| Literature DB >> 35110625 |
Rahanuma Raihanu Kathak1, Abu Hasan Sumon1, Noyan Hossain Molla1, Mahmudul Hasan1, Rakib Miah1, Humaira Rashid Tuba1, Ahsan Habib1, Nurshad Ali2.
Abstract
Dyslipidemia, a major contributor to cardiovascular diseases, is rapidly increasing in Asian countries including Bangladesh. In addition to the cardiovascular system, abnormal lipid levels are also known to cause complications in renal and hepatic systems. The data regarding dyslipidemia and its relationship with liver enzymes are scarce for the Bangladeshi population. Therefore, this study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of dyslipidemia and determine the relationship between lipid profile and liver enzymes in Bangladeshi adults. A total of 405 participants (318 males and 87 females) were enrolled in the study. Serum levels of TG, TC, LDL, HDL and liver enzymes including ALT, AST, GGT and ALP were analyzed using standard methods. Dyslipidemia and liver function tests abnormalities were defined according to the international standard guidelines. The association between elevated lipid profile markers and liver enzyme abnormalities was assessed by logistic regression analysis. Overall, the prevalence of elevated TG, TC, LDL and low HDL were 30.9%, 23.7%, 26.2% and 78.8%, respectively. On the other hand, the prevalence of elevated liver enzymes ALT, AST, GGT and ALP were 18.8%, 21.6%, 12.9% and 21.9%, respectively. Dyslipidemia and liver enzyme abnormalities were higher in diabetic and hypertensive participants than in the healthy participants. About 61% of participants with dyslipidemia had at least one or more elevated liver enzymes. In regression analysis, an independent association was observed between serum GGT and all lipid components. In conclusion, a high prevalence of dyslipidemia and liver enzyme abnormalities were observed among the study participants. Of the four liver enzymes, the serum levels of GGT showed an independent association with all lipid components. Moreover, this study indicates that subjects with dyslipidemia often have a higher chance of having liver diseases than subjects with no dyslipidemia. However, large-scale prospective studies are needed to understand the underlying mechanisms of lipid-induced hepatic dysfunction in the Bangladeshi population.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35110625 PMCID: PMC8810783 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-05766-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Baseline characteristics of the study participants.
| Variables | Male (n = 318) | Female (n = 87) | Total (n = 405) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 40.5 ± 12.7 | 40.6 ± 13.4 | 40.5 ± 12.9 | 0.959 |
| Weight (kg) | 67.1 ± 10.7 | 58.3 ± 9.7 | 65.2 ± 11.1 | < 0.001 |
| Height (cm) | 165.4 ± 6.8 | 152.7 ± 7.9 | 162.7 ± 8.7 | < 0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.5 ± 3.4 | 25.1 ± 4.1 | 24.6 ± 3.5 | 0.180 |
| WC (cm) | 86.0 ± 12.1 | 85.7 ± 10.9 | 85.9 ± 11.8 | 0.841 |
| HC (cm) | 92.1 ± 8.2 | 92.5 ± 8.9 | 92.2 ± 8.4 | 0.741 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 126.9 ± 14.5 | 126.2 ± 18.8 | 126.7 ± 15.5 | 0.716 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 83.6 ± 9.9 | 83.2 ± 10.1 | 83.5 ± 9.9 | 0.739 |
| PP (beats/min) | 76.4 ± 12.5 | 82.3 ± 12.1 | 77.7 ± 12.6 | < 0.001 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 118.8 ± 59.4 | 136.8 ± 70.2 | 122.4 ± 63.0 | 0.014 |
| TG (mg/dL) | 194.6 ± 112.4 | 153.2 ± 94.6 | 185.7 ± 110.0 | 0.001 |
| TC (mg/dL) | 203.3 ± 73.4 | 228.3 ± 92.0 | 208.7 ± 78.3 | 0.021 |
| LDL (mg/dL) | 133.6 ± 62.3 | 162.7 ± 89.8 | 139.9 ± 70.0 | 0.001 |
| HDL (mg/dL) | 32.8 ± 13.3 | 35.9 ± 9.7 | 33.4 ± 12.6 | 0.016 |
| ALT (U/L) | 34.5 ± 17.2 | 31.7 ± 25.8 | 33.9 ± 19.4 | 0.350 |
| AST (U/L) | 27.0 ± 12.0 | 29.0 ± 17.1 | 27.4 ± 13.4 | 0.404 |
| GGT (U/L) | 32.8 ± 30.2 | 29.6 ± 28.2 | 32.1 ± 29.8 | 0.380 |
| ALP (U/L) | 100.6 ± 40.3 | 87.9 ± 35.0 | 97.6 ± 39.5 | 0.023 |
| Hypertensive (%) | 41.6 | 46.0 | 42.6 | 0.470 |
| Diabetic (%) | 29.9 | 49.4 | 34.1 | 0.001 |
| Physical activity (%) | ||||
| Low | 20.1 | 26.2 | 21.6 | 0.335 |
| Medium | 69.8 | 68.9 | 69.6 | |
| Adequate | 10.1 | 4.9 | 8.8 | |
| Smoking status (%) | ||||
| No | 70.8 | 100 | 77 | < 0.001 |
| Yes | 29.2 | 0 | 23 | |
Data are presented as mean ± SD or %. P-values are obtained from independent sample t-test or Chi-square test.
