Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 18278

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : November | Volume : 18 | Issue : 11 | Page : OC21 - OC24 Full Version

Serum Vitamin D Level in Patients with Sepsis and its Correlation with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score: A Cross-sectional Study


Published: November 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/67325.20315
Sunita Lamichaney, Priyam Goswami, Monigopa Das, Pranjal Kumar Dutta, Tanvee Yusuf

1. Senior Resident, Department of Internal Medicine, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Gangtok, Sikkim, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Tinsukia Medical College and Hospital, Tinsukia, Assam, India. 3. Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, Assam, India. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, Assam, India. 5. Senior Resident, Department of Internal Medicine, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, Assam, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Tanvee Yusuf,
Department of Medicine, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh-786002, Assam, India.
E-mail: yusuftanvee@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Sepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is used as a key criterion in diagnosing the sepsis syndrome. Recent studies have also suggested that vitamin D is an important mediator in the immune system and plays an inhibitory role in sepsis.

Aim: To assess serum vitamin D levels in patients with sepsis and to investigate the correlation between vitamin D levels and the SOFA score, as well as the outcomes of sepsis.

Materials and Methods: This was a hospital-based cross-sectional study carried out on 91 patients diagnosed with sepsis. The SOFA score was calculated within 24 hours of admission and again at 72 hours; however, only the SOFA score obtained on admission (within 24 hours) was used to assess disease severity and to compare with vitamin D levels. Vitamin D assessment was conducted using a competitive immunoassay in the VITROS 5600 fully automated integrated assay system. Pearson’s correlation (r) was used to measure the association between variables.

Results: The mean age of the study population was 57.34±16.55 years, with a male to female ratio of 1.17:1. A significant increase in vitamin D deficiency was noted in patients with a SOFA score above 10. There was a negative correlation between serum vitamin D levels and the SOFA score within 24 hours after admission, which was statistically significant (p-value <0.001, r-value -0.420). In the vitamin D deficient group, 65.7% of patients died, demonstrating a significant negative association between vitamin D levels and mortality (p-value <0.001).

Conclusion: This study has shown that lower levels of vitamin D are associated with greater severity of sepsis upon admission. Additionally, lower vitamin D levels are linked to a higher mortality rate and poor outcomes. However, larger-scale, intervention-based trials of supplementary vitamin D therapy in the management of sepsis are required to strengthen the evidence of the correlation between these two variables.

Keywords

Cholecalciferol, Sequential organ failure assessment score, Septicaemia

Sepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, despite the existence of proper antimicrobial and palliative care. The World Health Organisation (WHO) 2018 report states that sepsis affects approximately 30 million people worldwide, potentially leading to six million deaths (1). Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection (2). The Third International Consensus Definitions of Sepsis and Septic Shock (2016) include the following criteria for sepsis (3):

1. Suspected (or documented) infection; and
2. Acute organ dysfunction, defined as an increase of two or more from baseline (if known) on the SOFA score.

The SOFA score is used as a key criterion in the diagnosis of the sepsis syndrome at an individual patient level. There are 0-4 points allocated to each of the six organ systems (renal, cardiovascular, pulmonary, hepatic, neurologic, haematologic) in this 24-point assessment of organ dysfunction. Acute organ dysfunction is defined as an increase of two or more from baseline (if known) on the SOFA score (3). Criteria for septic shock include sepsis plus the need for vasopressor therapy to elevate mean arterial pressure to >65 mmHg with a serum lactate concentration >2.0 mmol/L, despite adequate fluid resuscitation (3).

