4.7 Article

Similar postprandial glycemic reductions with escalation of dose and administration time of American ginseng in type 2 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 23, 期 9, 页码 1221-1226

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.23.9.1221

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - We previously demonstrated that 3 g American ginseng (AG) reduced postprandial glycemia (PPG) in type 2 diabetic individuals. We investigated whether further reductions can be achieved with escalation of dose and time of AG administration. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Ten type 2 diabetic patients (6 men, 4 women; age 63 +/- 2 years; BMI 27.7 +/- 1.5 kg/m(2); HbA(1c) 7.3 +/- 0.3%) were randomly administered 0 g (placebo) or 3, 6, or 9 g ground AG root in capsules at 120, 80, 40, or 0 min before a 25-g oral glucose challenge. Capillary blood glucose was measured before ingestion of AG or placebo and at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 min from the start of the glucose challenge. RESULTS - Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) demonstrated that treatment (0, 3, 6, and 9 g AG) but not time of administration (120, 80, 40, or 0 min before the challenge) significantly affected PPG (P < 0.05), with significant (P = 0.037) interaction for area under the curve (AUC). Pairwise comparisons showed that compared with 0 g (placebo), 3, 6, or 9 g significantly (P < 0.05) reduced AUC (19.7, 15.3, and 15.9%, respectively) and incremental glycemia at 30 min (16.3, 18.4, and 18.4%, respectively), 45 min (12.5, 14.3, and 14.3%, respectively), and 120 min (59.1, 40.9, and 45.5%, respectively). However, pairwise comparisons showed no differences between the 3-, 6-, or 9-g doses and ally of the times of administration. CONCLUSIONS - AG reduced PPG irrespective of dose and time of administration. No mure than 3 g AG was required at any time in relation to the challenge to achieve reductions. Because these reductions included glycemia at the 2-h diagnostic end point, there may be implications for diabetes diagnosis and treatment.

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

4.7
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