Figure 1Prevalence of dyslipidemia (A) and elevated liver enzymes (B) in the gender group. In (A) a,cp < 0.05; b,dp < 0.01 when the prevalence is compared to the male group. In (B) ap < 0.01 when the prevalence is compared to male group. P-values are obtained from Chi Square test.
Prevalence of elevation and levels of lipid markers and liver enzymes in various groups.
| Variables | Overall (n = 405) | Healthy (n = 176) | Hypertensive (n = 172) | Diabetic (n = 138) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TG (mg/dL) | 185.7 ± 110.0 | 163.6 ± 95.1 | 200.3 ± 116.3 | 0.005 | 211.0 ± 127.4 | 0.001 |
| Elevated TG, n (%) | 125 (30.9) | 39 (22.3) | 61 (35.5) | 0.021 | 56 (40.6) | 0.001 |
| TC (mg/dL) | 208.7 ± 78.3 | 183.5 ± 52.0 | 230.4 ± 91.5 | < 0.001 | 235.7 ± 101.9 | < 0.001 |
| Elevated TC, n (%) | 96 (23.7) | 17 (9.7) | 58 (33.7) | < 0.001 | 51 (37) | < 0.001 |
| LDL (mg/dL) | 139.9 ± 70.0 | 120.4 ± 46.9 | 157.1 ± 80.9 | < 0.001 | 159.9 ± 94.9 | < 0.001 |
| Elevated LDL, n (%) | 106 (26.2) | 27 (15.3) | 61 (35.5) | < 0.001 | 49 (35.5) | < 0.001 |
| HDL (mg/dL) | 33.4 ± 12.6 | 31.0 ± 9.0 | 35.3 ± 14.4 | 0.002 | 36.6 ± 16.4 | < 0.001 |
| Low HDL, n (%) | 319 (78.8) | 150 (85.2) | 128 (74.4) | 0.010 | 95 (68.8) | 0.001 |
| ALT (U/L) | 33.9 ± 19.4 | 30.6 ± 14.5 | 36.6 ± 23.0 | 0.014 | 36.7 ± 22.2 | 0.006 |
| Elevated ALT, n (%) | 75 (18.8) | 27 (15.3) | 37 (22) | 0.146 | 33 (25) | 0.039 |
| AST (U/L) | 27.4 ± 13.4 | 23.7 ± 10.9 | 30.5 ± 15.7 | 0.003 | 32.2 ± 15.2 | < 0.001 |
| Elevated AST, n (%) | 53 (21.6) | 17 (15.2) | 25 (26.3) | 0.162 | 28 (28.9) | 0.043 |
| GGT (U/L) | 32.1 ± 29.8 | 22.6 ± 13.2 | 41.0 ± 37.3 | < 0.001 | 44.2 ± 39.8 | < 0.001 |
| Elevated GGT, n (%) | 50 (12.9) | 6 (3.6) | 36 (21.7) | < 0.001 | 35 (26) | < 0.001 |
| ALP (U/L) | 97.9 ± 39.5 | 93.5 ± 30.5 | 100.3 ± 41.0 | 0.505 | 103.3 ± 47.8 | 0.150 |
| Elevated ALP, n (%) | 53 (21.9) | 16 (14.5) | 24 (25.8) | 0.162 | 32 (33.3) | 0.004 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD or %. P valuea is the difference between healthy and hypertensive group and P valueb is the difference between healthy and diabetic group. P values for mean concentrations are derived from the independent sample t-test. P values for prevalence (%) are obtained from Chi-square test.
