目的:观察黄芪注射液治疗糖尿病肾病的临床疗效。 方法:将116例糖尿病肾病患者随机分为治疗组和对照组,治疗组在对照组的基础上同时使用黄芪注射液,观察治疗后4周24小时尿蛋白定量、血肌酐、尿素氮、血尿β2微球蛋白、甘油三酯、总胆固醇、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇、血尿酸等变化.结果:治疗组治疗后24小时尿蛋白定量、血尿酸均有不同程度的改善,与治疗前比较Plt;0.05,治疗组与对照组比较Plt;0.05。而血尿β2微球蛋白、血胆固醇无明显变化。结论:黄芪注射液对糖尿病肾病有较好的疗效。
Objective To carry out Meta analyses about the published literature that concerns Kaishi injection curing diabetic nephropathy, and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Kaishi injection for diabetic nephropathy. Methods We searched the following databases: PubMed (1995 to 2010), EMCC (1995 to 2010), CBM (1995 to 2010), CNKI (1995 to 2010), and VIP (1989 to 2010) to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Kaishi injection curing diabetic nephropathy. The selection of studies, assessment of methodological quality and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. According to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria Cochrane systematic review methods, the methodological quality assessment was undertaken, and meta-analyses were performed by using The Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 4.2.8 software. Evolution index were included: UAER, Scr, BUN, and 24 hours urinary protein.Results The literature included 19 RCTs with a total of 1 153 cases. Among them, 594 cases belonged to the treatment group and the control group included 559 ones. The studies of baseline data were comparable, and all reported that there were random methods but did not mention blinding and allocation concealment. Only one mentioned references to a listof random numbers by random grouping. The results of meta-analyses indicated that Kaishi injection was superior to routine treatment in decreasing UAER [WMD= – 77.86, 95%CI (– 85.64, – 70.08)], Scr [WMD= – 3.14, 95%CI (– 5.30, – 0.98)], BUN [WMD= – 0.71, 95%CI (– 1.13, – 0.29)], and 24 hours urinary protein [WMD= – 0.56, 95%CI (– 0.79, – 0.33)]. Conclusion The treatment of the diabetic nephropathy of Kaishi injection is superior to the conventional therapy. However, because of few high quality literature and limited sample size, further study is needed.
目的:观察阿托伐他汀对抗糖尿病肾病患者肾氧化损伤作用。方法:56例糖尿病肾病患者随即分为对照组和阿托伐他汀组。对照组给予降糖、降压等治疗,阿托伐他汀组则在对照组治疗基础上加用阿托伐他汀10 mg/d,疗程共12周。检测两组患者治疗前后FBG、BUN、Scr、尿微量白蛋白以及血脂、血清SOD和MDA水平。结果:12周后两组患者FBG、BUN、Scr、尿微量白蛋白均较治疗前下降;与治疗前相比,阿托伐他汀组患者血脂水平较治疗前明显改善,同时患者血清SOD活性增,MDA含量下降,二者之间的差异具有显著性意义。结论:阿托伐他汀除具有降血脂作用外,还可改善糖尿病肾病患者的氧化应激状态。
目的:观察采用疏血通注射液联合ACEI/ARB治疗早期糖尿病肾病(DN)的疗效。方法:将78例2型DN患者随机分为对照组(ACEI/ARB)和治疗组(ACEI/ARB+疏血通注射液),疗程4周。比较两组治疗前和治疗后尿微量白蛋白(mAlb),Scr、BUN等指标的变化。结果:(1)治疗后治疗组和对照组尿白蛋白均显著下降(Plt;0.01,Plt;0.05),治疗组比对照组下降更为明显(Plt;0.05)。(2)治疗后两组血浆白蛋白均增加(Plt;0.01),治疗组与对照组治疗后比较无明显差异(Pgt;0.05)。(3)治疗后两组Scr、BUN、TC、TG和血钾均无明显变化。结论:联合应用疏血通注射液能有效减少早期DN患者的蛋白尿,改善肾功能。
ObjectiveTo systematically review the independent physical risk factors associated with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI and VIP for all studies about the independent physical risk factors associated with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus up to December 2012. Two reviewers independently screened studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 11 studies involving 12 957 patients with type 2 diabetes were included. Of these 11 studies, 9 were cross-sectional studies, two were cohort studies, and one was case-control study. The results showed that:the main physical factors associated with DKD were:duration of diabetes (OR=1.11, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.18), waist circumference (OR=1.02, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.04), fasting glucose (OR=1.11, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.16), glycosylated hemoglobin (OR=1.20, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.36), systolic blood pressure (OR=1.03, 95%CI 1.02 to 1.05), diastolic blood pressure (OR=2.41, 95%CI 1.15 to 4.64), triglycerides (OR=1.24, 95%CI 1.02 to 1.51), high-density lipoprotein (OR=0.558, 95%CI 0.369 to 0.844), blood uric acid (OR=1.005, 95%CI 1.002 to 1.009), blood urea nitrogen (OR=1.58, 95%CI 1.37 to 1.82), past history of kidney disease (OR=3.26, 95%CI 1.20 to 8.87) and family history of kidney disease (OR=1.83, 95%CI 1.29 to 2.60). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that multiple physical factors were associated with the development of type 2 diabetic kidney disease. However, due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the conclusion.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tripterygium for diabetic nephropathy. Methods All randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs or quasi-RCTs) of tripterygium for biabetic nephropathy were collected from The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2010), MEDLINE (1996 to March 2010), CNKI (1994 to March 2010), and CBM (1978 to March 2010). Two reviewers evaluated the quality of the trials and extracted the data independently. RevMan 5.0 software was used for meta-analyses. Results A total of 12 RCTs involving 862 patients were identified. The methodology of the included trials was poor and potential publication bias existed. The meta-analyses results showed: (1) Compared with the conventional treatment, the tripterygium showed more effects in reducing the 24-hour urinary protein (Clinical phase: WMD= –0.49, 95%CI –0.63 to –0.34, No phase: WMD= –0.60, 95%CI –0.96 to –0.24), and the urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER) (WMD= –148.75, 95%CI –238.01 to –59.48) was higher than that of the conventional treatment. (2) There were no significant differences between the two groups in the effect on the serum creatinine (Clinical phase: WMD= –8.43, 95%CI –18.15 to 1.29, No phase: WMD= –0.66, 95%CI –2.12 to 0.79) and creatinine clearance rate (WMD= 1.74, 95%CI –6.34 to 9.83). (3) Without enough data, it was uncertain to define the effect of tripterygium on lipids, blood pressure of the DN patients. (4) No severe adverse events or allergic reactions were reported. Conclusion Tripterygium may be a kind of medicine relatively safe and effective for diabetic nephropathy. However, the evidence is not b enough because of some low-quality trials and publication bias. Rigorously-designed, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trials of tripterygium for diabetic nephropathy are needed to further assess the effect.