| Literature DB >> 34285701 |
Rasool Soltani1,2, Syed Mustafa Ghanadian3, Bijan Iraj4, Alireza Homayouni5,6, Tanin Shahmiveh Esfahani7, Mojtaba Akbari8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Berberis integerrima Bunge fruits have been utilized in traditional medicine to control diabetes mellitus (DM). However, no clinical survey has been done in this regard. This study was conducted to clinically evaluate the effects of fruit extract of this plant in improving glycemic control indices in patients with type 2 DM (T2DM).Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34285701 PMCID: PMC8275404 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5583691
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1The CONSORT flowchart of the study.
Baseline characteristics of study patients.
| Parameter | Drug group ( | Control group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years; mean ± SD) | 56.10 ± 7.20 | 57.60 ± 7.70 | 0.416 |
| Sex (n) | |||
| Male | 5 | 6 | 0.959 |
| Female | 25 | 29 | |
| Antidiabetic drug ( | |||
| Acarbose | 1 | 1 | |
| Sitagliptin | 8 | 8 | 0.837 |
| Linagliptin | 1 | 1 | |
| Pioglitazone | 7 | 5 |
Antidiabetic drug other than metformin.
Preintervention and postintervention values of parameters and their comparison between the two groups.
| Parameter | Group | Time |
| OR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | End (week 8) | |||||
| BMI (kg/m2) | Control | 29.5 ± 4.4 | 29.6 ± 4.3 | 0.180 | 1.375 (0.619–3.058) | |
|
| 4.4 ± 29.7 | 4.4 ± 29.7 | 0.970 | |||
|
| 0.856 | 0.935 | 0.492 | |||
|
| ||||||
| FBS (mg/dl) | Control | 128 (118–141) | 134 (120–142) | 0.110 | 0.979 (0.956–1.002) | |
|
| 125 (114.8–134.5) | 117.5 (107–128.8) | 0.110 | |||
|
| 0.498 | 0.001 | 0.026 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Serum insulin (U/ml) | Control | 4.8 (3.1–10.1) | 7.5 (3.8–9.4) | 0.296 | 0.975 (0.881–1.079) | |
|
| 5 (2.9–8.6) | 6 (3.6–9.1) | 0.698 | |||
|
| 0.963 | 0.400 | 0.792 | |||
|
| ||||||
| HbA1c (g/dl) | Control | 7.2 (6.7–8.4) | 7.5 (6.8–7.9) | 0.872 | 1.413 (0.860–2.321) | |
|
| 7.4 (6.8–7.7) | 7 (6.4–7.7) | 0.430 | |||
|
| 0.879 | 0.045 | 0.045 | |||
|
| ||||||
| HOMA-IR | Control | 26.8 (14.9–54.5) | 43.5 (23.3–55.1) | 0.368 | 1.003 (0.987–1.020) | |
|
| 28.8 (15.4–46.1) | 30.7 (17.9–46.4) | 0.910 | |||
|
| 0.803 | 0.124 | 0.517 | |||
|
| ||||||
| SBP (mm Hg) | Control | 13 (12–14) | 13 (12–14) | 0.936 | 0.884 (0.592–1.319) | |
|
| 12 (11–14) | 12 (11–14) | 0.315 | |||
|
| 0.450 | 0.234 | 0.246 | |||
|
| ||||||
| DBP (mm Hg) | Control | 8 (7–9) | 8 (7-8) | 0.415 | 1.308 (0.754–2.268) | |
|
| 8 (7-8) | 8 (7–9) | 0.565 | |||
|
| 0.521 | 0.994 | 0.298 | |||
The values are mean ± SD for BMI and median (IQR) for other parameters. BMI, body mass index; FBS, fasting blood sugar; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; HOMA-IR, homeostasis assessment model for insulin resistance; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure. Comparison of preintervention and postintervention values between the two groups (Mann–Whitney U test). Comparison of preintervention and postintervention values within each group (Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Comparison between the two groups with control of baseline values (ANCOVA test). Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for comparison of mean differences between the groups.