Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Dec 29;17(12):e0279580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279580

Metabolic syndrome and its associated factors among epileptic patients at Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Northeast Ethiopia; a hospital-based comparative cross-sectional study

Altaseb Beyene Kassaw 1,*, Hiwot Tezera Endale 2, Kibur Hunie Tesfa 2, Meseret Derbew Molla 2
Editor: Rick J Jansen3
PMCID: PMC9799290  PMID: 36580471

Abstract

Introduction

Metabolic syndrome is a group of metabolic risk factors which are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and type2 diabetes. Nowadays, several studies have shown that the burden of metabolic syndrome is increasing among epileptic patients, and leads to MS-associated complications, including cardiovascular disease. However, getting published documents has been limited in Ethiopia and the study area. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the magnitude and associated factors of metabolic syndrome among epileptic patients in Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital in compression with respective controls.

Methods

Hospital-based comparative cross-sectional study design was implemented from June 25 to August 20, 2021. A total of 204 participants with an equal number of cases and controls (n = 102 each) were included. The data was collected through face-to-face interviews and biochemical analyses such as fasting blood glucose and lipid profiles were done through the enzymatic technique. The magnitude of metabolic syndrome was determined using both National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and International Diabetes Federation definition criteria. The STATA version 14 was used for statistical data analysis, and a comparison of categorical and continuous variables was done with χ2 and an independent t-test, respectively. The multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with metabolic syndrome, and variables having a P-value of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Result

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome among the epileptic group was (25.5% in National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and 23.5% in International Diabetes Federation criteria), whereas it was 13.7% in National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and 14.7% in International Diabetes Federation criteria among control groups. According to the International Diabetes Federation criteria, low physical activity (adjusted odds ratio = 4.73, 95% CI: 1.08–20.68), taking multiple antiepileptic drugs (adjusted odds ratio = 8.08, 95% CI: 1.52–42.74), having a total cholesterol level of ≥ 200 mg/dl (adjusted odds ratio = 5.81, 95%: 1.32–41.13) and body mass index (adjusted odds ratio = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.16–2.11) were significantly associated with metabolic syndrome among epileptic participants. Applying National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria, taking multiple antiepileptic drugs (adjusted odds ratio = 6.81, 95% CI: 1.29–35.92), having a total cholesterol level > 200 mg/dl (adjusted odds ratio = 7.37, 95% CI: 1.32–41.13) and body mass index (adjusted odds ratio = 1.53, 96% CI: 1.16–2.01) were also significantly associated.

Conclusion

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome among epileptic patients was higher than that of control groups and reaches statistically significant by National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III. Being on multiple antiepileptic drugs, body mass index, having low physical activity and raised total cholesterol were significantly associated with metabolic syndrome among the epileptic group. Therefore, it is better to focus on controlling weight, having sufficient physical exercise, and regular monitoring of total cholesterol levels in epileptic patients.

Introduction

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disease with two or more unprovoked seizures occurring more than 24 hours apart. It is characterized by recurrent seizures, which are brief episodes of involuntary movement as a result of excessive neural electrical discharges [1]. The epileptic population has a higher risk of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as CVDs, the notable culprit for the premature death of this group [2,3]. This is possibly due to the progressive emergence of atherosclerosis accelerating factors like obesity and the profound alterations of metabolic components, often called Metabolic syndrome (MS) [3]. A metabolic syndrome is a group of metabolic risk factors, including glucose intolerance, dyslipidemia, hypertension and central obesity which are associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and CVDs [4]. It is a complex condition and originates primarily from an imbalance of calorie intake as well as energy expenditure but may also be affected by the genetic makeup of an individual, the predominance of a sedentary lifestyle and other factors like dietary patterns [5].

The syndrome has been progressively becoming one of the leading global public-health challenges and a threat to socio-economic developments owing to its association with increased risk of NCDs such as T2DM, atherosclerotic CVDs and all causes of profound morbidity as well mortality [6]. Globally, around 1/4 of the adult population is estimated to have MS even though it varies according to geographic area, age, race, sex and criteria used for diagnosis [5]. They are twice as likely to die from it and three times more likely to have a heart attack or stroke compared with people without the syndrome.

Different studies have reported a high prevalence of MS in the epileptic population, ranging from 30.6% in a certain study [7] to 52.6% of another similar study [8]. It may be linked to seizure-related metabolic abnormalities, long-term antiepileptic medications use and a high occurrence of a sedentary lifestyle as well as other behavioral risk factors in the epileptic population [9,10]. Some antiepileptic medications, such as carbamazepine (CBZ) and phenytoin are known to alter the metabolic profile of an individual by altering the lipid profile, coagulation factors, and acute phase reactants [10]. The raised risk of MS in people with epilepsy (PWE) may also be due to a reduction in quality of life with reduced mental function and the presence of psycho-emotional stress [11]. Moreover, PWE has a significantly reduced life expectancy and a mortality rate two to three times higher compared with the general population, and it is estimated that CVDs account for 40 to 50% of this mortality [12].

In Ethiopia, the prevalence of MS differs across different areas and the pooled prevalence in the country of adult individuals was estimated to be (27.92%) [13]. However, its prevalence among PWE is not addressed yet, and to the scope of our understanding, there is a scarcity of studies documenting the magnitude as well as associated factors of MS among epileptic patients in the region since most of the studies have been conducted in Western countries, which could have several variations for other participants such as dietary, environmental, cultural and genetic differences with people living in Ethiopia. Considering the literature gap on MS prevalence and risk factors, this study aimed to assess the magnitude of MS and its associated factors among epileptic patients in comparison with apparently healthy control groups. The finding will help the physicians to consider the syndrome in the approaching epileptic patients and to provide the best appropriate care. Moreover, since most of the risk factors of MS are modifiable, prevention and control strategies have been suggested to prevent further complications and death for people with epilepsy. The results obtained from this study will also be served as baseline data for further studies and would help policymakers to have evidence for their action towards controlling MS among epileptic patients.

Methods and materials

Study setting, design and period

A hospital-based comparative cross-sectional study design was conducted from June 25- August 20/2021 at DCSH, Northeast Ethiopia. The DCSH is found in Dessie town of Amhara National Regional State, which is located 401 km northeast of the capital city (Addis Ababa) of Ethiopia. It serves as a referral center to South Wollo and surrounding Zones of about 7 million people including the neighboring Region. The hospital has divisions of units such as internal medicine, surgery, gynecology and obstetrics, pediatrics, oncology, psychiatry, laboratory, orthopedics, pharmacy and neurology. The neurology unit has an outpatient department, which registers and gives service to new, as well as follow-up patients, and an in-patient department. Around 1402 patients with epilepsy visited the outpatient department for follow-up in the eight months from July 2020 to February 2021. Accordingly, about 175 patients with epilepsy (on average) were visiting the hospital, in one month.

Study participants

The source populations were all adult epileptic patients attending DCSH for cases and all adult patient attendants in the hospital for controls, whereas all adult epileptic patients attending DCSH during the data collection period for cases and all adult patient attendants present in the hospital during the data collection period for controls were the study population. To minimize the effect of possible confounders, we chose controls (non-epileptic participants) from healthy patient attendants. Those patients whose ages were≥ 18 years old with diagnosed epilepsy (for cases), and apparently healthy participants who were ≥ 18 years old (for controls) were included in the study. Whereas, epileptic patients diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, hypertension and dyslipidemia predating the onset of epilepsy; other comorbid states like cancer, thyroid dysfunction, HIV; and clinically confirmed edematous as well as abdominally distended individuals, women who were at pregnancy or postpartum period of <6 months or on hormonal contraceptives; critically ill epileptic patients or with severe physical or mental disabilities were excluded from the study.

Sample size and sampling procedures

The sample size was determined using Epi Info version 7, by taking 27.4% as the prevalence of raised blood pressure, a common component of MS, among controls from a previous study [14] and 50.0% as the expected prevalence among epileptic patients, since there was no previous study in Ethiopia. By taking the 1:1 case-to-control ratio, 95% CI, and 86% power, the total sample size becomes 186. When the non-response rate (10% = 18.6) was added, the final sample size became 204.6. So, 102.3≈ 102 epileptic patients and 102.3 ≈ 102 healthy participants were enrolled. To select participants from the study population, the monthly average epileptic patient flow was used. Epileptic study participants were chosen at regular intervals from their sequence of follow-up visits using systematic random sampling techniques. Equal number of age and sex-matched apparently healthy volunteer subjects were enrolled in the comparison group.

