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

Abstract

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 (ORDFU = 2.42, ORDFO = 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.