摘要:目的：探讨低血糖指数膳食干预对2 型糖尿病病人营养治疗效果的影响。方法：选择住院2 型糖尿病病人109例,随机分为营养组56例和对照组53例。营养组由营养师根据患者情况提供低血糖指数营养治疗饮食,对照组则自行控制饮食。分别于住院第1天与3个月复查时对两组患者进行膳食调查及相关生化指标测定, 以观察营养治疗的效果。结果:采用干预措施后, 两组空腹血糖、餐后2 h血糖、糖化血红蛋白、血清胆固醇、甘油三酯等生化指标均降低, 但营养组与对照组相比效果更为明显(P＜005)；营养组的饮食结构更为合理。结论：低血糖指数膳食可有效控制2 型糖尿病病人的血糖、血脂水平,对促进患者康复有积极意义。Abstract: Objective: To observed the effect of nutrition therapy of low glycemic index foods on type 2 diabetic patients. Methods: A total of 109 subjects with the hospitalized diabetes were randomly allocated into two groups: The nutrition group(56 cases) were provided with weighed individual low glycemic index foods and the control group(53 cases) went on diet dominated by themselves. patients in both groups were investigated on meals, diabetic nutrition knowledge and were detected for correlative biochemical indices. Results：After the nutrition treatment, patients biochemical indices of fasting bloodglucose, blood sugar 2 hours after meal, hemoglobin of glycosylation, cholesterol and triglyceride in serum in both groups were significantly lower. Compared with the control group, the effect of the nutrition group was even better. The acknowledgement rate of nutrition knowledge on diabetes of the nutrition group improved significantly, and their meals were more scientifically arranged. Conclusion: The nutrition therapy of low glycemic index foods would be very helpful for type 2 diabetic patients to control their bloodsugar level and improve the nutritional state and outcome.
Objective To compare the condition of the structure and oxidative stress of great saphenous vein grafts between the patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus, and to study the mechanisms for providing the theory evidence ofthe protective way for great saphenous vein graft in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods The segments of human great saphenous vein graft were collected from 36 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, who were divided into 2 groups, experimental group (17 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus) and control group (19 patients without type 2 diabetes mell itus). There was no significant difference in age, gender, hypertension, serum creatinine, hyperl ipidemia, smoking, and the number of pathological coronary arteries between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Two cm distal great saphenous vein from each patient was obtained. The structure of great saphenous vein was observed by the microscope, and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase enzymatic activity and superoxide anion level were quantified by lucigenin-enhanced chemilumi nescence. Results The NADPH oxidase activity and superoxide anion levels were significantly higher in experimental group [(308.8 ± 33.7) counts/μg and (1 951.71 ± 355.2) counts/(min.mg)] than in control group [(202.7 ± 29.5) counts/μg and (1 230.73 ± 340.5) counts/(min.mg)] (P lt; 0.05). HE staining showed the damage of ultrastructure of great saphenous vein endothel ium in experimental group, including necrosis and exfol iation of endoepithel ial cells, spl itting of the basement membrane, thickened lower layer of the endothelium with vacuoles and deformed vascular smooth muscle cells; however, integrated vessel intima was observed in control group.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of glimepiride for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods We searched the literature from PubMed, Ovid (All EBM Reviews), CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM and other databases. Evaluating the quality of the study according to Cochrane systematic reviews, Meta-analysis was performed for the results of homogeneous studies by The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 5.0, and the heterogeneous data conducted a descriptive qualitative analysis. Results Six RCTs included in the analysis and Meta-analysis was not performed due to the insufficient data (for the median or standard deviation). Six RCTs are multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. The results showed that glimepiride groups to reduce glycosylated hemoglobin, lower fasting and postprandial blood glucose, postprandial plasma insulin enhance the efficacy were statistically significant differences (Plt;0.05) compared to placebo groups. Four studies informed the impact of fasting plasma insulin (FI) and 3 studies showed that the glimepiride groups improving the fasting plasma insulin (FI) were statistically significant differences (Plt;0.05), but 1 study showed the two groups had no significant difference (Pgt;0.05). All studies showed minor adverse reactions of glimepiride. Conclusion Glimepiride can reduce the glycosylated hemoglobin, lower the fasting and postprandial blood glucose, improve fasting and postprandial plasma insulin for type 2 diabetes patients, and have minor adverse reactions. In a word, glimepiride is an effective and security sulfonylureas drug.
Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of metformin plus rosiglitazone in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods Based on the principles and methods of Cochrane systematic reviews, we searched the CochraneLibrary (2008, 4 issue), PubMed (1966 to October 19, 2008), Embase (1974 to October 19, 2008), China BiomedicalLiterature Database (1978 to October 12, 2008), China Journal Fulltext Database (1994 to October 12, 2008), ChineseScientific Journals Full text Database (1989 to October 12, 2008). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Metforminplus roziglitazone versus metformin for type 2 diabetes were included. We assessed the quality of the included RCTsaccording to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 5.0 was used for meta-analysis. Results Twelve RCTs totaling 3020 patients were included. Metaanalysis showed that Glycosylated hemoglobin levels [WMD= – 0.48%, 95%CI (– 0.74, – 0.22), P=0.000 3], fasting plasma glucose levels [WMD= – 1.03mmol/L, 95%CI (– 1.85, – 0.75), Plt;0.000 01], insulin sensitivity, and β-cell function improved significantly with metformin plus rosiglitazone therapy. Compared with the metformin monotherapy group, patients treated with metformin plus rosiglitazone had more edema events [RR= 3.27, 95%CI (1.80, 5.91), Plt;0.000 1] and lower gastro-intestinal events [RR= 0.82, 95%CI (0.71, 0.94), P=0.004]. We found no statistically significant effect on body weight, the percentage of patients with at least one adverse event, and hypoglycemia events. Conclusions Current evidence demonstrates that combination treatment with metformin plus rosiglitazone improves glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and cells function more effectively than with metformin monotherapy. Side effects of two types of therapy have differences in performance.
Objective To investigate the gastrin level in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and analyze the possible mechanism of gastrin in the pathogenesis of T2DM combined with GERD. Methods Thirty-eight patients with T2DM combined with GERD treated between January 2013 and January 2015 were designated as group A; 40 patients with T2DM only were regarded as group B; 36 patients with GERD only were regarded as group C; and another 40 healthy volunteers who underwent physical examination at the same period were regarded as group D. The fasting serum levels of gastrin were measured and compared among the above four groups. Results The fasting serum level of gastrin was significantly higher in group A [(116.53±22.02) pg/mL] than group B [(101.89±20.76) pg/mL], group C [(90.04±21.16) pg/mL], and group D [(92.48±19.69) pg/mL] (P<0.01). The fasting serum level of gastrin in group B was significantly higher than group C and D (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between group C and D in terms of fasting serum level of gastrin (P>0.05). Conclusions There is a high level of gastrin in patients with GERD combined with T2DM. Abnormal secretion of gastrin may be closely related with the occurrence and development of T2DM and GERD.