Operational definitions

Metabolic syndrome: was defined based on the NCEP: ATP III criteria for the European population depending on the presence of at least three of the following parameters: abdominal obesity (WC>102 cm for males and >88 cm for females), raised BP (SBP ≥ 130 or DBP ≥85 mm Hg), TG ≥150 mg/dL, low HDL-C (<40 mg/dL for males and <50 mg/dL for females), raised FBS (≥ 110 mg/dL) [15]. It was also determined based on the IDF criteria; abdominal obesity (WC ≥94 cm for males and ≥ 80 cm for females) plus any two of the following four parameters: SBP ≥130 and/or DBP ≥ 85 mmHg or treatment of previously diagnosed hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia (≥150 mg/dL) or presence of treatment for this disorder, low HDL-C (<40 mg/dL for males and <50 mg/dL for females), or specific treatment for this lipid abnormality and raised FBS (≥100 mg/dL) or previously diagnosed T2DM [4].

Alcohol drinking status: alcohol drinker; defined as the intake of any type of alcoholic beverage, such as beer, wine, or locally prepared alcoholic beverages for more than once per week in the past year regardless of the amount. Non-drinkers; are those who drink less than once per week for the last one year or never drink alcoholic products [16].

Khat chewing status: khat chewer; participants who were chewing khat in any amount during the past one year, otherwise non-chewer [17].

Smoking status: smoker; those who had a cigarette smoking practice within the last one year irrespective of the amount, whereas those participants who never smoked in their lifetime or smokers before one year were defined as non-smokers [17].

Fasting: was defined as no caloric intake for at least 8 hours of the last meal [4].

Vigorous physical activity: any activity that causes a large increase in breathing or heart rate if continued for at least 30 minutes (e.g. running, carrying, or lifting heavy loads, digging, or construction work) for a minimum of three days per week [18].

Moderate-physical activity: any activity that causes a small increase in breathing or heart rate (brisk walking or carrying light loads) that continued for at least 30 min with a minimum of 3 days per week or 5 or more days of these activities for at least 20 min per day or ≥3 days of vigorous-intensity activity per week of at least 20 min per day [18].

Low-level physical activity: A person not meeting any of the above-mentioned criteria for the moderate- or high-level categories [18].

Low fruit and vegetable intake: Consuming less than five servings (400 grams) of fruit and vegetables per day. For raw green leafy vegetables, 1 serving = one cup; for cooked or chopped vegetables, 1 serving = ½ cup; for fruit (apple, banana, orange, etc…), 1 serving = 1 medium size piece; for chopped, cooked and canned fruit, 1 serving = ½ cup; and for juice from fruit, 1 serving = ½ cup [18].

Drug-responsive epilepsy: Epilepsy in which the patient receiving the current AED regimen has been seizure-free for a minimum of 12 months or three times the maximum pretreatment interseizure interval, whichever is longer [19].

Drug-resistant epilepsy: Failure of adequate trials of two tolerated (a tolerable side effect profile) and appropriately chosen and used AED schedules (whether as monotherapies or in combination) to achieve sustained seizure freedom (for a minimum of 12 months or 3 times the maximum pretreatment interseizure interval, whichever is longer) [19]. An adequate trial is defined as continuous use of the AED for at least 3 months at a dose of at least 50% of the WHO’s defined daily dose [20].

Undefined drug responsiveness: Drug responsiveness that cannot be classified as either drug-responsive or drug-resistant [19].

Data and blood sample collection procedure

The data collection was conducted in accordance with the STEP-wise approach of the World Health Organization (WHO) for NCD surveillance in developing countries [18] and related pieces of literature. The approach had three levels: (1) interviewer-administered questionnaires were used to gather socio-demographic characteristics and information about lifestyle factors (it also contained a questionnaire related to epilepsy), (2) Anthropometric measurements (weight, height, BMI, waist circumference) and blood pressure were determined by using standardized devices/instruments (3) biochemical analyses were done to determine participants’ Serum triglycerides (TGs), serum total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and fasting blood glucose (FBG). As to prevent the spread of COVID-19, precautionary measures were applied throughout the whole procedure.

Anthropometric measurements

Physical measurements such as weight, height, waist circumference (WC) and BP were measured according to the WHO stepwise approach [18] and using adjusted equipment by two trained data collectors (nurses) who were working at DCSH neurologic clinic. The height was measured using a stadiometer. Data collectors instructed participants to stand upright, point feet outward; legs straight and knee together; arms at sides; head, shoulder blades, buttocks, and heels touching the measurement surface; look straight ahead and shoulder relaxed during the measurement. When the participants were weighed, they were asked to take off their shoes and other items that could add extra weight. Measurements for height and weight were approximated to the nearest 0.1 cm and 0.1 Kg, respectively. Then, BMI was calculated via weight in Kg divided by height in centimeter square (BM = Kg/Ht2). Furthermore, WC was measured midway between the inferior angle of the ribs and the supra-iliac crest, with the erect stand-up position following normal out breathing by non-stretching tape to the nearest 0.1cm. Blood pressure was measured using a digital automatic BP monitor apparatus. When measuring it, the study subjects were instructed to sit comfortably, with the back supported, legs uncrossed and the arm supported at heart level. After that, it was measured three consecutive times (with 5 minutes apart) after the participants had taken rest for at least 5 minutes or 30 minutes for those who take hot drinks like coffee, and the average values for both diastolic and systolic BP were considered for this study.

Biochemical analysis

For lipid profile and FBS analysis, approximately 5ml of blood sample was collected from the ante-capital vein through sterile technique after the study participants have overnight fasting or a minimum of 8 hours fasting and asked for their consent to give a sample. The blood sample was collected using an appropriate test tube. After the blood was clotted within 30 minutes, it was centrifuged at 3500 revolutions per minute for 5 minutes. A pure serum sample was separated, then placed in the neck tube and stored at -20°c until processing. Fasting blood glucose, TC, HDL-C and TGs were determined using Dimension EXL 200 System chemistry analyzer through the enzymatic method from the serum sample, whereas LDL-C was calculated using the Freidwald formula: Total cholesterol (TC = HDL+ LDL + TG/5, LDL-c = TC-HDL-TG/5 [21].

Data processing and analysis

Data were checked for completeness then coded, entered and cleaned using Epi-Data version 4.6 statistical software, and exported to STATA version 14 for analysis. Descriptive analysis was carried out and results were presented using tables and figures. The categorical variables were explored using frequency and percentage, and the continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The chi-square (χ2) tests were used to compare categorical variables while continuous variables were compared using independent t-tests. The associations between MS and associated factors were investigated using the bivariable and multivariable binary logistic regression model. Variable with p-value < 0.25 in the bivariable logistic regression was fitted into the multivariable binary logistic regression model for final analysis. An adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with a 95% confidence level (CL) was used for the interpretation of the strength of prediction of the independent variables to the outcome (MS). Variables having a P-value of < 0.05 at 95% CL with multivariable logistic regression were considered statistically significant. The goodness of fit of the final logistic model was tested by using Hosmer and Lemeshow’s test.

Data quality control

To assure the quality of data, a pre-test was done before running the actual data collection to check completeness, consistency, sensitivity, and applicability and then modified accordingly. It was conducted by 5% of each group (total participants = 10) of the sample size of volunteer participants at a nearby hospital (Boru Meda General Hospital). The questionnaire was prepared in English and then translated to Amharic and back-re-translated to English to see its consistency. A one-day training was given by the principal investigator for data collectors regarding the objective of the study, methodology and relevance of the study before running the concrete data collection. The laboratory procedures were assured by strictly following the manufacturers’ instructions and standard operational procedure (SOP) in the pre-analytic, analytic and post-analytic stages of laboratory service. After completion of the data collection, each questionnaire was checked for completeness, clarity and consistency on a daily basis. Data entry was also double-checked.

Ethical consideration

The study was conducted following the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. To conduct the study, ethical issues were considered. The ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethical Review Board of the University of Gondar, School of Medicine (reference number: 685/6/2021). An official permission letter was also granted from the managers of DCSH. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant with respect to their willingness before participating in the study. All the principles of ethics such as confidentiality and privacy were ensured throughout the study process. The study participants were informed that refusal to consent or withdrawal from the study does not negatively affect their access to health care.

