| CLINICAL RESEARCH |
|
| Year : 2011 | Volume
: 32
| Issue : 1 | Page : 59-65 |
|
|
Clinical efficacy of Coleus forskohlii (Willd.) Briq. (Makandi) in hypertension of geriatric population
Madhavi Jagtap1, HM Chandola2, B Ravishankar3
1 Lecturer, Department of Kayachikitsa, College of Ayurveda, Nigdi, Pune, Maharashtra, India
2 Professor and Head, Department of Kayachikitsa, Institute of Post Graduate Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India
3 Director, R & D Section, SDM College of Ayurveda, Udupi, Karnataka, India
Correspondence Address:
Madhavi Jagtap
C/o Mr. Vishwanath V. Jagtap, 'Vitthal Niwas', Hirkani colony, Sr. No. 15/2, Near Warje Jakat Naka, Karveangar, Pune-411 052, Maharashtra
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0974-8520.85729
|
|
|
Hypertension is the most common psychosomatic disorder affecting 972 million people worldwide. The present clinical study deals with the effect of Makandi (Coleus forskohlii (Willd.) Briq.) Ghana vati and tablets of its powder in hypertension found in the geriatric age group (50-80 years). A total of 49 hypertensive patients fulfilling the diagnostic criteria were registered in two groups-Group I (Ghana vati) and Group II (Churna tablet). Out of 27 enrolled patients of group I, 21 patients completed the treatment. In Group II, out of 22 registered patients, a total of 20 patients completed the treatment. The effect of the therapy was assessed on the basis of changes in the systolic and diastolic blood pressures, in both sitting and supine positions; with Manasa Bhava Pariksha, Manasa Vibhrama Pariksha, symptomatology, geriatric signs and symptoms, and a brief psychiatric rating scale. Analysis of the results showed that the treatment in both the groups had been found to be good. It can be stated that Makandi, either in Ghana vati form or in churna tablet form, is an effective remedy for the treatment of hypertension. On analyzing the overall effect, 76.19% patients in Group I and 75.00% patients in Group II were mildly improved. Comparatively the overall treatment with group I was found to be better. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
