Loading…

Randomized double blind crossover trial of Aloe vera, Cnidoscolus chayamansa and placebo for reducing hyperglycemia in women with early metabolic syndrome

There have been antidiabetic claims for Aloe vera (AG) Barbadensis Mill. gel and infusion of Cnidoscolus chayamansa (CC) McVaugh. To determine if the ingestion of total process AG concentrated 5:1 (TA), AG, CC or placebo can reduce hyperglycemia in women with early metabolic syndrome (EMS). One hund...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical Nutrition Experimental 2017-08, Vol.14 (C), p.1-12
Main Authors: Cárdenas-Ibarra, Lilia, Villarreal-Pérez, Jesús Z., Lira-Castillo, J. Carlos, Nava-Alemán, Aram
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:There have been antidiabetic claims for Aloe vera (AG) Barbadensis Mill. gel and infusion of Cnidoscolus chayamansa (CC) McVaugh. To determine if the ingestion of total process AG concentrated 5:1 (TA), AG, CC or placebo can reduce hyperglycemia in women with early metabolic syndrome (EMS). One hundred-twenty five women from two outpatient university clinics were randomly assigned to a three assay double-blind crossover procedure. Subjects were adult women with EMS by ATP III criteria assigned to assay 1: AG&CC vs P1&P2; assay 2: AG&P2 vs P1&CC; or assay 3: TA vs P3. All assays included the ingestion of one, then zero (washout period), then two gelatins/day, for 4, 1, 4 weeks, respectively. The expected outcome was an HbA1c decrease ≥4.2 mmol/mol or lower but sustaining euglycemia. Participants had a mean age of 46.8 ± 9.7 years and a mean HbA1c of 47.8 ± 12.7 mmol/mol at the start of the study. The least tolerated combination was AG&P2. Patients complained of bad taste and mild stomach pain because of the double dose of this treatment; this caused withdrawals: 4/25 vs. 9/21, respectively, Chi square = 4.1, df = 1, P  0.05; assay 2, −1.3 ± 6.6 vs −1.4 ± 7.6, P > 0.05; assay 3, −4.9 ± 8.3 vs 0.44 ± 5.4, P 
ISSN:2352-9393
2352-9393
DOI:10.1016/j.yclnex.2017.05.003