 44.24 ± 1.58 | 41.45 ± 1.37 | 0.18 | 42.2 ± 1.33 | 38.58 ± 1.03 | 0.03 |
| LDL (mg/dL) | 136.56 ± 5.85 | 138.31 ± 7.24 | 0.85 | 110.02 ± 6.01 | 133.61 ± 6.69 | 0.01 |
| VLDL (mg/dL) | 53.28 ± 3.05 | 50.44 ± 2.66 | 0.48 | 45.35 ± 2.64 | 49.87 ± 2.62 | 0.2 |
| Serum TG (mg/dL) | 272.48 ± 15.53 | 252.29 ± 13.23 | 0.32 | 231.88 ± 14.08 | 256.02 ± 13.4 | 0.2 |
SD: standard deviation; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; LDL: low-density lipoprotein; VLDL: very-low-density lipoprotein; TG: triglyceride; mg/dl: milligram per deciliter.
Figure 1CONSORT flow diagram of the study.
Figure 2Comparison of cholesterol levels (a), HDL level (b), and LDL level (c) between the intervention and placebo groups before and after the trial. Data are expressed as mean ± standard error of mean (SE). p value< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Significantly different compared to the placebo group (p < 0.05). Significantly different compared to the placebo group (p < 0.01). Independent t-test analysis was applied to evaluate the data.
Figure 3Comparison of triglyceride levels (a) and VLDL level (b) between the intervention and placebo groups before and after the trial. Data are expressed as mean ± SE. p value< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Independent t-test analysis was applied to evaluate the data.