Momordica charantia for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Abstract

Momordica charantia (bitter gourd) is not only a nutritious vegetable but it is also used in traditional medical practices to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Experimental studies with animals and humans suggested that the vegetable has a possible role in glycaemic control. To assess the effects of mormodica charantia for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Several electronic databases were searched, among these were The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SIGLE and LILACS (all up to February 2012), combined with handsearches. No language restriction was used. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared momordica charantia with placebo or a control intervention, with or without pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions. Two authors independently extracted data. Risk of bias of the trials was evaluated using the parameters of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias. A meta-analysis was not performed given the quality of data and the variability of preparations of momordica charantia used in the interventions (no similar preparation was tested twice). Four randomised controlled trials with up to three months duration and investigating 479 participants met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias of these trials (only two studies were published as a full peer-reviewed publication) was generally high. Two RCTs compared the effects of preparations from different parts of the momordica charantia plant with placebo on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. There was no statistically significant difference in the glycaemic control with momordica charantia preparations compared to placebo. When momordica charantia was compared to metformin or glibenclamide, there was also no significant change in reliable parameters of glycaemic control. No serious adverse effects were reported in any trial. No trial investigated death from any cause, morbidity, health-related quality of life or costs. There is insufficient evidence on the effects of momordica charantia for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Further studies are therefore required to address the issues of standardization and the quality control of preparations. For medical nutritional therapy, further observational trials evaluating the effects of momordica charantia are needed before RCTs are established to guide any recommendations in clinical practice.

Complementary and alternative medicine in US adults with diabetes: Reasons for use and perceived benefits

“…It is possible that the herbal therapies used for wellness by these adults are herbs used specifically for diabetes, but there is conflicting evidence or insufficient evidence for efficacy in diabetes. [8][9][10][11][12][13] Furthermore, the present study found that those using CAM for both treatment and wellness reported a twofold higher "better sense of control over their health" and "improved overall health and feeling better" than those who used CAM for treatment only. These measures could represent a proxy for healthrelated (HR) QoL.…”

Diabetes is an inflammatory disease: evidence from traditional Chinese medicines

“…Momordica charantia (bitter melon) is a popular fruit used for the treatment of diabetes and related conditions amongst the indigenous populations of Asia, South America, India and East Africa. Many animal and human studies have proved the potential role of Momordica charantia in glycaemic control [66]. Momordica charantia reduces blood glucose levels and also significantly lowers the serum insulin levels in KK-Ay mice after 3 weeks of oral administration [67].…”

The efficacy and safety ofMomordica charantiaL. in animal models of type 2 diabetes mellitus; A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The biases due to small studies effect, methodological flaws, use of inappropriate animal models of the human condition, use of unstandardized intervention, inappropriate use of statistics, and poor or selective reporting need immediate attention. Together, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that previous clinical trials of M. charantia L. could have been conducted based on inadequate evidence of efficacy from preclinical studies, and partly this could explains conflicting clinical trial results observed in the meta-analysis [20,120,121].…”