Sepsis starts with a source of infection in the skin, urinary tract, peritoneal cavity, lungs, and other areas of the body (4). The body releases antigens as the organism multiplies, triggering a systemic inflammatory response that helps to eradicate and restrict the invasive virus. Furthermore, a variety of components of the invasive organism, such as beta-glucan from fungi, lipoarabinomannan from mycobacteria, endotoxins from gram-negative bacteria, and exotoxins from gram-positive bacteria, can also cause systemic inflammation (4). As microbial components are identified by specific pattern recognition molecules (CD14 cells and Toll-like receptors), a complex process of cellular activation ensues, including the release of cytokines; activation of neutrophils, monocytes, and endothelial cells; neuroendocrine involvement; and activation of the complement, coagulation, and fibrinolytic systems. Monocytes and macrophages secrete Tumour Necrosis Factor (TNF) and interleukins 1 and 6, which trigger a cascade of inflammatory reactions (5). When the local environment’s limitations are crossed by the production of proinflammatory mediators in reaction to an infection, a more widespread reaction takes place, leading to sepsis. In other words, sepsis is said to be a malignant intravascular inflammation (6).

Studies have shown that vitamin D is important for bone health and calcium homeostasis. Additionally, recent research indicates that vitamin D functions as an immune system mediator and has an inhibitory role in sepsis (7),(8). Antimicrobial Peptides (AMPs) are components of the innate immune system and have broad antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal activity. Humans have two groups of AMPs: defensins and cathelicidins, and adequate concentrations of circulating 25(OH) vitamin D are required for optimal cathelicidin production by macrophages (9). The adaptive immune system is also highly dependent on vitamin D. Over 100 genes have been identified as targets of 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D in mature T helper (Th) cells. Dendritic cells, which present antigens to T cells, are inhibited in their differentiation and activation by 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D. Vitamin D also affects the proliferation and differentiation of B cells and T cells and modulates immunoglobulin production [10,11]. Human endothelial cells treated with 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D and then stimulated with Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) demonstrated considerable suppression of molecules such as proinflammatory cytokines IL-6 and IL-8, as well as chemokines, when compared to cells solely exposed to LPS, according to a study by Equils O et al., (12). Vitamin D could possibly play a role in the sepsis cascade triggered by fungi, as demonstrated by Khoo AL et al., who treated Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells (PBMCs) with 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D before exposing them to Candida albicans and found that the production of proinflammatory cytokines in PBMCs was significantly reduced in a dose-dependent manner, as was the expression of Pathogen Recognition Receptors (PRRs) that recognised Candida albicans (13). There are only a few studies correlating serum vitamin D levels with the severity of sepsis (14),(15). Hence, this research work was carried out with an aim of assessing serum vitamin D levels in sepsis patients and studying the correlation between vitamin D levels with SOFA score as well as with the outcome of sepsis.

Material and Methods

This was a cross-sectional study conducted in the Department of Medicine at Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, during the period from June 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Assam Medical College and Hospital (IEC No. AMC/EC/PG/8898). Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants before enrolling them in the study.

Inclusion criteria: Patients included in the study were those aged over 18 years who met the Sepsis-3 clinical criteria, which include (3):

• A suspected infection
• Acute organ dysfunction: defined as an increase of two or more points (from baseline, if known) on the SOFA score.

Exclusion criteria: Exclusion criteria included pregnant females; patients with a history of neuroendocrine diseases or mental disorders; consumption of corticosteroid drugs; recent and constant use of vitamin D; rickets; osteomalacia; and patients who did not provide consent.

Sample size: Taking a 95% confidence interval with an absolute error of 10%, and considering the proportion of patients with vitamin D deficiency to be 61.6% (16), the sample size was calculated and rounded off to be 91.

A detailed clinical history of the study subjects was taken, and a thorough general and systemic examination was performed. For the bedside diagnosis of sepsis, the qSOFA score was used, which has three components, each allocated one point (3):

• Respiratory rate ≥22/minute
• Altered mentation
• Systolic blood pressure ≤100 mmHg.

A score of ≥2 is associated with poor prognosis. This was followed by biochemical investigations, which included a complete haemogram, coagulation profile, serum creatinine, and liver function tests, all of which were utilised to calculate the SOFA score. Cultures of blood, urine, and sputum were obtained, and vitamin D levels were estimated.

SOFA scoring was done within 24 hours of admission and again after 72 hours. However, only the SOFA score obtained on admission (within 24 hours) was used to assess disease severity and to compare with vitamin D levels (Table/Fig 1),(Table/Fig 2) (17),(18).

