4.7 Article

Dyslipidemia in Shanghai, China

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 51, Issue 5, Pages 412-415

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.08.013

Keywords

Dyslipidemia; Hypertriglyceridemia; Hypercholesterolemia; Obesity; Prevalence; General population

Funding

  1. Shanghai Public Health Bureau
  2. Shanghai Science and Technology Community Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To determine the prevalence of and risk factors for dyslipidemia in Shanghai. Methods. A cross-sectional survey of 14,385 subjects (6150 men) with mean age of 49.5 (14.5) years was conducted between October 2002 and April 2003 using randomized, stratified cluster sampling. Serum triglyceride, total cholesterol (TC) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were measured. Results. Dyslipidemia, as defined by NCEP ATP III criteria, occurred in 5255 subjects (36.5%). The prevalences of mixed hyperlipidemia (elevated TC and triglycerides), isolated hypertriglyceridemia, isolated hypercholesterolemia and isolated low HDL-C were 3.8%, 24.9%, 3.2% and 4.7%, respectively. The prevalence of dyslipidemia increased with age, with the peak prevalence (43%) occurring after age 55. Dyslipidemia was more common in males than females (40.2% vs. 33.8%) and in rural than urban populations (44.2% vs. 32.3%). Serum triglyceride and TC increased with body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference. Mean serum triglyceride concentrations in males and rural residents were higher than those in females and urban residents, respectively, whereas the reverse was true for HDL-C values. Multivariate analysis revealed that dyslipidemia was associated with age, gender, area of residence, BMI and waist circumference. Conclusions. There is a high prevalence of dyslipidemia, mainly hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL-C, in Shanghai. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available