Result

Sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants

A total of 204 study participants grouped into two age and sex-matched groups (102 epileptic and 102 healthy controls) with a response rate of 100% were enrolled. The mean (± SD) age of the participants for both groups was 34.5 (±11.62) years and 52 (51%) of each group were males. Nearly one-third, 32 (31.4%), of epileptic participants were unable to read or write and 36 (35.3%) of the controls have attended primary school. Among the total participants, 31 (30.4%) of the epilepsy group and 28 (27.5%) of the controls were farmers. More than half of the study participants, both in the epileptic group (64 (62.7%)) and control (66 (64.7%)), were urban residents. The mean (± SD) monthly income of the participants in the epileptic and control groups was 4603.92 (± 2498.95) and 5268.14 (± 2538.201) Ethiopian birr, respectively (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants in DCSH, Dessie, Northeast Ethiopia, 2021 (n = 204).

Variables Category Epilepsy group (n = 102) [N (%)] Control group (n = 102) [N (%)]
Age (mean ± SD) N/A 34.45 ±11.62 34.49 ±11.62
Age category 18–28 34 (33.3) 36 (35.3)
29–39 36 (35.3) 35 (34.3)
≥ 40 32 (31.4) 31 (30.4)
Sex Male 52 (51) 52 (51)
Female 50 (49 50 (49)
Occupation Merchant 13 (12.7) 21 (20.6)
Farmer 31 (30.4) 28 (27.5)
Employee 18 (17.6) 23 (22.5)
Daily labourer 24 (23.5) 16 (15.7)
cOther 16 (15.7) 14 (13.7)

Educational status

unable to read/write

32 (31.4)

21 (20.6)
Primary 29 (28.4) 36 (35.3)
Secondary 18 (17.6) 19 (18.6)
College/above 23 (22.5) 26 (25.5)
Residence Urban 64 (62.7) 66 (64.7)
Rural 38 (37.3) 36 (35.3)
Income (mean ± SD) N/A 4603.92± 2498.95 5268.14±2538.2

Note: cstudent and housewife.

Abbreviations: ETB = Ethiopian Birr, SD = standard deviation, N/A = not applicable.

Behavioral characteristics of the study participants

Most of the study participants, 98 (91.1%) in the epileptic and 91 (89.2%) in the control group, had no history of smoking. The majority of the study participants in both groups, 91 (90.2%) in epileptic and 81 (80.4%) in control groups, were khat non-chewer at the time of data collection. Likewise, the highest number of study participants in both groups, 97 (95.1%) epileptics and 79 (77.5%) of the controls, were not reporting a history of alcohol drinking. A total of 39 (38.2%) participants in the epileptic group and 45 (44.1%) participants in the control group engaged in moderate physical activity. In addition, 63 (61.8%) of epileptic and 52 (51.0%) of the control respondents were consuming less than five servings of fruit and vegetables per day (Table 2).

Table 2. Behavioral characteristics of study participants in DCSH, Dessie, Northeast Ethiopia, 2021 (n = 204).

Variables Category Epilepsy group (n = 102) [N (%)] Control group (n = 102) [N (%)]
Physical activity level Vigorous 25 (24.5) 35 (34.3)
Moderate 39 (38.2) 45 (44.1)
Low 38 (37.3) 22 (21.6)
Days of FEV intake/ Week ≥5 16 (15.7) 26 (25.5)
3–5 34 (33.3) 36 (35.3)
<3 52 (51.0) 40 (39.2)
Number of servings of FEV on average / day <5servings 63 (61.8) 52 (51.0)
≥5 servings 39 (38.2) 50 (48.0)
Khat chewing status Chewer 10 (9.8) 20 (19.6)
Non-chewer 91 (90.2) 81 (80.4)
Alcohol consumption Drinker 5 (4.9) 23 (22.5)
Non-drinker 97 (95.1) 79 (77.5)
Cigarette smoking Smoker 4 (3.9) 11 (10.8)
Non-smoker 98 (96.1) 91 (89.2)

Abbreviation: FEV = fruit and/or vegetable.

Clinical characteristics and therapy of the epileptic participants

The majority of the epileptic participants, 65 (63.7%), had generalized onset type of epilepsy and 91 (89.1%) of patients were on AEDs at the time of recruitment. Nearly two-thirds of the participants, 69 (67.6%), were on monotherapy in which phenobarbitone was the most frequently utilized drug, in 39 (38.2%) patients. The mean duration since epilepsy diagnosis was 5.9 (± 3.7) years, and 63 (61.8%) of the participants were responsive to anti-epileptic agents. Out of the total epileptic patients, only two participants were hypertensive with anti-hypertension medication, which was started after the onset of epilepsy and none of the study participants reported either previously T2DM or on treatment for abnormal TG and HDL-C, (Table 3).

Table 3. Clinical characteristics and therapy of epileptic group at DCSH, Dessie, Northeast Ethiopia, 2021 (n = 102).

Variables Category Frequency (%)
Epilepsy subtype Generalized onset 65 63.7
Focal onset 15 14.7
Unknown Onset 22 21.6
Duration of epilepsy, years (mean ± SD) N/A 5.9 ± 3.7 N/A
Currently on anti-epileptic treatment Yes 91 89.1
No 11 10.9
Current AEDs combination 0 (Currently not on AEDs 11 10.8
1 (On monotherapy) 69 67.6
≥ 2 (On Poly therapy) 22 21.6
Name of Current AEDs combination Currently not on medication 11 10.8
Phenobarbitone 39 38.2
Phenytoin 22 21.6
Carbamazepine 4 3.9
Phenobarbitone and Phenytoin 16 15.7
Phenobarbitone and Carbamazepine 8 7.8
Phenobarbitone and valproic acid 1 1.0
Phenobarbitone, Phenytoin and Carbamazepine 1 1.0
Duration since AEDs started, years (mean ± SD) N/A 4.6 ± 3.5 N/A
Drug responsiveness status Drug responsive 63 61.8
Drug-resistant 10 9.8
Undefined 29 28.4
Previously T2DM or currently taking medication Yes 0 0
No 102 100
Known hypertensive /on medication Yes 2 2.0
No 100 98.0
On treatment for lipid abnormalities Yes 0 0
No 102 100

Anthropometric and biochemical parameters of the study participants

In this study, the average SBP levels of epilepsy and control groups were found to be 114.22 (± 11.75) and 116.91 (±13.16) mmHg, respectively. The mean ± SD levels of BMI for epilepsy and control groups were 22.37 ± 3.06 and 22.12 ± 2.38 kg/m2, respectively. Besides, the results of the present study showed that in the serum of epilepsy and control participants, the average HDL-c levels were 45.68 ± 9.01 and 48.21± 8.43 mg/dl, respectively. A significant difference was found in the mean of HDL-c, WC and FBS levels between epilepsy and control groups with respective P-values of 0.040, 0.002 and 0.006 (Table 4).

Table 4. Levels of anthropometric and biochemical parameters of the study participants at DCSH, Dessie, Northeast Ethiopia, 2021 (n = 204).

Variables Epilepsy group (n = 102) Control group (n = 102) aP-value
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
SBP 114.22 ± 11.75 116.91 ± 13.16 0.124
DBP 76.50 ± 7.91 77.08 ± 7.81 0.600
HDL-c 45.68 ± 9.01 48.21 ± 8.43 * 0.040
BMI 22.37± 3.06 22.12 ± 2.38 0.510
WC 81.79 ± 9.17 77.75 ± 8.95 * 0.002
FBS 90.37 ± 16.17 84.75 ± 12.56 * 0.006
TC 178.45± 41.79 177.91 ± 39.22 0.924
LDL-c 107.81 ± 35.48 105.31 ± 34.17 0.610
TG 125.09 ±56.41 126.44 ± 53.37 0.816

Note: *Statistically significant difference,

aP- value was derived from the independent t-test.

Abbreviations:—SBB = systolic blood pressure, DBP = diastolic blood pressure, HDL-c = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, BMI = body mass index, WC = waist circumference, FBS = fasting blood sugar, TC = total cholesterol, LDL-c = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, TG = triglyceride.