Vitamin D assessment was performed using a competitive immunoassay on the VITROS 5600 fully automated integrated assay system. A review of the most recent literature (19) suggests the following recommendations for 25-OH vitamin D levels:

Deficient: < 20 ng/mL (<50 nmol/L)
Insufficient: 20-29 ng/mL (50-75 nmol/L)
Sufficient: 30-100 ng/mL (75-250 nmol/L)
Potential toxicity: >100 ng/mL (>250 nmol/L)

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis of data was conducted using the computer programs Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS for Windows, version 20.0 Chicago, SPSS Inc.) and Microsoft Excel 2010. Results for continuous measurements are presented as mean±standard deviation. Discrete data were analysed using the Chi-square test. Pearson’s correlation (r) was employed to measure the association among continuous variables. For all analyses, the statistical significance was set at a 5% level (p-value <0.05).

Results

The mean age of the study subjects was 57.34±16.55 years, with the maximum number of patients with sepsis (28.6%) being over 70 years of age. Out of 91 subjects, 49 (53.9%) were male, and 42 (46.1%) were female, resulting in a male-to-female ratio of 1.17:1.

Most cases were attributed to respiratory tract infections, followed in descending order by gastrointestinal diseases, neurological diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and urinary tract infections (Table/Fig 3).

Out of the 91 cases, 28 patients had positive body fluid cultures, while 63 had negative cultures. The highest percentage of positive cultures was observed in urine samples, accounting for 42.9% (Table/Fig 4).

Escherichia coli was the most common organism cultured 13 (46.4%), followed by Pneumococci 6 (21.4%), Pseudomonas 4 (14.3%), Klebsiella 3 (10.7%), and Entercoccus 2 (7.1%).

Most of the study subjects were vitamin D insufficient, 41 (45%), followed by those with vitamin D deficiency seen in 35 (38.5%). Only 15 (16.5%) of the subjects were vitamin D sufficient. Vitamin D deficiency increased with the age of the study subjects, with 48.6% of patients in the age group above 70 years being deficient in vitamin D. The relationship between vitamin D deficiency and age was statistically significant (Table/Fig 5).

There was a significant increase in the number of study subjects with deficient vitamin D levels, as well as vitamin D insufficiency, with increasing SOFA scores (Table/Fig 6). The graph shows a negative correlation (Pearson coefficient, r=-0.420) between serum vitamin D levels and SOFA scores at 24 hours of admission, which was statistically significant (p-value <0.001) (Table/Fig 7).

The association between vitamin D levels and the outcome of sepsis was statistically significant (p-value <0.001). The mean SOFA score was higher in non survivors than in survivors (Table/Fig 8).

Discussion

The present study included 91 subjects and showed that sepsis affected individuals of all ages but was most common in the elderly population, particularly those above 70 years (28.6%). Males were more frequently affected, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.71:1. This was comparable to studies conducted by Angus DC et al., and Martin GS et al., who found a higher incidence of sepsis in older age groups (20),(21). A male preponderance was also observed by Martin GS et al., (53.9%) and Azim A et al., (61.39%) (21),(22).

In present study, respiratory tract infections were the most common cause of sepsis (34.1%), followed by gastrointestinal diseases (23.1%) and urinary tract infections (11%). Sudhir U et al., found respiratory tract infections to be the aetiology of sepsis in 40% of cases, followed by urinary tract infections at 19% and gastrointestinal diseases at 8% (23).

This study indicated that out of the 91 subjects, 38.5% had deficient vitamin D levels, 45.1% had insufficient vitamin D levels, and 16.5% had sufficient vitamin D levels. The mean vitamin D level was 25.43±15.46 ng/mL. A negative correlation between serum vitamin D levels and SOFA scores was found within 24 hours after admission, which was statistically significant (p-value <0.001). A study by Jeng et al., showed that vitamin D insufficiency was present in 100% of critically ill patients with sepsis, 92% of critically ill patients without sepsis, and 16.5% in healthy controls (24). However, they found a higher rate of 61.6% cases of vitamin D deficiency. A study conducted by Ginde AA et al., in 81 patients suspected of having an infection in the Emergency Department found that patients with serum 25 (OH)D concentrations less than 30 ng/mL were more likely to have severe sepsis and SOFA scores >2, and were more likely to have severe sepsis at 24 hours (25).

