Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

糖尿病に対するアーユルヴェーダ療法

Abstract

disponible en

Background

Patients with diabetes frequently use complimentary and alternative medications including Ayurvedic medications and hence it is important to determine their efficacy and safety.

Objectives

To assess the effects of Ayurvedic treatments for diabetes mellitus.

Search methods

We searched The Cochrane Library (issue 10, 2011), MEDLINE (until 31 August 2011), EMBASE (until 31 August 2011), AMED (until 14 October 2011), the database of randomised trials from South Asia (until 14 October 2011), the database of the grey literature (OpenSigle, until 14 October 2011) and databases of ongoing trials (until 14 October 2011). In addition we performed hand searches of several journals and reference lists of potentially relevant trials.

Selection criteria

We included randomized trials of at least two months duration of Ayurvedic interventions for diabetes mellitus. Participants of both genders, all ages and any type of diabetes were included irrespective of duration of diabetes, antidiabetic treatment, comorbidity or diabetes related complications.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors independently extracted data. Risk of bias of trials was evaluated as indicated in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention.

Main results

Results of only a limited number of studies could be combined, in view of different types of interventions and variable quality of data. We found six trials of proprietary herbal mixtures and one of whole system Ayurvedic treatment. These studies enrolled 354 participants ( 172 on treatment, 158 on controls, 24 allocation unknown). The treatment duration ranged from 3 to 6 months. All these studies included adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

With regard to our primary outcomes, significant reductions in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood sugar (FBS) or both were observed with Diabecon, Inolter and Cogent DB compared to placebo or no additional treatment, while no significant hypoglycaemic response was found with Pancreas tonic and Hyponidd treatment. The study of whole system Ayurvedic treatment did not provide data on HbA1c and FBS values. One study of Pancreas tonic treatment did not detect a significant change in health‐related quality of life. The main adverse effects reported were drug hypersensitivity (one study, one patient in the treatment arm); hypoglycaemic episodes (one study, one participant in the treatment arm; none had severe hypoglycaemia) and gastrointestinal side effects in one study (1 of 20 in the intervention group and 0 of 20 participants in the control group). None of the included studies reported any deaths, renal, hematological or liver toxicity.

With regard to our secondary outcomes, post prandial blood sugar (PPBS) was lower among participants treated with Diabecon, was unchanged with Hyponidd and was higher in patients treated with Cogent DB. Treatment with Pancreas tonic and Hyponidd did not affect lipid profile significantly, while patients treated with Inolter had significantly higher HDL‐ and lower LDL‐cholesterol as well as lower triglycerides. Cogent DB treated participants also had lower total cholesterol and triglycerides.

Studies of treatment with Diabecon reported increased fasting insulin levels; one study of treatment with Diabecon reported higher stimulated insulin levels and fasting C‐peptide levels in the treatment group. There was no significant difference in fasting and stimulated C‐peptide and insulin levels with Hyponidd, Cogent DB and Pancreas tonic treatment. The study of Inolter did not assess these outcomes.

No study reported on or was designed to investigate diabetic complications, death from any cause and economic data.

Authors' conclusions

Although there were significant glucose‐lowering effects with the use of some herbal mixtures, due to methodological deficiencies and small sample sizes we are unable to draw any definite conclusions regarding their efficacy. Though no significant adverse events were reported, there is insufficient evidence at present to recommend the use of these interventions in routine clinical practice and further studies are needed.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Plain language summary

糖尿病に対するアーユルヴェーダ療法

糖尿病などの慢性疾患の患者は、補完代替医療を用いることが多い。今回のレビューは、糖尿病に対するさまざまなアーユルヴェーダ療法の有用性および安全性を検討した。参加者354例(治療群172例、対照群158例、分類不可24例)を含む7件の試験を同定した。すべての試験に、2型糖尿病成人患者が組み入れられていた。5種類の薬草混合物(一般用医薬品)についての試験は6件、アーユルヴェーダ療法全体についての試験は1件のみであった。治療期間は3~6カ月であった。1件の試験では、Diabecon、InolterおよびCogent DB(一般医薬品用薬草混合物)のそれぞれが、対照群と比較して、治療期間終了時のグリコシル化ヘモグロビンA1c(haemoglobin A1c :HbA1c)の有意な低下が認められた。Diabeconについての試験2件、およびCogent DBについての1件(一般医薬品用薬草混合物)では、治療群において試験期間終了時の空腹時血糖値の有意な低下が認められた。これらの試験では死亡は認められず、介入群と対照群の間で副作用に有意差は認められなかった。Pancreas tonicについての1件の試験では、健康関連の生活の質に有意な変化は報告されなかった。糖尿病合併症、あらゆる原因による死亡、および医療費について報告している試験、またはそれらを調査するようにデザインされた試験はなかった。一部の試験では肯定的な結果が出ており、重篤な副作用も報告されていないが、評価した研究の方法が弱く参加者数が少ないため、確実な結論を導くことはできない。これらの治療法の有用性を評価するには、さらに試験が必要である。アーユルヴェーダ療法の施術者は通常、食事法、運動、および生活様式とともに、さまざまな薬草や一般医薬製剤の混合物を用いる。この治療法は普通、3つの「ドーシャ」のバランスを考慮して個別に行われる。対象とした試験における介入は、実際のアーユルヴェーダ療法と同一ではなく、一部の要素を個別に評価しているだけである可能性がある。