The magnitude of metabolic syndrome and its components among the study participants

According to the NCEP-ATP III criteria, the prevalence rate of MS was found to be 25.5% (95% CI: 17.03% - 33.95%) among the epileptic group and 13.7% (95% CI: 7.04%- 20.40%) among the control group. Likewise, the prevalence rate was estimated based on IDF definition and found to be 23.5% (95% CI: 15.28% - 31.76%) among epileptic participants and 14.7% (95% CI: 7.83% - 21.58%) among the controls. The difference reaches statistical significance for the NCEP-ATP- III definition (p = 0.034), however, there was no statistically significant difference for IDF (p = 0.109) (Table 5). According to both criteria, the prevalence rate of MS varied in each age category of the two study groups’ participants, and a high prevalence rate was found in the age group of ≥ 40 years in both groups (34.5% among epilepsy and 22.6% among control using both criteria). The study also showed that a different prevalence of MS between males and females in the two groups was observed with a high prevalence rate (30%) among epilepsy female participants based on the NCEP-ATP III definition (Fig 1).

Table 5. Frequency of metabolic syndrome and its components among the study groups and the related comparisons at DCSH, Dessie, Northeast Ethiopia, 2021.

Components Epilepsy group N (%) Control group N (%) aP-value
Central obesity by NCEP-ATPIII
 Yes
 No
15 (14.7)
87 (85.3)
10 (9.8)
92 (90.2)
0.286
Central obesity by IDF
 Yes
 No

28 (27.5)
74 (72.5)

20 (19.6)
82 (80.4)

0.187
HDL-c level
 Low
 Normal

41 (40.2)
61 (59.8)

27 (26.5)
75 (73.5)
* 0.038
TG level
 Increased
 Normal

34 (33.3)
68 (66.7)

21 (20.6)
81(79.4)

* 0.040
BP
 Elevated
 Normal

17 (16.7)
85 (83.3)

19 (18.6)
83 (81.4)

0.713
FBG by NCEP-ATP III
 Increased
 Normal

16 (15.7)
86 (84.3)

4 (3.9)
98 (96.1)
* 0.005
FBG by IDF
 Increased
 Normal

26 (25.5)
76 (74.5)

14 (13.7)
88 (86.3)
* 0.034
MS- according to NCEP-ATP III criteria
 Yes
 Non

26 (25.5)
76 (74.5)

14 (13.7)
88 (86.3)
* 0.034
MS- according to IDF criteria
 Yes
 No

24 (23.5)
78 (76.5)

15 (14.7)
87 (85.3)
0.109

Note: *Statistically significant difference,

a P-value from Chi-square test.

Fig 1. The magnitude of metabolic syndrome among study groups stratified by sex and age group (according to ATP-III and IDF definitions).

Fig 1

Regarding the prevalence of components of MS, reduced HDL-C was the most prominent in both groups, at 40.2% in epileptic participants and 26.5% in controls, followed by elevated TG levels with the prevalence rate of 33.3% and 20.6% for epilepsy and control groups, respectively (Table 5).

Associated factors of metabolic syndrome among the epileptic groups

In bivariable analysis, age, residence, level of physical activity, FEV intakes status, epilepsy subtype, epilepsy duration, current AEDs use, drug responsiveness status, BMI, TC and LDL-C had P-value < 0.25 and were fitted into the multivariable binary logistic regression model for final analysis, by both IDF and ATP-III criteria.

Findings of a multivariable analysis with IDF criteria showed that having a low level of physical activity, being on multiple AEDs, BMI, and having TC ≥ 200 mg/dl were found to have significant associations with MS (P-value < 0.05). Participants with low physical activity had a 4.7 (AOR = 4.73, 95% CI: 1.08–20.68) times higher risk of having MS compared to sufficient activity. The odds of having MS among participants taking multiple anti-epileptic medications was 8.1 (AOR = 8.08, 95% CI: 1.52–42.74) times higher compared to participants who were taking a single medication. Likewise, participants who had a TC level of ≥ 200 mg/dl were 5.8 (AOR = 5.81, 95%: 1.32–41.13) times more likely to have MS compared to patients who had < 200 mg/dl. For a unit increase in BMI of a participant, the odds of having MS increases by a factor of 1.6 (AOR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.16–2.11) (Table 6). Similarly, applying the NCEP-ATP III criteria for MS, the multivariable regression analysis showed that taking multiple antiepileptic agents (AOR = 6.81, 95% CI: 1.29–35.92), having TC ≥ 200 mg/dl (AOR = 7.37, 95% CI: 1.32–41.13) and BMI (AOR = 1.53, 96% CI: 1.16–2.01) were found to have significant associations with MS (Table 7).

Table 6. Bivariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analysis of factors associated with metabolic syndrome among the epileptic group using IDF criteria at DCSH, Dessie, Northeast Ethiopia, 2021(n = 102).

Variables Categories MS- IDF COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) p-value
Yes (n (%)) No (n (%))
Age category 18–28 6 (17.6) 28 (82.4) 1 1
29–39 7 (19.4) 29 (80.6) 1.13 (0.34–3.77) 1.15 (0.18–7.19) 0.883
≥40 11 (34.4) 21 (65.6) 2.44 (0.79–7.68) 2.39 (0.32–18.02) 0.396
Residence


Level of physical activity
Rural 13 (34.2) 25 (65.8) 1 1
Urban
Sufficient
11 (17.2)
9 (13.8)
53 (82.8)
56 (86.2)
0.39 (0.17–1.01
1
0.34 (0.07–1.64)
1
0.177
Low 15 (40.5) 22 (59.5) 4.24(1.62–11.11) 4.73 (1.08–20.68) * 0.039
Level of FEV intakes Adequate 6 (13.3) 39 (86.7) 1 1
Low 18 (31.6) 39 (68.4) 3.00 (1.08–8.36) 3.80 (0.79–18.36) 0.096
Epilepsy subtype Generalized onset 17 (26.2) 48 (73.8) 1 1
Focal onset 1 (6.7) 14 (93.3) 0.2 (0.02–1.65) 0.86 (0.06–12.61) 0.915
Unknown Onset 6 (27.3) 16 (72.7) 1.06 (0.36–3.15) 1.32 (0.24–7.31) 0.752
Epilepsy dura-tion (mean±SD) N/A 7.6 ± 4.7 5.4 ± 3.2 1.7 (1.03–1.32) 1.01 (0.83–1.23) 0.930
Current AEDs use On monotherapy 11 (6.2) 57 (83.8) 1 1
On Poly therapy 12 (52.2) 11 (47.8) 5.65(1.99–12.03) 8.08 (1.52–42.74) * 0.014
Not on AE-agents 1 (9.1) 10 (90.9) 0.52 (0.06–4.47) 1.95 (0.14–27.19) 0.621
Drug responsiveness status Drug responsive 18 (28.6) 45 (71.4) 1 1
Drug-resistant 2 (20.0) 8 (80.0) 0.66 (0.13–3.43) 0.15 (0.01–2.37) 0.180
Undefined 4 (13.8) 25 (86.2) 0.53 (0.17–1.61) 0.44 (0.708–2.48) 0.351
BMI (mean ±SD) N/A 24.8±2.9 21.6±2.7 1.46 (1.20–1.77) 1.57 (1.16–2.11) * 0.003
TC <200 13 (17.6) 61 (82.4) 1 1
≥ 200 11 (39.3) 17 (60.7) 3.04 (1.16–7.98) 5.81 (1.03–32.91) * 0.047
LDL-C <130 12 (16.2) 62 (83.8) 1 1
≥ 130 12 (42.9) 16 (57.1) 3.88 (1.47–10.23 0.78 (0.16–3.86) 0.762

Note: *Statistically significant factors associated with MS, 1 = Reference.

Abbreviations: AEDs = anti-epileptic drugs, AOR = adjusted odds ratio, BMI- body mass index, CI = confidence interval, COR = crude odds ratio, FEV = fruits and vegetable, LDL-c = low-density lipoprotein, N/A = Not Applicable, TC = total cholesterol.

Table 7. Bivariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analysis of factors associated with metabolic syndrome among the epileptic group using NCEP-ATP III criteria at DCSH, Dessie, Northeast Ethiopia, 2021 (n = 102).

Variables Categories MS- NCEP-ATPIII COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) p-value
Yes (n (%) No (n (%))

Age category



Residence


Level of physical activity
18–28 6 (17.6) 28 (82.4) 1 1
29–39 9 (25.0) 27 (75.0) 1.56 (0.49–4.96) 1.62 (0.27–9.43) 0.598
≥40
Rural
11 (34.4)
13 (34.2)
21 (65.6)
25 (65.8)
2.44 (0.78–7.67)
1
1.92 (0.28–13.19)
1
0.509
Urban
Sufficient
13 (20.3)
11 (16.9)
51 (79.7)
54 (83.1)
0.49 (0.19–1.21)
1
0.54 (0.12–2.48
1
0.432
Low 15 (40.5) 22 (59.5) 3.35 (1.33–8.42) 3.04 (0.76–12.17) 0.116
FEV-intakes Adequate 7 (15.6) 38 (84.4) 1 1
Low 19 (33.3) 38 (66.7) 2.71 (1.02–7.21) 2.70 (0.64–11.40) 0.176
Epilepsy subtype Generalized onset 19 (29.2) 46 (70.8) 1 1
Focal onset 1 (6.7 14 (93.3) 0.17 (0.02–1.41) 0.39 (0.03–6.04) 0.505
Unknown Onset 6 (27.3) 16 (72.7) 0.91 (0.31–2.67) 0.75 (0.15–4.27) 0.792
Epilepsy dura-tion (mean ±SD) N/A 7.6 ± 4.8 5.4 ± 3.1 1.17 (1.04–1.32) 1.01 (0.83–1.23) 0.920
Current AEDs use On monotherapy 13 (19.1) 55 (80.9) 1 1
On Poly therapy 12 (52.2) 11 (47.8) 4.62 (1.67–12.16 6.81 (1.29–35.92) * 0.024
Not on AEDs 1 (9.1) 10 (90.9) 0.42 (0.05–3.6) 1.23 (0.09–16.44) 0.878
Drug responsiveness status Drug responsive 20 (31.7) 43 (68.3) 1 1
Drug-resistant 2 (20.0) 8 (80.0) 0.54 (0.11–2.76) 0.11 (0.01–1.72) 0.115
Undefined 4 (13.8) 25 (86.2) 0.34 (0.11–1.12) 0.20 (0.03–1.27) 0.088
BMI (mean ±SD) N/A 24.73± 2.9 21.7± 2.7 1.48 (1.22–1.80) 1.53 (1.16–2.01) * 0.002
TC <200 13 (17.6) 61 (82.4) 1 1
≥ 200 13 (46.4) 15 (53.6) 4.07 (1.57–10.56 7.37 (1.32–41.13) * 0.023
LDL-C <130 12 (16.2) 62 (83.8) 1 1
≥ 130 14 (50.0) 14 (50.0) 5.17 (1.97–13.56 1.58 (0.36–6.99) 0.544

Note: Sufficient physical activity was considered for participants having either moderate or vigorous levels of activity (according to WHO definition), 1-References,

*Statistically significant factors associated with MS.

Abbreviations: AEDs = anti-epileptic drugs, AOR = adjusted odds ratio, BMI- body mass index, CI = confidence interval, COR = crude odds ratio, FEV = fruits and vegetable, LDL-c = low-density lipoprotein, N/A = Not Applicable, TC = total cholesterol.

Discussion

Metabolic syndrome is a group of metabolic risk factors including glucose intolerance, dyslipidemia and hypertension which are associated with an increased risk of T2DM and CVDs [4]. In view of the fact that information from diverse studies demonstrates the risk of MS-associated development of CVDs is common for individuals with epilepsy, this study aimed to determine the magnitude and associated factors of MS among epileptic patients attending DCSH and compare it with the respective healthy control groups. It has been revealed the hidden MS among epileptic patients.

The study found that the prevalence rate of MS in the epilepsy group was 25.5% (95% CI: 17.03%- 33.95%) as per NCEP ATP- III criteria and 23.5% (95% CI: 15.28%- 31.76%) as per IDF criteria. This finding is in line with similar studies conducted in Kigali Rwanda using ATP III (30.6%) [7], in Estonia using ATP-III (20.3%) [22], in India by ATP III criteria (29.5%) [23] and in Istanbul Turkey using IDF criteria (32.6%) [24]. Conversely, a higher rate of MS as compared to the finding of this study was reported among epileptic patients, 52.6% in South India using the AHA/NHLBI [8], 47.2% based on IDF Criteria, and 39.3% based on ATP-III criteria in Brazil [25], 43.5% in Italy using ATP-III [26] and 47.2% in West China based on AHA/NHLBI criteria [27]. The possible reason for this discrepancy may be the difference in sample size and sampling technique, the differences in study approaches (different in patient’s selection criteria such as age, weight and anticonvulsants medications), the difference in types of anticonvulsant agents utilized by the patients and the difference in socio-economic status. For instance, in West China and Italy, the sample size was 36 patients taking VPA and 46 patients who were on monotherapy respectively, while in this study the sample size was 102 and consider all epileptic patients regardless of the medication status. Moreover, in Brazil, the participants were taking antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for at least one year, and at least two years in South India, but in this study, all epileptic patients taking AEDs (regardless of the duration), and not taking AEDs were included. In addition to the above reasoning, the discrepancy may be partly attributed to the various criteria employed by the studies. For example, in West China and South India, the diagnostic criteria were AHA/NHLBI. Other previous studies also reported a higher prevalence of MS: 47% among Chinese obese patients with epilepsy on VPA [27] and 43.5% in Italian overweight epileptic patients treated with VPA [26] according to NCEP ATP III and IDF definitions, respectively. A lower prevalence of MS as compared to the current study was also reported in epileptic patients in India (14.7%) and Iraq (5.7%) [28] using IDF and NCEP-ATPII criteria respectively. The possible reason for this discrepancy might also be the difference in patients’ selection criteria, the types of anticonvulsant agents utilized by the patients and the difference in socio-economic status.

On the other hand, the study observed a 13.7% (95% CI: 7.04%- 20.40%) and 14.7% (95% CI: 7.83% - 21.58%) prevalence of MS among the control groups using NCEP ATP- III and IDF criteria, respectively. This finding is consistent with the study conducted in West Gojjam (17.3%) [14], in Mizan-Aman town (9.6%) [29], according to the modified NCEP-ATP III criteria, and in Eastern Ethiopia (20.1%) [30] and Nigeria (18%) [31] according to IDF criteria. However, it is low as compared with the pooled review among the Ethiopian population (27.92%) [13], a study from Ghana (35.9%) [32], and India (33.5%) [33] using IDF criteria. The discrepancy could be due to differences in sample size, study setting, and study population.

In comparing the prevalence of MS between the two groups, the study observed a higher prevalence rate in the epilepsy group (25.5%) compared to the healthy controls (13.7%) as per NCEP ATP- III criteria with a statistically significant difference. Similarly, a higher prevalence rate of MS was estimated in epilepsy (23.5%) as compared to the control group (14.7%) using IDF criteria, but not statistically significant. Even though there are limitations in comparing our data with the previously similar published studies where the MS in epileptic patients was studied in non-comparative studies, few studies report a consistent result with our finding: a study conducted in Istanbul, Turkey (32.6% for epilepsy vs 12.0% for healthy controls) [24] and China (47.2% for epilepsy vs. 20.1% for controls) based on IDF criteria [27].

The higher prevalence in epileptic patients could be understood from the perspective of seizure-related metabolic abnormalities, long-term antiepileptic medications use, and a more sedentary lifestyle due to epilepsy [810,22,26]. It has been hypothesized that epileptic seizures damage specific brain nuclei in the hypothalamus and can change serum levels of some neurotransmitters and hormones, which leads to an imbalance of food intake and energy expenditure with subsequent weight gain [3436]. Moreover, the majority of epileptic participants in this study (89.1%) were on different anti-epileptic agents, which often lead to weight gain, dyslipidemia as well as increase the risk of metabolic disturbances and MS by themselves [9,22,37,38]. It could also be explained by the high occurrence of a sedentary lifestyle in PWE. People with epilepsy tend to participate less often in physical activities, due to fear of seizures (concerns of injury) and social embarrassment compared to subjects without epilepsy [39]. This study also supports the above studies and found a significantly higher prevalence of low physical activity in epileptic participants (36.6%) than the healthy controls (21.6%). Other mechanisms possibly contributing to higher rates of MS in the group of patients with epilepsy could be higher activation of stress pathway through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis although these have not been investigated independently [4042]. This leads to overactivity of the sympathoadrenal system with the release of counter-regulatory hormones in a chronic state and finally predisposes to dyslipidemia as well as insulin resistance. Furthermore, the observed significant difference in the prevalence of some components of MS between epilepsy and control groups also suggests the difference in metabolic disturbances between the groups and MS in isolation.

In contrast to our finding, a comparative cross-sectional study conducted in Estonia reported a relatively lower magnitude of MS in the epilepsy group than the healthy controls, 20.3% Vs 29.9% using ATP-III criteria [43]. However, the proportion reported to both groups was inconsistent and was below or above the reported levels of the present study. The discrepancy could be due to the age variation of the study populations or the difference in drug use. For instance, in the Estonian study population, most of the participants in the control group were older than the epileptic groups (median ages: 32 and 47 years respectively). It has been reported that age has a direct relation with MS as aging is related to physical inactivity and physiological changes like increased fat mass (abdominal fat deposition) accompanied by decreased muscle mass, hence concomitant insulin resistance.

Among all MS components analyzed, the most common in both groups was reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) at 40.6% in epileptic participants and 26.7% in controls, with a statistically significant difference. The higher rate of reduced HDL-C in epileptic patients can be explained by the use of AEDs and the high rate of abdominal obesity than the control (27.7% Vs 19.8%, using IDF criteria), although the difference was not statistically significant. On top of that, significantly higher prevalence rates of some other MS components such as increased TG (33.7% Vs 20.8%) and raised FBG (15.8% vs 4.0% by ATP-III) were observed in epilepsy compared to the controls thereby suggesting that the metabolic disturbances are different between the two groups. Hyperglycemia may be due to drugs that are known to cause hyperglycemia like VPA or due to a combination of MS risk factors commonly found among patients with epilepsy like obesity and lower exercise capacity that make body cells less sensitive or resistant to insulin.

Regarding associated factors of MS in epilepsy, a significant association of some variables with MS was observed using both ATP-III and IDF diagnostic criteria. According to IDF criteria, a low level of physical activity was significantly associated with MS, and participants with low physical activity levels were more likely to have MS compared to their counterparts. Evidence studied in Spain [12] and India [9] showed that a low level of physical activity was positively associated with MS compared to sufficient activity. This might be due to the effect of sufficient physical exercise on burning more energy which can prevent the accumulation of fat and weight gain. Besides, exercise can improve insulin sensitivity and build muscle mass rather than fat mass, hence having a protective role on metabolic risks [44]. Therefore, having insufficient physical activity increases the risk of MS.

Likewise, BMI was significantly associated with MS in both the IDF and ATP-III criteria. This is consistent with the studies conducted in Estonia [22], Iran [45] and Japan [38]. The result could be explained in light of the contribution of increased body weight to central obesity, which leads to the accumulation of fat in the body. Fat forms artery plaque, which narrows arteries and capillaries leading to hypertension (a component of MS) and decreasing insulin sensitivity, consequently leading to a greater risk of MS [46].

Elevated TC was also found to be significantly associated with a higher risk of having MS compared to normal TC levels, using both criteria. The possible justification is that elevated total cholesterol has a direct correlation with most MS components and an inverse relation with HDL-c. Increased cholesterol has been shown to increase increment in weight and visceral adiposity, which intern leads to an increased release of free fatty acids. This causes a decrease in insulin action and sensitivity. Insulin resistance prevents the use of glucose by causing protein kinase inhibition in the muscle but stimulates lipogenesis and gluconeogenesis by activating protein kinase in the liver. So, the blood glucose level rises. On the other hand, it also facilitates the formation of hypertension by causing vasoconstriction. Thus, MS development may be easier for a high level of TC.

Moreover, epileptic participants in this study taking multiple anticonvulsant medications were found to have a significantly higher risk of developing MS in both the IDF and ATP-III criteria, which corroborates with other previous studies conducted in India [9,47] and Estonia [22]. This could be explained by the different effects of AEDs on weight subsequently affecting the development of insulin resistance and MS. Enzyme inducers AEDs (CPZ, phenytoin, phenobarbitone) have a direct effect on lipid metabolism, which enhances hepatic P450 cytochrome system activity (that involves in the synthesis of serum cholesterol) leading to increased cholesterol synthesis [48,49]. In addition, some AEDs may induce direct stimulation of the hypothalamus via the GABA pathway (leading to deregulation of the neuroendocrine control of energy intake) and alterations of adipokine gene expression in the brain and pituitary that alter adipokines released from adipose tissue- causing appetite stimulation [50]. It can finally promote hyperleptinemia leading to leptin resistance and over-secretion of insulin resulting in insulin resistance, hence can increase the risk of having MS [50].

Strength and limitation of the study

As a strength, this study was the first that attempted to determine the prevalence of MS and associated factors among epilepsy patients in Ethiopia, hence ultimately adding to the limited data. It also includes healthy controls as a comparative group and treatment-naive epileptic patients. Despite these strengths, the study has the following limitations. First, our study design was cross-sectional by its nature and signifying that it cannot sufficiently ascertain the causal association between MS and associated factors. Second, a small sample size (due to budget and time constraints) and the sampling coming from one Referral Hospital at a specific period, may limit external generalizability. Third, as the study was conducted in a referral care center, the group of epilepsy patients selected may reflect more resistant cases of epilepsy than those in the general population. Moreover, only two definitions were used to assess the prevalence of MS; a different prevalence rate could have been observed if other MS definitions like the WHO definition were used.

Conclusion

In general, our findings indicated that people with epilepsy are more prone to develop MS and its components than healthy controls using ATP-III criteria, indicating that MS is a problem for epileptic patients. Hence, they are at increased risk of developing complications such as CVDs and premature mortality. Among the components of MS, HDL-c was the most commonly encountered abnormality, followed by elevated TG levels in both groups. Moreover, low physical activity, BMI, taking multiple AEDs and having raised TC were significantly associated with MS in the epileptic group.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Analysis on the authenticity of IDF criteria referring to the NCEP-ATP III criteria.

(DOCX)

S1 File. WHO STEPS questioner.

(DOCX)

S1 Dataset. Datasets used for the analysis.

(DTA)

Acknowledgments

Declaration

We would like to give our thanks to the University of Gondar for supporting us to do this work. We also owe our heartfelt gratitude to Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital for collaborating on the study and data collectors and study participants who were facilitating and supporting us during this work.