Prevalence of elevated liver enzymes in dyslipidemic adults.
| Variables | TG | TC | LDL | HDL | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Elevated | Normal | Elevated | Normal | Elevated | Normal | Low | |||||
| Elevated ALT | 15.6 | 25.2 | 0.023 | 16.8 | 25.3 | 0.065 | 18.7 | 19.0 | 0.939 | 20.5 | 18.4 | 0.659 |
| Elevated AST | 20.1 | 25.0 | 0.391 | 16.4 | 32.5 | 0.004 | 17.5 | 30.4 | 0.022 | 20.3 | 22.0 | 0.782 |
| Elevated GGT | 9.8 | 19.7 | 0.007 | 9.1 | 24.7 | < 0.001 | 11.5 | 16.5 | 0.197 | 15.4 | 12.2 | 0.455 |
| Elevated ALP | 18.5 | 29.7 | 0.051 | 18.0 | 30.7 | 0.027 | 19.2 | 28.0 | 0.124 | 16.4 | 23.5 | 0.259 |
Data are expressed as percentage (%). P-values are obtained from Chi-Square test.
Association between lipid markers and liver enzymes.
| ALT | AST | GGT | ALP | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |||||
| Model 1 | 1.08 (1.01–1.16) | 0.009 | 1.08 (1.01–1.13) | 0.009 | 1.11 (1.08–1.14) | 0.006 | 1.04 (1.01–1.07) | 0.007 |
| Model 2 | 1.08 (1.01–1.16) | 0.024 | 1.08 (1.01–1.16) | 0.024 | 1.12 (1.08–1.14) | 0.021 | 1.04 (1.00–1.07) | 0.023 |
| Model 3 | 1.10 (1.22–1.38) | 0.023 | 1.10 (1.22–1.38) | 0.023 | 1.13 (1.03–1.24) | 0.022 | 1.05 (1.00–1.09) | 0.019 |
| Model 1 | 1.06 (1.01–1.12) | 0.007 | 1.07 (1.01–1.13) | 0.009 | 1.10 (1.08–1.14) | 0.006 | 0.98 (0.97–1.00) | 0.281 |
| Model 2 | 1.06 (1.00–1.12) | 0.023 | 1.07 (1.01–1.13) | 0.024 | 1.10 (1.08–1.14) | 0.021 | 0.98 (0.96–1.01) | 0.211 |
| Model 3 | 1.07 (1.00–1.15) | 0.019 | 1.09 (1.21–1.37) | 0.023 | 1.11 (1.03–1.24) | 0.022 | 0.96 (0.96–1.01) | 0.211 |
| Model 1 | 1.04 (1.01–1.09) | 0.011 | 1.04 (0.99–1.08) | 0.096 | 1.04 (1.00–1.07) | 0.023 | 0.99 (0.98–1.00) | 0.279 |
| Model 2 | 1.04 (1.00–1.07) | 0.025 | 1.03 (0.98–1.08) | 0.134 | 1.05 (1.00–1.09) | 0.019 | 0.98 (0.97–1.01) | 0.209 |
| Model 3 | 1.05 (1.00–1.09) | 0.023 | 1.05 (0.99–1.12) | 0.119 | 1.06 (1.01–1.11) | 0.014 | 0.99 (0.97–1.00) | 0.209 |
| Model 1 | 0.99 (0.98–1.00) | 0.279 | 0.94 (0.97–1.00) | 0.284 | − 1.04 (1.01–1.07) | 0.007 | − 0.99 (0.98–1.00) | 0.279 |
| Model 2 | 0.98 (0.97–1.01) | 0.209 | 0.95 (0.98–1.01) | 0.212 | − 1.04 (1.00–1.07) | 0.023 | − 0.98 (0.97–1.01) | 0.209 |
| Model 3 | 0.99 (0.97–1.00) | 0.209 | 0.93 (0.96–1.00) | 0.212 | − 1.05 (1.00–1.09) | 0.019 | − 0.99 (0.97–1.00) | 0.209 |
Multivariate logistic regression was applied to evaluate the relationship between lipid profile markers and liver enzymes. Lipid profile markers were dependent variable and liver enzymes were independent variables. Three models were applied in the regression analysis. Adjusted covariates: model 1 = age, sex; model 2 = model 1 + BMI, WC and FBG; model 3 = model 2 + SBP and DBP and physical activity.