Cross-sectional study reveals high dyslipidemia prevalence and identifies factors affecting LDL-C in Black South Africans.
Background/Objectives: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major global public health challenge with a significant impact on human life. The current study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the magnitude of dyslipidemia and the factors associated with elevated LDL-C levels among Black South Africans with T2DM. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a tertiary hospital. Blood samples for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and lipid profile were collected from the study participants and analyzed using Siemens Atellica™ analyzer. The data was entered into Microsoft excel and analyzed using SPSS version 24. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression was employed to identify variables significantly associated with the outcomes, with a p-value ≤ 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval. Results: A total of 194 study participants with T2DM were recruited in the study. The overall prevalence of dyslipidemia was 90.72%. Of those with dyslipidemia, 40.9% had an isolated dyslipidemia, 39.7% had a combined dyslipidemia and 19.3% had atherogenic dyslipidemia. Significant factors associated with elevated levels of LDL-C included age, non-adherence to treatment (NAT) and duration. However, after multivariate analysis, NAT was found to be an independent associated factor with elevated levels of LDL-C (AOR: 4.596; 95% CI: 0.177–2.874; p = 0.027). Conclusions: Our study found that dyslipidemia is highly prevalent among Black South African patients with T2DM at a tertiary hospital, despite the use of lipid-lowering therapy. NAT was significantly associated with elevated levels of LDL-C. However, it is important to note that the study employed a cross-sectional design, conducted at a single hospital, which may impair the generalizability of the findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nemukula et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: