4.6 Article

Chinese Herbal Medicine Treatment Improves the Overall Survival Rate of Individuals with Hypertension among Type 2 Diabetes Patients and Modulates In Vitro Smooth Muscle Cell Contractility

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145109

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST 103-2320-B-039 -006 -MY3]
  2. China Medical University [CMU102-PH-01]
  3. China Medical University Hospital [DMR-104-029, DMR-104-089]
  4. China Medical University Beigang Hospital [CMUBH R103-008, CMUBH R104-007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic, multifactorial, and metabolic disorder accounting for 90% diabetes cases worldwide. Among them, almost half of T2D have hypertension, which is responsible for cardiovascular disease, morbidity, and mortality in these patients. The Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) prescription patterns of hypertension individuals among T2D patients have yet to be characterized. This study, therefore, aimed to determine their prescription patterns and evaluate the CHM effect. A cohort of one million randomly sampled cases from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) was used to investigate the overall survival rate of CHM users, and prescription patterns. After matching CHM and non-CHM users for age, gender and date of diagnosis of hypertension, 980 subjects for each group were selected. The CHM users were characterized with slightly longer duration time from diabetes to hypertension, and more cases for hyperlipidaemia. The cumulative survival probabilities were higher in CHM users than in non-CHM users. Among these top 12 herbs, Liu-Wei-Di-Huang-Wan, Jia-Wei-Xiao-Yao-San, Dan-Shen, and Ge-Gen were the most common herbs and inhibited in vitro smooth muscle cell contractility. Our study also provides a CHM comprehensive list that may be useful in future investigation of the safety and efficacy for individuals with hypertension among type 2 diabetes patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据