Cross-sectional study reveals high dyslipidemia rates in NAFLD patients, suggesting a link with steatosis severity.
Background and Objective: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is frequently associated with dyslipidemia, contributing to increased cardiovascular risk. This study aimed to assess the prevalence and patterns of dyslipidemia in NAFLD patients and its association with hepatic steatosis severity and clinical risk factors. Materials and Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted over six months (March 2024 to August 2024) at the Department of Medicine, National Hospital and Medical Center, Lahore. A total of 116 adults with ultrasonographically confirmed NAFLD were enrolled using consecutive sampling. Baseline clinical and demographic data were collected. Fasting lipid profiles were obtained, and dyslipidemia was defined according to established guidelines. Hepatic steatosis was graded as mild, moderate, or severe. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 25. Results: Dyslipidemia was identified in 86 (74.1%) patients. Elevated triglycerides (57.8%) and low HDL cholesterol (55.2%) were the most frequent abnormalities, followed by elevated LDL cholesterol (50.0%) and total cholesterol (44.8%). Multiple lipid abnormalities were observed in 48 (41.4%) patients. The prevalence of dyslipidemia increased with steatosis severity: 58.8% in mild, 76.9% in moderate, and 86.7% in severe cases (p = 0.008). Elevated triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol were also significantly associated with steatosis grade (p = 0.003 and p = 0.019, respectively). Dyslipidemia was more common in males (80.9% vs 64.6%, p = 0.041), patients aged ≥45 years (81.4% vs 68.5%, p = 0.032), obese individuals (88.2%, p = 0.004), and those with a family history of dyslipidemia (87.8%, p = 0.014). Conclusion: Dyslipidemia is highly prevalent in NAFLD and correlates with steatosis severity and key metabolic risk factors. Regular lipid screening and comprehensive management are essential in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kiran et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: