Evaluation of Serum Vitamin D Levels in Diabetic Foot Infections: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Tertiary Care Center in South India

Vitamin D deficiency among outpatients and hospitalized patients with diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The definition of diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) varies depending on the location and resources. Few classifications are available according to the indication. DF ulcers and vitamin D deficiency are common diseases among patients with diabetes. Previous literature has shown an association between DF ulcer (DFU) and vitamin D deficiency. However, the available meta-0analysis was limited by substantial bias.

AIM

To investigate the association between DFUs and vitamin D levels.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library, EBSCO, and Google Scholar for studies comparing vitamin D levels and DF. The keywords DFU, DFS, diabetic septic foot, vitamin D level, 25-hydroxy vitamin D, vitamin D status, and vitamin D deficiency were used. The search engine was set for articles published during the period from inception to October 2022. A predetermined table was used to collect the study information.

RESULTS

Vitamin D level was lower among patients with DFU compared to their counterparts [odds ratio (OR): -5.77; 95% confidence interval (CI): -7.87 to -3.66; χ² was 84.62, mean difference, 9; I² for heterogeneity, 89%; P < 0.001 and P for overall effect < 0.001]. The results remained robust for hospitalized patients (OR: -6.32 95%CI: -11.66 to -0.97; χ² was 19.39; mean difference, 2; I² for heterogeneity, 90%; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Vitamin D was lower among outpatients and hospitalized patients with DFUs. Further larger randomized controlled trials are needed.

Level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and vitamin D receptor in diabetic foot ulcer and factor associated with diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

At present, there is no clinical study to elucidate the correlation between vitamin D deficiency and the incidence of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO).This study aims to clarify levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)VD] in peripheral blood and vitamin D receptor (VDR) expression in wound margin tissues (T-VDR) of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and DFO, and to determine its correlation with treatment outcomes of DFU and DFO, and and its value as a potential biomarker for the diagnosis of DFU and DFO.

METHODS

156 T2DM patients with DFU (DFU group), 100 T2DM patients without DFU (T2DM group), and 100 healthy controls (NC group). The DFU group patients were subdivided into DFO (n = 80) and NDFO groups (n = 76). The level of serum 25(OH)VD was measured via chemiluminescence immunoassay, and T-VDR expression level was determined by quantitative real-time PCR.

RESULTS

The levels of serum 25(OH)VD in the DFU group were significantly lower than the T2DM group [(10.3 (5.8, 18.7) vs 15.7 (8.6, 24.6) ng/mL, P = 0.002)]. Similarly, the levels of serum 25(OH)VD and T-VDR expression in the DFO group were statistically lower than the NDFO group [9.2 (5.2, 20.5) vs 12.8 (6.9, 22.1) ng/mL, P = 0.006)], [1.96 (0.61, 3.97) vs 3.11 (1.36, 5.11), P = 0.004)], respectively. Furthermore, the levels of serum 25(OH)VD and T-VDR expression in DFU patients were positively correlated with the ulcer healing rate of foot ulcer after 8 weeks of treatment ( P = 0.031, P = 0.016, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that low level of serum 25(OH)VD was an independent risk factor for DFU and DFO (OR_DFU = 2.42, OR_DFO = 3.05, P = 0.008, 0.001, respectively), and decreased T-VDR expression level was an independent risk factor for DFO (OR = 2.83, P = 0.004). Meanwhile, the ROC curve analysis indicated that the AUC of serum 25(OH)VD level for the diagnosis of DFU and DFO was 0.821 (95% CI, 0.754-0.886, P < 0.001) and 0.786 (95%CI, 0.643-0.867, P < 0.001), respectively. When establishing a diagnosis of DFO, the AUC of T-VDR expression level was 0.703 (95%CI: 0.618-0.853, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The levels of serum 25(OH)VD and T-VDR expression in DFU and DFO decreased. Serum 25(OH)VD and T-VDR are potentially valuable biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of DFU and DFO. .

The association between micronutrient levels and diabetic foot ulcer: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are a major complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). Nutrient deficiencies are among the major risk factors in DFU development and healing. In this context, we aimed to investigate the possible association between micronutrient status and risk of DFU.

METHODS

A systematic review (Prospero registration: CRD42021259817) of articles, published in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL Complete, and Embase, that measured the status of micronutrients in DFU patients was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were considered, of which thirty were included for meta-analysis. These studies reported levels of 11 micronutrients: vitamins B9, B12, C, D, E, calcium, magnesium, iron, selenium, copper, and zinc. DFU, compared to healthy controls (HC) had significantly lower vitamin D (MD: -10.82 14 ng/ml, 95% CI: -20.47, -1.16), magnesium (MD: -0.45 mg/dL, 95% CI: -0.78, -0.12) and selenium (MD: -0.33 µmol/L, 95% CI: -0.34, -0.32) levels. DFU, compared to DM patients without DFU, had significantly lower vitamin D (MD: -5.41 ng/ml, 95% CI: -8.06, -2.76), and magnesium (MD: -0.20 mg/dL, 95% CI: -0.25, -0.15) levels. The overall analysis showed lower levels of vitamin D [15.55ng/ml (95% CI:13.44, 17.65)], vitamin C [4.99µmol/L (95% CI:3.16, 6.83)], magnesium [1.53mg/dL (95% CI:1.28, 1.78)] and selenium [0.54µmol/L (95% CI:0.45, 0.64)].

