| Literature DB >> 30791868 |
Nurshad Ali1, Sadaqur Rahman2, Shiful Islam2, Tangigul Haque2, Noyan Hossain Molla2, Abu Hasan Sumon2, Rahanuma Raihanu Kathak2, Md Asaduzzaman2, Farjana Islam2, Nayan Chandra Mohanto2, Mohammad Abul Hasnat2, Shaikh Mirja Nurunnabi2, Shamim Ahmed3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the link between elevated uric acid and metabolic syndrome has been reported in some studies; the relationship of serum uric acid (SUA) with lipid profile has not well studied or little is known so far. This study was conducted to assess the relationship between SUA and lipid profile among the general adults in Bangladesh.Entities:
Keywords: Adults; Bangladesh; Cardiovascular disease; Dyslipidemia; Serum uric acid
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30791868 PMCID: PMC6385393 DOI: 10.1186/s12872-019-1026-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord ISSN: 1471-2261 Impact factor: 2.298
Baseline characteristics and SUA level according to gender
| Overall | Male | Female | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 280 | 150 (54%) | 130 (46%) | – |
| Age (years) | 32 ± 12 (75) | 35 ± 14 (75) | 30 ± 10 (60) | 0.007 |
| Height (cm) | 158 ± 8 (176) | 166 ± 5 (176) | 152 ± 5 (165) | 0.000 |
| Weight (kg) | 63 ± 10 (90) | 67 ± 9 (85) | 59 ± 10 (90) | 0.000 |
| WC (cm) | 85 ± 7 (115) | 86 ± 8 (104) | 82 ± 8 (115) | 0.046 |
| HC (cm) | 94 ± 8 (122) | 93 ± 6 (105) | 94 ± 10 (122) | 0.078 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24 ± 4 (36) | 25 ± 3 (33) | 25 ± 4 (36) | 0.298 |
| SUA (μmol/L) | 290 ± 85 (505) | 317 ± 90 (505) | 255 ± 65 (440) | 0.000 |
| Hyperuricemia (%) | 9.8 | 9.2 | 10.4 | 0.288 |
| TG (mg/dl) | 152 ± 88 (373) | 170 ± 90 (360) | 130 ± 84 (373) | 0.004 |
| TC (mg/dl) | 137 ± 48 (256) | 130 ± 54 (256) | 144 ± 40 (252) | 0.065 |
| HDL (mg/dl) | 44 ± 12 (82) | 40 ± 10 (64) | 48 ± 15 (82) | 0.000 |
| LDL (mg/dl) | 75 ± 39 (210) | 70 ± 40 (210) | 82 ± 35 (188) | 0.110 |
Results are presented as mean ± SD with maximum values in parentheses. P-values are given for differences between the gender groups
Characteristics of the study population by SUA quartiles
| SUA levels (μmol/L) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | ||
|
| 280 | 69 | 72 | 72 | 67 | – |
| Gender (m/f) | 150/130 | 23/46 | 34/38 | 43/29 | 50/17 | – |
| Age (years) | 32 ± 13 | 34 ± 14 | 31 ± 13 | 33 ± 12 | 31 ± 12 | 0.302 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25 ± 4 | 24 ± 4 | 25 ± 4 | 26 ± 4 | 26 ± 3 | 0.003 |
| WC (cm) | 84 ± 8 | 80 ± 9 | 83 ± 10 | 87 ± 7 | 88 ± 6 | 0.002 |
| HC (cm) | 94 ± 7 | 90 ± 6 | 94 ± 7 | 96 ± 6 | 97 ± 7 | 0.004 |
| SUA (μmol/L) | 296 ± 21 | 192 ± 25 | 258 ± 15 | 325 ± 12 | 410 ± 30 | 0.000 |
| TG (mg/dl) | 156 ± 85 | 135 ± 82 | 130 ± 70 | 175 ± 105 | 184 ± 84 | 0.005 |
| % of risk (TG) | 26 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 31 | – |
