p. 699−713
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 714−723
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 724−729
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 730−736
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 737−743
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 744−750
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 751−759
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 760−767
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 768−775
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 776−780
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 781−787
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 788−799
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 800−809
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
0.05), but oral INP was more effective in correcting diabetic dyslipidemia in comparison to injectable insulin (P-value<0.05). Urine volume and creatinine excretion were significantly modulated by insulin and oral INP in diabetic groups (P-value<0.05), although the effects of INP on the modulation of execration of urea, acid uric, and albumin was more dramatic. Oral INP caused a significant decrease in urine concentration of KIM-1 and NGAL as well as expression of KIM-1 in renal tissue (P-value<0.05).Conclusion: Our results suggested that oral INP is more effective than injectable insulin in modulation of urine and serum diabetic-related parameters.]]>
p. 810−818
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 819−825
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 826−832
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6
p. 833−840
2008-3874
Vol.23/No.6