Among the patients with vitamin D deficiency, 45.7% had SOFA scores between 10-12, 14.2% had SOFA scores between 13-14, and 25.7% had SOFA scores >15. There was a significant increase in deficient vitamin D levels when the SOFA score was above 10, and insufficient vitamin D levels when the SOFA score was >4. The majority of patients with sufficient vitamin D levels had lower severity of sepsis, with SOFA scores ranging from 0 to 10. Findings similar to those of present study were reported by Seedat F et al., where critically ill patients with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <12 ng/ mL exhibited increased organ system dysfunction and a greater change in SOFA scores (26). Alves FS et al., evaluated the serum concentrations of vitamin D in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and found that vitamin D concentrations < 30 ng/mL (defined as insufficient levels) were present in 98% of cases (27).

In present study, a mortality rate of 38.5% was observed. Among the patients who expired, 65.7% were deficient in vitamin D, 26.8% were insufficient in vitamin D, and only a small fraction had sufficient vitamin D levels (6.7%). There was a statistically significant relationship between vitamin D levels and the outcome of sepsis (p-value <0.001) in this study. The outcome data indicated that the prognosis for patients with vitamin D deficiency and sepsis is poor, while those with sufficient vitamin D levels have a relatively better outcome. A study by Jeng et al., showed that vitamin D insufficiency was present in 100% of critically ill patients with sepsis, 92% of critically ill patients without sepsis, and 16.5% in healthy controls (24).

Yang B et al., conducted a retrospective cohort study in which critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units were divided into a vitamin D supplementation group and a non vitamin D supplementation group (28). With an Odds Ratio (OR) of 0.70, multivariate regression analysis suggested that vitamin D supplementation may serve as a protective factor against in-hospital death. Patients with sepsis who received vitamin D supplementation exhibited significantly lower in-hospital 28-day and 90-day mortality rates.

Limitation(s)

The study was conducted at a single centre with a relatively small study population.

Conclusion

This study has shown a high prevalence of Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency in patients with sepsis, particularly among the elderly group. Patients with higher SOFA scores (beyond 10) exhibited a greater incidence of Vitamin D deficiency. This negative correlation was statistically significant. Additionally, lower levels of Vitamin D were associated with higher mortality rates and poorer outcomes.