Abbreviations

AEDs

Anti-Epileptic Drugs

BP

Blood Pressure

CBZ

Carbamazepine

CVDs

Cardio-Vascular Diseases

DBP

Diastolic Blood Pressure

DCSH

Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital

FBS

Fasting Blood Sugar

GABA

Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid

HDL-C

High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

IDF

International Diabetes Federation

LDL-C

Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

MS

Metabolic Syndrome

NCDs

Non-Communicable Diseases

NCEPATP III

National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III

PWE

People with Epilepsy

T2DM

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

TC

Total Cholesterol

TG

Triacylglycerol

VPA

Valproic Acid

WC

Waist Circumference

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.WHO. Epilepsy 20 June 2019 [Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/epilepsy.
  • 2.Gaitatzis A, Sisodiya SM, Sander JW. The somatic comorbidity of epilepsy: a weighty but often unrecognized burden. Epilepsia. 2012;53(8):1282–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2012.03528.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Shmuely S, van der Lende M, Lamberts RJ, Sander JW, Thijs RD. The heart of epilepsy: Current views and future concepts. Seizure. 2017;44:176–83. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2016.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alberti KG, Zimmet P, Shaw J. Metabolic syndrome—a new world-wide definition. A Consensus Statement from the International Diabetes Federation. Diabet Med. 2006;23(5):469–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01858.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Saklayen MG. The Global Epidemic of the Metabolic Syndrome. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2018;20(2):12. doi: 10.1007/s11906-018-0812-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ala’a A, Adelin A, Michèle G. Cardiometabolic Syndrome. Cardiovascular Risk Factors: IntechOpen; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ndayambaje FX, Gahutu JB, Peter S. Prevalence and risk factors for the metabolic syndrome among patients with epilepsy attending a neuropsychiatric hospital in Kigali, Rwanda. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vooturi S, Jayalakshmi S. Metabolic syndrome in people with epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior. 2020;106:106992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nair SS, Harikrishnan S, Sarma PS, Thomas SV. Metabolic syndrome in young adults with epilepsy. Seizure. 2016;37:61–4. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2016.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vyas MV, Davidson BA, Escalaya L, Costella J, Saposnik G, Burneo JG. Antiepileptic drug use for treatment of epilepsy and dyslipidemia: systematic review. Epilepsy research. 2015;113:44–67. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2015.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Saengsuwan J, Boonyaleepan S, Tiamkao S. Diet, exercise, sleep, sexual activity, and perceived stress in people with epilepsy in NE Thailand. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;45:39–43. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vivanco‐Hidalgo RM, Gomez A, Moreira A, Díez L, Elosua R, Roquer J. Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in people with epilepsy. Brain and behavior. 2017;7(2):e00618. doi: 10.1002/brb3.618 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ambachew S, Endalamaw A, Worede A, Tegegne Y, Melku M, Biadgo B. The Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome in Ethiopian Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Obesity. 2020;2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/2701309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Walle B, Reba K, Debela Y, Tadele K, Biadglegne F, Gutema H. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and factors associated with it among adults of West Gojjam: a community-based cross-sectional study. Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy. 2021;14:875. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S295451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Detection NCEPEPo, Adults ToHBCi. Third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult Treatment Panel III): The Program; 2002. [PubMed]
  • 16.Association EPH. 22nd Annual Conference of EPHA. On Alcohol, Substance, Khat and Tobacco. April 2012.
  • 17.Tesfaye F, Byass P, Wall S, Berhane Y, Bonita R. Association of smoking and khat (Catha edulis Forsk) use with high blood pressure among adults in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2006. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5(3):A89. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.WHO. The WHO STEPwise approach to noncommunicabledisease risk factor surveillance manual. 26 January 2017.
  • 19.Kwan P, Arzimanoglou A, Berg AT, Brodie MJ, Allen Hauser W, Mathern G, et al. Definition of drug resistant epilepsy: consensus proposal by the ad hoc Task Force of the ILAE Commission on Therapeutic Strategies. Wiley Online Library; 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Methodology WHOCCfDS. ATC/DDD Index 2022 2022 [Available from: https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/.
  • 21.Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972;18(6):499–502. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rakitin A, Kõks S, Haldre S. Metabolic syndrome and anticonvulsants: a comparative study of valproic acid and carbamazepine. Seizure. 2016;38:11–6. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2016.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nair SS, Harikrishnan S, Sarma PS, Thomas SV. Metabolic syndrome in young adults with epilepsy. Seizure. 2016;37:61–4. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2016.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Söylemez E, Öztürk O, Baslo SA, Balçık ZE, Ataklı D. Metabolic syndrome and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome among patients with epilepsy on monotherapy. Epilepsy & Behavior. 2020;111:107296. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107296 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cabral LS, Cherubini PA, de Oliveira MA, Bianchini L, Torres CM, Bianchin MM. Diagnostic yield and accuracy of different metabolic syndrome criteria in adult patients with epilepsy. Frontiers in neurology. 2017;8:460. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00460 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Verrotti A, Manco R, Agostinelli S, Coppola G, Chiarelli F. The metabolic syndrome in overweight epileptic patients treated with valproic acid. Epilepsia. 2010;51(2):268–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02206.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fang J, Chen S, Tong N, Chen L, An D, Mu J, et al. Metabolic syndrome among Chinese obese patients with epilepsy on sodium valproate. Seizure. 2012;21(8):578–82. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2012.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mahmood IH, Mded ZK. Effects of Carbamazepine on blood pressure, serum glucose concentration, lipid profile and prevalence of metabolic syndrome in epileptic patients. Tikrit J Pharmaceut Sci. 2012;8:102–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kerie S, Menberu M, Geneto M. Metabolic syndrome among residents of Mizan-Aman town, South West Ethiopia, 2017: a cross sectional study. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0210969. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Motuma A, Gobena T, Roba KT, Berhane Y, Worku A. Metabolic Syndrome Among Working Adults in Eastern Ethiopia. Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy. 2020;13:4941. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S283270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ulasi II, Ijoma CK, Onodugo OD. A community-based study of hypertension and cardio-metabolic syndrome in semi-urban and rural communities in Nigeria. BMC health services research. 2010;10(1):1–6. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gyakobo M, Amoah AG, Martey-Marbell D-A, Snow RC. Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in a rural population in Ghana. BMC endocrine disorders. 2012;12(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Prasad D, Kabir Z, Dash A, Das B. Prevalence and risk factors for metabolic syndrome in Asian Indians: A community study from urban Eastern India. Journal of cardiovascular disease research. 2012;3(3):204–11. doi: 10.4103/0975-3583.98895 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Suyama S, Yada T. New insight into GABAergic neurons in the hypothalamic feeding regulation. The Journal of Physiological Sciences. 2018;68(6):717–22. doi: 10.1007/s12576-018-0622-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.van den Heuvel JK, Furman K, Gumbs MC, Eggels L, Opland DM, Land BB, et al. Neuropeptide Y activity in the nucleus accumbens modulates feeding behavior and neuronal activity. Biological psychiatry. 2015;77(7):633–41. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.06.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wulsin AC, Solomon MB, Privitera MD, Danzer SC, Herman JP. Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis dysfunction in epilepsy. Physiology & behavior. 2016;166:22–31. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.05.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chen B, Choi H, Hirsch L, Moeller J, Javed A, Kato K, et al. Cosmetic side effects of antiepileptic drugs in adults with epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior. 2015;42:129–37. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.10.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Yamamoto Y, Terada K, Takahashi Y, Imai K, Kagawa Y, Inoue Y. Influence of antiepileptic drugs on serum lipid levels in adult epilepsy patients. Epilepsy research. 2016;127:101–6. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2016.08.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hinnell C, Williams J, Metcalfe A, Patten SB, Parker R, Wiebe S, et al. Health status and health‐related behaviors in epilepsy compared to other chronic conditions—A national population‐based study. Epilepsia. 2010;51(5):853–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02477.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Alfstad K, Clench-Aas J, Van Roy B, Mowinckel P, Gjerstad L, Lossius MI. Psychiatric symptoms in Norwegian children with epilepsy aged 8–13 years: effects of age and gender? Epilepsia. 2011;52(7):1231–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03042.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Adam TC, Hasson RE, Ventura EE, Toledo-Corral C, Le K-A, Mahurkar S, et al. Cortisol is negatively associated with insulin sensitivity in overweight Latino youth. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2010;95(10):4729–35. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-0322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Weinstein AA, Deuster PA, Francis JL, Bonsall RW, Tracy RP, Kop WJ. Neurohormonal and inflammatory hyper-responsiveness to acute mental stress in depression. Biological psychology. 2010;84(2):228–34. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.01.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rakitin A, Eglit T, Kõks S, Lember M, Haldre S. Comparison of the metabolic syndrome risk in valproate-treated patients with epilepsy and the general population in Estonia. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e103856. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Olsen RH, Krogh-Madsen R, Thomsen C, Booth FW, Pedersen BK. Metabolic responses to reduced daily steps in healthy nonexercising men. Jama. 2008;299(11):1261–3. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.11.1259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bayat M, Jalali N, Poursadeghfard M, Nazeri M, Dabbaghmanesh MH, Ashjazadeh N. Frequency of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance in epileptic patients treated with sodium valproate or carbamazepine monotherapy: A Case-Control Study. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Goodpaster BH, Krishnaswami S, Harris TB, Katsiaras A, Kritchevsky SB, Simonsick EM, et al. Obesity, regional body fat distribution, and the metabolic syndrome in older men and women. Archives of internal medicine. 2005;165(7):777–83. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.7.777 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sruthi SN. PREVALENCE OF METABOLIC SYNDROME AND CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE IN EPIELPSY: SCTIMST; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Cheng LS, Prasad AN, Rieder MJ. Relationship between antiepileptic drugs and biological markers affecting long-term cardiovascular function in children and adolescents. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology. 2010;17(1). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.LoPinto-Khoury C, Mintzer S. Antiepileptic drugs and markers of vascular risk. Current treatment options in neurology. 2010;12(4):300–8. doi: 10.1007/s11940-010-0080-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Belcastro V, D’Egidio C, Striano P, Verrotti A. Metabolic and endocrine effects of valproic acid chronic treatment. Epilepsy research. 2013;107(1–2):1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2013.08.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rick J Jansen

24 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-08200Metabolic syndrome and its associated factors among epileptic patients at Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Northeast Ethiopia; a hospital-based comparative cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. kassaw,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 08 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rick J. Jansen, PhD, MS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf".

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“there has been no funding for this work that could have influenced its outcome”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

“No authors have competing interests”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc

unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please make sure to address all reviewer comments fully with specific attention to the comment on reproduction of existing work. Thank you!

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: in methology part the selection of apparently healthy individuals is not clear. so it needs revision

the selection of apparaently healhty individual criteria must be written on the material and method part.

Reviewer #2: Abstract: page 2 line 33, 36 & 39: the association of BMI with MS needs to be described clearly (higher vs lower BMI)

Introduction: paragraph one and two can be merged and re-written considering the paper is meant for the scientific community with an understanding of what epilepsy and metabolic syndrome are. The emphasis in the introduction should be on the cross-link between epilepsy and metabolic syndrome.

