Worldwide Prevalence of Dyslipidemia in Diabetes: An Umbrella Overview of the Meta-Analysis Studies

Dyslipidemia, a modifiable risk factor for Cardiovascular Diseases (CVDs), is prevalent among individuals with Diabetes Mellitus (DM). The coexistence of DM and dyslipidemia exacerbates the burden of CVDs. Given the variability in findings across systematic reviews, this umbrella review aims to assess the prevalence of dyslipidemia among diabetic patients critically.

A systematic search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases to identify meta-analyses addressing the prevalence of dyslipidemia in patients with DM. Studies were selected in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analyses that provided data on the prevalence or mean difference of lipid profile components in diabetic patients were included. To evaluate study quality, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) frameworks were applied, ensuring the reliability and consistency of the findings.

Eleven meta-analyses with a total sample size ranging from 433 to 354,088 participants were included. The prevalence of overall dyslipidemia varied between 60% and 65.68%. Specific lipid abnormalities were also prevalent: high total cholesterol (34.7–38.6%), elevated triglycerides (43–52.7%), high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (34.4-41%), and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (43.4–50%). Gender differences were insignificant, with a higher prevalence of dyslipidemia among women compared to men, particularly after menopause (19% vs. 18%).

Dyslipidemia is highly prevalent among diabetic patients, with significant gender- specific patterns, particularly affecting postmenopausal women. These findings highlight the importance of early screening and targeted management of lipid abnormalities in DM patients to reduce the risk of vascular complications. Furthermore, the quality assessment indicated that most included studies were of low or very low quality, highlighting the need for more robust research in this field.