References

1.
Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari NKJ, Hartog CS, Tsaganos T, Schlattmann P, et al. Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis. current estimates and limitations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;193(3):259-72. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Kress J, Hall J. Approach to the patient with critical illness. In: Jameson J, Kasper D, Longo D, Fauci A, Hauser S, Loscalzo J, editors. Harrison‘s Principles of Internal Medicine. 20th ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2018. p. 2023-45.
3.
Gül F, Arslantas¸ MK, Cinel l?, Kumar A. Changing definitions of sepsis. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation. 2017;45(3):129. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Karnatovskaia LV, Festic E. Sepsis: A review for the neurohospitalist. The Neurohospitalist. 2012;2(4):144-53. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Vincent JL, Abraham E. The last 100 years of sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173(3):256-63. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Tsao CM, Ho ST, Wu CC. Coagulation abnormalities in sepsis. Acta Anaesthesiologica Taiwanica. 2015;53(1):16-22. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Nguyen HB, Eshete B, Lau KW, Sai A, Villarin M, Baylink D. Serum 1, 25- dihydroxyvitamin D: An outcome prognosticator in human sepsis. PloS one. 2013;8(5):e64348. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Rech MA, Hunsaker T, Rodriguez J. Deficiency in 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 30- day mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Am J Crit Care. 2014;23(5):e72-e79. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Bartley J. Vitamin D: Emerging roles in infection and immunity. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2010;8(12):1359-69. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Aranow C. Vitamin D and the immune system. J Investig Med. 2011;59(6):881-86. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Rolf L, Muris AH, Hupperts R, Damoiseaux J. Vitamin D effects on B cell function in autoimmunity. Ann N Y Acad Sc. 2014;1317(1):84-91. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Equils O, Naiki Y, Shapiro AM, Michelsen K, Lu D, Adams J, et al. 1,25- Dihydroxyvitamin D3 inhibits lipopolysaccharide-induced immune activation in human endothelial cells. Clin Exp Immunol. 2006;143(1):58-64. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Khoo AL, Chai L, Koenen H, Kullberg B, Joosten I, van der Ven A, et al. 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin D3 Modulates Cytokine Production Induced by Candida albicans: Impact of Seasonal Variation of Immune Responses. J Infect Dis. 2011;203(1):122-30. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Moraes RB, Friedman G, Wawrzeniak IC, Marques LS, Nagel FM, Lisboa TC, et al. Vitamin D deficiency is independently associated with mortality among critically ill patients. Clinics. 2015;70:326-32. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Aygencel G, Turkoglu M, Tuncel AF, Candir BA, Bildaci YD, Pasaoglu H. Is vitamin D insufficiency associated with mortality of critically ill patients? Crit Care Res Pract. 2013;2013:856747. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Jeng L, Yamshchikov A V, Judd SE, Blumberg HM, Martin GS, Ziegler TR, et al. Alterations in vitamin D status and anti-microbial peptide levels in patients in the intensive care unit with sepsis. J Transl Med. 2009;7:28. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Lambden S, Laterre PF, Levy MM, Francois B. The SOFA score- development, utility and challenges of accurate assessment in clinical trials. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):01-09. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Kane SP. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Calculator. ClinCalc. Available from: https://clincalc.com/IcuMortality/SOFA.aspx. Updated December 20, 2018. Accessed July 21, 2024.
19.
Holick MF, Binkley N, Bischoff-Ferrari H, Gordon C, Hanley D, Heaney R. Evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin d deficiency: An endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(7):1911-30. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: Analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(7):1303-10. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Martin GS, Mannino DM, Eaton S, Moss M. The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. N En J Med. 2003;348(16):1546-54. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Azim A, Ahmed A, Yadav S, Baronia AK, Gurjar M, Godbole MM, et al. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in critically ill patients and its influence on outcome: Experience from a tertiary care centre in North India (an observational study). J Inten Care. 2013;1(1):01-05. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Sudhir U, Venkatachalaiah RK, Kumar TA, Rao MY, Kempegowda P. Significance of serum procalcitonin in sepsis. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2011;15(1):1. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Jeng L, Yamshchikov AV, Judd SE, Blumberg HM, Martin GS, Ziegler TR, et al. Alterations in vitamin D status and anti-microbial peptide levels in patients in the intensive care unit with sepsis. J Transl Med. 2009;23(7):28. [crossref][PubMed]
25.
Ginde AA, Camargo Jr CA, Shapiro NI. Vitamin D insufficiency and sepsis severity in emergency department patients with suspected infection. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2011;18(5):551-54. [crossref][PubMed]
26.
Seedat F, Schleicher GK, Gaylard P, Blaauw R. Vitamin D levels in patients admitted to the intensive care unit and the association with organ dysfunction and glutamine levels. SAMJ: South African Medical Journal. 2020;110(11):1128-33. [crossref][PubMed]
27.
Alves FS, Freitas FG, Bafi AT, Azevedo LC, Machado FR. Serum concentrations of vitamin D and organ dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2015;27:376-82.23. [crossref]
28.
Yang B, Zhu Y, Zheng X, Li T, Niu K, Wang Z, et al. Vitamin D Supplementation during intensive care unit stay is associated with improved outcomes in critically ill patients with sepsis: A cohort study. Nutrients. 2023;15(13):2924.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/67325.20315

Date of Submission: Sep 01, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Nov 30, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Oct 08, 2024
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Sep 02, 2023
• Manual Googling: Oct 05, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Oct 07, 2024 (22%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 8

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com