Study participants: Line 110-121: The authors would benefit in adding statement explaining why they chose to use healthy controls.

Result and discussion: why did the author prefer to use both the IDF and NCEP-ATP III criteria in the description of the result and discussion? Which one is used in the study setting? The authors should use one of the criteria and present the other as a sensitivity analysis by providing the result as a supplementary file.

Discussion: The authors frequently used statements mentioned in the result part in their discussion and focused on comparing their result with others. Instead of comparing the finding of your study with other studies, the focus should be on explaining the consequence of the study finding on the study population.

Strength and Limitation of the Study: Line 501 “It also includes healthy controls as a comparative group and treatment-naive epileptic patients.”….did the study include treatment naïve epileptic patients as a control group. As this is not reflected in neither the methods nor result section.

Reviewer #3: I have reviewed with great interest the original research article entitled "Metabolic syndrome and

its associated factors among epileptic patients at Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital,

Northeast Ethiopia; a hospital-based comparative cross-sectional study" which was intended to

assess the magnitude of metabolic syndrome among epileptic patients. However, I have the

following concerns:

A sample size of 102 may not be enough to say the prevalence/magnitude of metabolic syndrome

among epileptic patients; rather, it might provide evidence for the presence of metabolic

syndrome in epileptic patients in comparison with another 102 healthy controls simply.

However, whether the metabolic syndrome is because of the anti-epileptic drugs or due to the

epilepsy disease per se should be clearly discussed in this manuscript.

Using the nonstandard abbreviations in the abstract section of the manuscript is not

recommended. However, the authors used several abbreviations in the abstract section, and the

author should write the long form of abbreviations for the first time, e.g., DCSH, MS, AEDs.

Since they did not have a list of healthy controls, how could they use a systematic random

sampling technique to select patient attendants or caregivers? The author said that they used

systematic random sampling techniques to select the control groups, which is impractical without

having the frame.

The sampling technique and procedures are not well explained for cases and control groups

separately. They should review the findings in relation to the sampling method.

Some of the major concerns are

1. Data do not supports the conclusions.

2. statistical analysis has been not performed appropriately and rigorously. Apparently it seems forged data.

3. Language is not clear, correct and there are ambiguous sentences as well. Besides, there are some dead sentences are there in the manuscript.

4. The work presented in the manuscript is simply copy of previously published work at another settings.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 29;17(12):e0279580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279580.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Sep 2022

Response to the editor: We thank you for the insightful comments given to our manuscript which obviously further improves the quality of our work. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect all the comments and suggestions provided.

Being specific on the points you raised:

#1. We will deposit soon our laboratory protocols in protocols.io., as it has been recommended

#2. Regarding financial disclosure, we have not made a change (we didn’t receive any funding for this study). Hence, we have stated “The authors received no specific funding for this work” on the cover letter.

#3. On the competing interest section, we have completed the Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests and have stated on the cover letter as “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist”.

#4. In Data Availability statement, we have specified the minimal data set underlying the results described in our manuscript (as Supporting information files).

#5. ORCID iD for the corresponding author has been linked to Editorial Manager profile.

#6. We incorporate the ethics statement in the methods section of our manuscript.

#7. We have fully addressed all the reviewer comments and suggestions.

Reviewer #1:

Response to the comments: Thanks for your kind reminders. We found your comment helpful and has now been written clearly as suggested. An equal number of age and sex-matched apparently healthy volunteer subjects (apparently healthy care givers/ patient attendants who full fill the inclusion criteria) were enrolled in the comparison group. The participants were selected consecutively. [ Page-6, L127-129], on unmarked version of our revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

Response to Comment 1: thank you very much for your suggestion. Although we agree that categorizing BMI as high or low is good to assess its association with MS, continuous independent variables can also be fitted as such and would have high statical power in predicting association, strong prediction contribution to the outcome variable (Jill C. Stoltzfus, 2011). Accordingly, we take BMI as continuous variable and asses its association with MS. The clarified result has presented on “Associated factors of metabolic syndrome among the epileptic groups” section [ Page-20, L341-346, or on Table 7(Page 21) and Table 8 Page 22)].

Response to Comment 2: Thanks for your kind reminders. We found your comment is helpful and have revised accordingly.

Response to comment 3: We thanks for the suggestion and incorporated it in our revised manuscript [Page-5, L107-109]. To be clearer, we initially intended to show “whether MS is a problem in epileptic population in the study setting, or to assess whether MS is associated with epilepsy or weather epilepsy and related issues are a risk for MS”. Accordingly, we tried to compare the presence of MS between epileptic and non-epileptic study participants even though the small sample size we enrolled and the study design we used may not sufficiently ascertain. To minimize the effect of confounder, we chose non-epileptic group from healthy individuals.

Response comment 4: we are grateful for the comment! Using a single criterion may over estimate or under estimate the magnitude of MS. Hence, we used both the IDF and NCEP-ATP III criteria independently in our setting. Moreover, we did sensitivity analysis and provided the result as a supplementary file (S1).

Response to comment 5: We thank you for you’re a very interesting comment. As the Purpose of discussion is to describe, analyzes and interpret/justify findings in relation to the existing literature, theory and practice ((Skelton.J. et al, 2000), (Shona Mc Combes, 2022), (Oner Şanli, et al, 2013)) we were trying to do accordingly. We believe the “consequence of the study finding on the study population” is addressed in a conclusion section [Page-29, Line no. 512-518].

Response to comment 6: Thanks for your kind question. We rather considered current treatment status of epileptic participants as a variable and fitted into logistic regression analysis (Current anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) use: On mono therapy, On Poly therapy, Not on antiepileptic-agents/ treatment naïve), and tried to show weather the MS is because of the epilepsy by itself or because of the different anti-epileptic drugs [Table 7(Page 21) and Table 8 Page 22)].

Reviewer #3:

Response to the comment 1: We are very appreciative for your insightful suggestions and comments. We have gone through your comments carefully and tried our best to address them. Even though the study design we choice (cross-sectional study design) cannot sufficiently ascertain whether the metabolic syndrome is because of the anti-epileptic drugs or due to the epilepsy disease per se (which has been stated as a limitation), the likelihood of MS, given its criteria, has been adjusted for possible confounding variables using a multivariate logistic regression model [Table 7(Page 21) and Table 8 (Page 22)]. Hence, Current anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) use status (On mono therapy, On Poly therapy, Not on antiepileptic-agents/ treatment naïve) has been adjusted to….

Response to the comment 2: thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and has now been amended in the revised abstract.

Response to the comment 3: We thanks for a very interesting doubt you raised. Honestly speaking, volunteer healthy patient attendants were selected consecutively and we are very sorry for a typing fault that has been done in editing of the manuscript. We have now added the corrected content to the manuscript on [Page-6, Line no. 127-129].

Response to the comment 4: Thank you for the comments. We have revised these points according to the suggestions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Rick J Jansen

27 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-08200R1Metabolic syndrome and its associated factors among epileptic patients at Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Northeast Ethiopia; a hospital-based comparative cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. kassaw,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please make sure to remove all nonstandard abbreviations form the abstract. Also, please address the comment from the reviewer suggesting this is a mostly reproduced manuscript of a published manuscript. Thank you!

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 26 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rick J. Jansen, PhD, MS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please make sure to remove all nonstandard abbreviations form the abstract. Also, please address the comment from the reviewer suggesting this is a mostly reproduced manuscript of a published manuscript. Thank you!

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 29;17(12):e0279580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279580.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


21 Nov 2022

Dear Editor,

I would like to say thank you for your comments, support, and invitation for resubmitting our manuscript

kind regards.

Altaseb Beyene Kassaw

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Rick J Jansen

12 Dec 2022

Metabolic syndrome and its associated factors among epileptic patients at Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Northeast Ethiopia; a hospital-based comparative cross-sectional study

PONE-D-22-08200R2

Dear Dr. kassaw,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rick J. Jansen, PhD, MS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The comments have been addressed adequately.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Rick J Jansen

19 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-08200R2

Metabolic syndrome and its associated factors among epileptic patients at Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Northeast Ethiopia; a hospital-based comparative cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Beyene Kassaw:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rick J. Jansen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Analysis on the authenticity of IDF criteria referring to the NCEP-ATP III criteria.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. WHO STEPS questioner.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Dataset. Datasets used for the analysis.

    (DTA)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES