| Literature DB >> 35757391 |
Ling Huang1, Hanfeng Wang1, Minglu Shi1, Weizheng Kong2, Mei Jiang3.
Abstract
Backgrounds: A large number of studies have investigated the effect of early menopause on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes and the relationship between the levels of lipid profile and primary ovarian insufficiency (POI). However, the results are inconsistent. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess whether the levels of total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high density lipoprotein (HDL) and low density lipoprotein (LDL) changed in women with POI relative to healthy controls.Entities:
Keywords: cardiovascular disease; dyslipidemia; lipid profile; meta-analysis; primary ovarian insufficiency
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35757391 PMCID: PMC9226361 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.876775
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 6.055
Figure 1Flow chart of the selection process. From (15).
Summary characteristics of studies and participants.
| No. | Study | Region | Women (n) (Cases vs.Control) | Age (years) (Cases vs. Control) | Age at diagnosis of POI (years) | BMI (kg/m2) (Cases vs. Control) | HRT/OC used | Lipid profile | Primary conclusion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| POI | Control | POI | Control | POI | Control | POI | Control | ||||||
| 1. | Falsetti | Italy | 40 | 30 | 32.6 ± 7.3 | 35 ± 3.5 | NA | 22.9 ± 3.8 | 22.2 ± 2.2 | NA | NA | TC,LDL,HDL | Serum TC and LDL increased, serum HDL decreased in POI |
| 2. | Ostberg | Britain | 31 | 30 | 33.0 ± 7.0 | 33.5 ± 6.5 | NA | 22.9 ± 3.4 | 23.7 ± 3.2 | No | No | TC,TG,LDL,HDL | Serum TG increased, serum TC, LDL and HDL remained unchanged in POI |
| 3. | Knauff | Netherlands | 90 | 198 | 33.8 ± 5.6 | 30.3 ± 2.9 | 31.8 ± 6.3 | 24.9 ± 4.3 | 24.3 ± 4.8 | No | No | TC,TG,LDL,HDL | Serum TG increased,serum HDL decreased, serum TC and LDL remained unchanged in POI |
| 4. | Gulhan | Turkey | 47 | 60 | 36.8 ± 1.8 | 36.0 ± 2.3 | NA | 25.9 ± 4.9 | 24.8 ± 4.6 | No | No | TC,TG,HDL,LDL | Serum TC and LDL increased, serum TG and HDL remained unchanged in POI |
| 5. | Kulaksizoglu | Turkey | 43 | 33 | 36.83 ± 2.72 | 37.15 ± 1.88 | NA | 30.33 ± 5.59 | 29.62 ± 3.48 | No | No | TC,TG,HDL,LDL | Serum TC,HDL and LDL increased, serum TG remained unchanged in POI |
| 6. | Ates | Turkey | 56 | 59 | 35.23 ± 4.58 | 35.47 ± 4.49 | NA | 25.79 ± 4.10 | 26.09 ± 3.80 | No | No | TC,TG,HDL,LDL | Serum TC and HDL increased, serum TG and LDL remained unchanged in POI |
| 7. | Ağaçayak | Turkey | 30 | 30 | 28.9 ± 6.8 | 29.2 ± 5.0 | NA | 24.1 ± 4.2 | 23.2 ± 3.3 | No | No | TC | Serum TC remained unchanged in POI |
| 8. | AbdulAzeez | Nigeria | 50 | 40 | 26.4 ± 5.2 | 26.4 ± 5.5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | TC,TG,LDL,HDL | Serum TC,HDL,TG and LDL increased in POI |
| 9. | Podfigurna | Poland | 56 | 68 | 30.70 ± 6.90 | 27.30 ± 4.50 | NA | 23.54 ± 4.55 | 28.62 ± 5.30 | No | No | TC,TG,LDL,HDL | Serum TC,HDL increased, serum TG,LDL remained unchanged in POI |
| 10. | Bozkaya | Turkey | 34 | 35 | 30.94 ± 5.58 | 28.53 ± 5.09 | NA | 25.90 ± 4.22 | 24.47 ± 3.89 | No | No | TC,TG,LDL,HDL | Serum TC,TG,LDL and HDL remained unchanged in POI |
| 11. | Cekici | Turkey | 66 | 73 | 32.5 ± 4.7 | 31.0 ± 4.9 | NA | 23.6 ± 4.3 | 22.7 ± 5.3 | No | No | TC,TG,LDL,HDL | Serum TC,LDL increased,serum TG,HDL remained unchanged in POI |
| 12. | Huang | China | 303 | 303 | 34.78 ± 5.42 | 34.68 ± 4.80 | 34.08 ± 5.21 | 21.44 ± 2.75 | 21.25 ± 2.92 | No | No | TC,TG,LDL,HDL | Serum TG increased, serum HDL decreased, serum TC,LDL remained unchanged in POI |
BMI, body mass index; HRT, hormone replacement therapy; OC, oral contraceptive; TC, Total cholesterol; TG, Triglyceride; HDL, high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein; NA, not available.
Figure 2Forest plot of the levels of serum lipid profile in cases and healthy controls. Weights are from random effects analysis. (A) Meta-analysis of total cholesterol. (B) Meta-analysis of triglyceride. (C) Meta-analysis of high density lipoprotein. (D) Meta-analysis of low density lipoprotein. CI, confidence interval; SD, standard difference.