| TC (mg/dl) | 139 ± 47 | 125 ± 45 | 129 ± 48 | 146 ± 48 | 156 ± 47 | 0.035 |
| % of risk (TC) | 18 | 12 | 15 | 21 | 22 | – |
| HDL (mg/dl) | 43 ± 12 | 46 ± 13 | 44 ± 14 | 43 ± 11 | 39 ± 10 | 0.040 |
| % of risk (HDL) | 41 | 34 | 40 | 45 | 46 | – |
| LDL (mg/dl) | 76 ± 38 | 67 ± 36 | 68 ± 43 | 82 ± 35 | 88 ± 42 | 0.045 |
| % of risk (LDL) | 30 | 24 | 30 | 30 | 35 | – |
Values are presented as mean ± SD. P-values are obtained from one way ANOVA
*Risk values of serum lipids: total cholesterol > 200 mg/dl, triglycerides > 200 mg/dl, HDL cholesterol < 40 mg/dl, LDL cholesterol > 100 mg/dl [19]
Fig. 1Association between SUA and TG (a), TC (b), HDL (c) and LDL (d). The scale in the Y-axis is not similar in all figures
Association of SUA quartiles with TG, TC, HDL, LDL and TG to HDL ratio
| SUA level (μmol/L) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | ||
| TG | |||||
| Model 1 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.19 (0.16, 0.24) | 0.29 (0.25, 0.34) | 0.46 (0.42, 0.51) | < 0.01 |
| Model 2 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.13 (0.08, 0.18) | 0.14 (0.06, 0.20) | 0.26 (0.21, 0.34) | < 0.01 |
| Model 3 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.13 (0.08, 0.18) | 0.14 (0.04, 0.18) | 0.27 (0.22, 0.35) | < 0.01 |
| TC | |||||
| Model 1 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.23 (0.18, 0.28) | 0.34 (0.28, 0.38) | 0.45 (0.38, 0.50) | < 0.001 |
| Model 2 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.19 (0.12, 0.26) | 0.21 (0.12, 0.30) | 0.26 (0.15, 0.35) | < 0.001 |
| Model 3 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.17 (0.08, 0.24) | 0.19 (0.11, 0.28) | 0.24 (0.16, 0.34) | < 0.001 |
| HDL | |||||
| Model 1 | 0.00 (Ref.) | −0.05 (−0.05, −0.03) | −0.09 (−0.08, −0.06) | − 0.13 (− 0.14, − 0.10) | < 0.01 |
| Model 2 | 0.00 (Ref.) | − 0.04 (− 0.04, − 0.01) | − 0.06 (− 0.07, − 0.04) | −0.08 (− 0.12, − 0.06) | < 0.01 |
| Model 3 | 0.00 (Ref.) | − 0.04 (− 0.03, − 0.01) | −0.06 (− 0.06, − 0.03) | −0.05 (− 0.10, − 0.04) | < 0.05 |
| LDL | |||||
| Model 1 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.12 (0.05, 0.18) | 0.22 (0.14, 0.30) | 0.30 (0.24, 0.38) | < 0.01 |
| Model 2 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.10 (0.04, 0.20) | 0.15 (0.05, 0.28) | 0.24 (0.10, 0.36) | < 0.01 |
| Model 3 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.10 (0.02, 0.20) | 0.15 (0.04, 0.26) | 0.22 (0.08, 0.34) | < 0.01 |
| TG to HDL ratio | |||||
| Model 1 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.18 (0.13, 0.24) | 0.28 (0.22, 0.34) | 0.54 (0.44, 0.56) | < 0.01 |
| Model 2 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.10 (0.04, 0.18) | 0.12 (0.06, 0.20) | 0.30 (0.20, 0.38) | < 0.01 |
| Model 3 | 0.00 (Ref.) | 0.10 (0.01, 0.16) | 0.10 (0.01, 0.18) | 0.32 (0.22, 0.40) | < 0.01 |
Adjusted covariates: model 1 = age, gender, and BMI; model 2 = age, gender, BMI and WC, model 3 = age, gender, BMI, WC and HC