Sweet potato for type 2 diabetes mellitus
ABSTRACT Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) is a plant found in the tropical and subtropical belts and is one of the most nutritious tropical and subtropical vegetables. As well as being popular in cooking in countries in Asia-Pacific, Africa and North America, sweet potato is also used in traditional medicine for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. We decided to investigate whether there is enough evidence from medical trials to show whether sweet potato works as a treatment for diabetes. This review of randomised controlled trials found only three studies (with a total of 140 participants) that evaluated the effects of sweet potato for type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with a fake medicine (placebo). All these trials were of very low quality. Two studies with 122 participants showed improved long-term metabolic control of blood sugar levels as measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) which was moderately lowered by 0.3% in participants who were given 4 g sweet potato tablets a day for three to five months. The duration of treatment ranged from six weeks to five months. No study investigated diabetic complications, death from any cause, health-related quality of life, well-being, functional outcomes or costs. Adverse effects were mostly mild, and included abdominal distension and pain. There are many varieties of sweet potatoes and sweet potato preparations. More trials are needed to assess the quality of the various sweet potato preparations as well as to evaluate further the use of different varieties of sweet potato in the diet of diabetic people.
- SourceAvailable from: Cawich O Shamir[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: The aim of conventional medical therapy in diabetic foot infections is to control infection, thereby reducing amputation rates, infectious morbidity, and death. Any delay incurred during a trial of home remedies could allow an infection to progress unchecked, increasing the risk of these adverse outcomes. This study sought to determine the effects of delayed operative interventions and amputations in these patients. Methods: A questionnaire study targeting all consecutive patients admitted with diabetic foot infection was carried out over 1 year. Two groups were defined, ie, a medical therapy group comprising patients who sought medical attention after detecting their infection and a home remedy group comprising those who voluntarily chose to delay medical therapy in favor of home remedies. The patients were followed throughout their hospital admissions. We recorded the duration of hospitalization and number of operative debridements and amputations performed. Results: There were 695 patients with diabetic foot infections, comprising 382 in the medical therapy group and 313 in the home remedy group. Many were previously hospitalized for foot infections in the medical therapy (78%) and home remedy (74.8%) groups. The trial of home remedies lasted for a mean duration of 8.9 days. The home remedy group had a longer duration of hospitalization (16.3 versus 8.5 days; P<0.001), more operative debridements (99.7% versus 94.5%; P<0.001), and more debridements per patient (2.85 versus 2.45; P<0.001). Additionally, in the home remedy group, there was an estimated increase in expenditure of US $10,821.72 US per patient and a trend toward more major amputations (9.3% versus 5.2%; P=0.073). Conclusion: There are negative outcomes when patients delay conventional medical therapy in favour of home remedies to treat diabetic foot infections. These treatments need not be mutually exclusive. We encourage persons with diabetes who wish to try home remedies to seek medical advice in addition as a part of holistic care.Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 11/2014; 7(1):239-243. DOI:10.2147/RMHP.S72236
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Research is crucial to implement evidence-based health interventions for control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study aims to assess main features of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for control of NCDs, and to identify gaps in clinical research on NCDs between high-income and less developed countries. The study included 1177 RCTs in 82 Cochrane Systematic reviews (CSRs) and evaluated interventions for adults with hypertension, diabetes, stroke, or heart diseases. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore factors associated with risk of bias in included RCTs. We found that 78.2% of RCTs of interventions for major NCDs recruited patients in high-income countries. The number of RCTs included in the CSRs was increasing over time, and the increasing speed was more noticeable for RCTs conducted in middle-income countries. RCTs conducted in less developed countries tended to be more recently published, less likely to be published in English, with smaller sample sizes, and at a higher risk of bias. In conclusion, there is still a lack of research evidence for control of NCDs in less developed countries. To brace for rising NCDs and avoid waste of scarce research resources, not only more but also higher quality clinical trials are required in low-and-middle-income countries.Scientific Reports 01/2015; 5:13221. DOI:10.1038/srep13221 · 5.58 Impact Factor