| Objective:To obverse Liu Wei Di Huang pills and Ginkgo leaves tablets at the basic treatment of early type2diabetes mellitus, and by the blood glucose, HbAlc, TC, TG,HDL-C and LDL-C, urine mAlb/Cr, TCM symptoms integral such as observation, to investigate the renal protective effects of traditional Chinese medicine for type2diabetes mellitus.Methods:Using hierarchical block randomized, double blind, parallel controlled experiment method, observation of140cases of early type2diabetic patients, were randomly divided into experimental group and control group with70cases in each group, the course was36months. The test group and the control group the same basic therapy (antidiabetic, antihypertensive), experimental group were given basic treatment plus six taste glutinous rehmannia ball and ginkgo leaf, the control group was given basic treatment plus six taste glutinous rehmannia pill placebo and ginkgo leaf placebo, collected before and after treatment in two general information of patients and blood glucose, HbA1c, TC, TG, HDL-C, LDL-C, urine mAlb/Cr clinical indicators and statistical analysis.Results:Follow up to thirty-sixth months, the test group was performed in56cases, control group54cases. During the36months, two groups of blood glucose, blood pressure were controlled well, meet the requirement of experiment, thirty-sixth months of the observed indicators statistics are as follows:1.carbohydrate metabolism index:(1) FBG:test group and control group were lower than baseline levels fall, test group FBG lower than the control group, group and the group has statistical significance (P>0.05);(2) PBG:two groups were lower than that of the baseline level, where in the test group and the baseline group decreased significantly, with statistical significance (10.70±4.28vs8.76±1.58, P<0.05), test group than those in control group, two groups were statistically significant (8.76±1.58vs9.20±3.32, P<0.05), test group decreased substantially greater than that of the control group, group comparison meaningful (-2.03±3.89vs-0.48±1.58, P<0.05);(3) HbAlc:two groups compared with baseline levels drop, the test group compared with the control group was not statistically significant (P>0.05);2.blood pressure:(1) SBP:the two group were statistically significant (test group129.29±3.42vs122.14±11.03, control group129.86±14.38vs122.43±12.57, P<0.05), the test group was slightly lower than that of control group, but not significantly (P>0.05);(2) DBP:two groups were lower than baseline decreased, within the group was statistically significant (P>0.05), the test group was lower than the control group, the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05);3. obesity indexes of BMI, WC:between group and group had no statistical significance (P>0.05), the test group was lower than the control group, the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05);4.lipids:(1) TC:two TC were lower than baseline rise, control group compared with control group statistical significance (5.11±4.78vs4.78±0.84, P<0.05), the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05);(2)TG:control group compared to the baseline was rising, the difference was statistically significant (4.78±0.84vs5.11±0.95, P<0.05), the test group and the baseline comparisons showed no significant differences (P>0.05), the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05);(3) HDL-C:two groups compared with baseline was falling, the test group higher than the control group, but not statistically significant (P>0.05);(4) LDL-C:test group was slightly lower than that of the control group (P>0.05);4.TCM syndrome integral: experimental group compared with the baseline score decreased, as compared to the baseline when the group score goes up, but the two groups compared with baseline was no significance (P>0.05), the difference between the two groups was not significant (P>0.05);5. urinary albumin, urinary creatinine:(1) mAlb/Cr urine (mg/g):the treatment group and the control group were lower than at baseline increased, within group comparisons showed no difference (P>0.05), test group was lowe rthan those in control group,but had no statistical significance (P>0.05);(2) the prevalence of DN:two DN prevalence rates were compared to the baseline when falling, test group decreased significantly, within group comparisons have significance (P<0.05), the control group within group comparisons had no statistical significance (P>0.05);(3) mAlb/Cr urine constituent ratio (%):two groups with normal urinary mAlb/Cr ratio compared with baseline was increasing,but not statistically significant (P>0.05), the proportion of test group higher than in the control group, but not statistically (P>0.05). |
PDF Full Text Request