Subgroup analysis to investigate the relationship between geographical location and TC, TG, HDL, LDL.
| Lipid parameters | Geographical location | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Africa | Asia | Europe | Central Asia | |
|
| ||||
|
| 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 |
|
| – | – | 95% | 0% |
|
| 0.88 (0.45, 1.32) | 0.12 (-0.04,0.27) | 0.77 (-0.09,1.63) | 0.58 (0.41,0.75) |
|
|
| 0.16 | 0.08 |
|
|
| ||||
|
| 1 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
|
| – | – | 43% | 22% |
|
| 1.31 (0.85, 1.77) | – | 0.24 (-0.03,0.51) | 0.24 (0.04,0.44) |
|
|
| – | 0.08 | 0.02 |
|
| ||||
|
| 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
|
| – | – | 92% | 53% |
|
| 1.84 (1.34, 2.34) | -0.36 (-0.52,-0.20) | 0.02 (-0.65,0.70) | 0.26 (-0.01,0.52) |
|
|
|
| 0.95 | 0.06 |
|
| ||||
|
| 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
|
| – | – | 90% | 16% |
|
| 1.25 (0.80, 1.71) | -0.14 (-0.30,0.02) | 0.45 (-0.17,1.07) | 0.47 (0.27,0.66) |
|
|
| 0.09 | 0.16 |
|
TC, Total cholesterol; TG, Triglyceride; HDL, high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein; SMD, standard mean difference.
Subgroup analysis to investigate the relationship between sample size, number of cases and TC, TG, HDL, LDL.
| Lipid parameters | Sample size | Cases | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <200 | ≥200 | <50 | ≥50 | |
|
| ||||
|
| 10 | 2 | 6 | 6 |
|
| 78% | 0% | 75% | 92% |
|
| 0.72 (0.43, 1.02) | 0.11 (-0.02, 0.25) | 0.57 (0.18, 0.96) | 0.64 (0.22, 1.05) |
|
|
| 0.09 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
|
| ||||
|
| 9 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
|
| 72% | – | 0% | 85% |
|
| 0.35 (0.09, 0.61) | 0.23 (-0.02, 0.48) | 0.41 (0.19, 0.64) | 0.33 (-0.06, 0.73) |
|
| 0.008 | 0.07 | 0.0004 | 0.10 |
|
| ||||
|
| 10 | 2 | 6 | 5 |
|
| 91% | 79% | 92% | 93% |
|
| 0.27 (-0.17, 0.70) | -0.21 (-0.53, 0.12) | 0.27 (-0.41, 0.95) | 0.43 |
|
| 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.21 (-0.24, 0.67) | 0.35 |
|
| ||||
|
| 9 | 2 | 5 | 6 |
|
| 72% | 0% | 59% | 93% |
|
| 0.61 (0.34, 0.87) | -0.11 (-0.25, 0.02) | 0.45 (0.12, 0.77) | 0.48 (0.03, 0.92) |
|
| <0.00001 | 0.10 | 0.007 | 0.04 |
TC, Total cholesterol; TG, Triglyceride; HDL, high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein; SMD, standard mean difference.
Subgroup analysis to investigate the relationship between mean BMI value of cases, mean age of cases and TC, TG, HDL, LDL.
| Lipid parameters | BMI (kg/m2) | Age (years) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <25 | ≥25 | <35 | ≥35 | |
|
| ||||
|
| 8 | 4 | 9 | 3 |
|
| 92% | 0% | 90% | 0% |
|
| 0.62 (0.18, 1.06) | 0.52 (0.31, 0.73) | 0.63 (0.26, 0.99) | 0.54 (0.31, 0.78) |
|
| 0.006 |
| 0.0008 |
|
|
| ||||
|
| 5 | 4 | 6 | 3 |
|
| 82% | 36% | 77% | 53% |
|
| 0.48 (0.09, 0.86) | 0.22 (-0.04, 0.48) | 0.45 (0.13, 0.78) | 0.19 (-0.15, 0.52) |
|
| 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.006 | 0.28 |
|
| ||||
|
| 6 | 4 | 8 | 3 |
|
| 94% | 55% | 94% | 0% |
|
| 0.21 (-0.30, 0.73) | 0.32 (0.00, 0.63) | 0.17 (-0.30, 0.63) | 0.45 (0.22,0.68) |
|
| 0.42 | 0.05 | 0.48 | 0.0001 |
|
| ||||
|
| 7 | 4 | 8 | 3 |
|
| 92% | 0% | 91% | 0% |
|
| 0.51 (0.07, 0.95) | 0.36 (0.19, 0.57) | 0.50 (0.10, 0.90) | 0.34 (0.11, 0.57) |
|
| 0.02 | 0.0006 | 0.01 | 0.003 |
BMI, body mass index; TC, Total cholesterol; TG, Triglyceride; HDL, high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein; SMD ,standard mean difference.
Figure 3Funnel plot analysis to detect publication bias. (A) Funnel plot for total cholesterol. (B) Funnel plot for high density lipoprotein. (C) Funnel plot for low density lipoprotein. SMD, standard mean difference.