CONCLUSION

This review provides evidence that micronutrient levels significantly differ in DFU patients, suggesting an association between micronutrient status and risk of DFU. Therefore, routine monitoring and supplementations are warranted in DFU patients. We suggest that personalized nutrition therapy may be considered in the DFU management guidelines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=259817, identifier CRD42021259817.

A Retrospective Analysis of the Relationship Between 25-OH-Vitamin D and Diabetic Foot Ulcer

Background

The fat-soluble molecule vitamin D has attracted much attention since its pleiotropism was discovered. Its effectiveness can be attributed to the presence of vitamin D receptors in most of the body's tissues. Based on the classical role of vitamin D in regulating calcium and phosphorus metabolism and maintaining bone health, the role of vitamin D in immunity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), tumor and cardiovascular diseases has been further discovered. Some experiments have shown that vitamin D can restore the production of antimicrobial peptides (AMP) in primary diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) cells, which can improve in vitro wound healing, indicating its potential therapeutic use in DFU therapy. In addition, vitamin D can also inhibit the secretion of T-helper type 1 (Th1) cytokines IFN-Y and IL-2 while stimulating the production of Th2 cytokines, thereby promoting wound healing.

Objective

To investigate the relationship between 25-OH-vitamin D level and DFU in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients, and to provide a theoretical basis for the early prevention and treatment of DFU.

Methods

The clinical data of 429 hospitalized patients with DM were retrospectively analyzed in this case-control study. The patients were divided into the DFU group (n = 242) and non-DFU group (n = 187). Fasting venous blood was drawn from all subjects to detect serum 25-OH-vitamin D levels and blood biochemical parameters, the difference of parameters between DFU group and non-DFU group were analyzed, and the risk factors of DFU were analyzed by logistic regression.

Results

The difference between the two groups in age, DM duration, gender, diastolic blood pressure, serum creatinine, total cholesterol, triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, albumin, white blood cell count, hemoglobin, hematocrit, 25-OH-vitamin D was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that 25-OH-vitamin D is an independent protective factor for DFU [OR 95%, CI 0.984 (0.969, 0.998), p < 0.05]. 25-OH-vitamin D nutrition status distribution was different between non-DFU group and DFU group (P < 0.05). Vitamin D deficiency (< 50 nmol/L) accounted for 86.78% of all DFU patients, which was only 74.33% in non-DFU patients. The 25-OH-vitamin D levels of DFU patients from Wagner Grades 1 to 5 showed a downward trend (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study confirms that 25-OH-vitamin D is closely correlated with DFU and that 25-OH-vitamin D is an independent protective factor for DFU. Therefore, vitamin D screening or supplementation might be beneficial to prevent DFU and improve the prognosis of DM patients.

Vitamin D Status in a Bulgarian Population With Type 2 Diabetes and Diabetic Foot Ulcers

The aim of this study was to assess vitamin D status in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). A total of 242 participants with type 2 diabetes, mean age 59.1 ± 10 years, mean body mass index 31.4 ± 6.3 kg/m², and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥45 mL/min/1.73m², were divided into 2 groups: 73 with DFU (35 with and 38 without active infection) and 169 without DFU (106 with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, 63 without complications). Neuropathy was assessed by 10 g monofilament, Rydel-Seiffer 128 Hz tuning fork, and temperature discrimination. Serum 25(OH)D (25-hydroxy vitamin D) was assessed by ECLIA (electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay) method. Median 25(OH)D level was 12.6 ng/mL (IQR [interquartile range] 9.3-17.6 ng/mL) in the studied cohort. The DFU group presented with lower 25(OH)D level as compared with diabetic patients without foot ulcers (non-DFU group): 11.6 ng/mL (IQR 8.5-15.8 ng/mL) versus 13.5 ng/mL (IQR 9.6-18.6 ng/mL), P = .001; the diabetic peripheral neuropathy subgroup demonstrated lower 25(OH)D level in comparison with participants without complications: 12.5 ng/mL (IQR 9-17.2 ng/mL) versus 15.9 ng/mL (IQR 10.4-20.8 ng/mL), P = .031. This remained significantly different even after correction for age and duration of diabetes. There was no difference in 25(OH)D level between the subgroups according to the presence of active infection. In conclusion, vitamin D deficiency may play a role in the development of diabetes complications.