Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 May 21;19(5):e0303557. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303557

Sepsis risk in diabetic patients with urinary tract infection

Sipei Wang 1, Sheng Zhao 1,#, Shanshan Jin 1,#, Tinghua Ye 1,#, Pan Xinling 2,*
Editor: Seth Agyei Domfeh3
PMCID: PMC11108167  PMID: 38771840

Abstract

Background

Urinary tract infections (UTI) is a prevalent condition in those with diabetes, and in severe cases, it may escalate to sepsis. Therefore, it is important to analyze the risk variables associated with sepsis in diabetes individuals with UTI.

Methods

This research was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis. From January 2011 to June 2022, a group of individuals with diabetes were identified as having UTI at a tertiary hospital situated in Southeastern China. Patient data, including information on urine culture, was collected retrospectively from a clinical record database. The participants were categorized into the sepsis and non-sepsis groups. The risk variables were derived using both uni-and multiple- variable regression analysis.

Results

The research included 1919 patients, of whom 1106 cases (57.63%) had positive urine cultures. In total, 445 blood culture samples were tested, identifying 186 positive cases (41.80%). The prevalence of bacteria in urine and blood samples was highest for Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, respectively. Moreover, 268 individuals (13.97%) exhibited sepsis. The regression analysis indicated a positive correlation between sepsis and albumin (ALB)<34.35 g/L, C-reactive protein (CRP)>55.84 mg/L and white blood cell count (WBC) >8.485 X 109/L in diabetic cases with UTIs. By integrating the three aforementioned parameters, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.809.

Conclusions

The early detection of sepsis in diabetic individuals with UTI may be achieved using a comprehensive analysis of CRP, WBC, and ALB test findings.

Introduction

Diabetes is a collection of metabolic disorders distinguished by the persistent elevation of blood glucose levels. Over the last three decades, there has been a substantial rise in the incidence of diabetes among the Chinese population. According to a study by the Endocrinology Branch of the Chinese Medical Association between 2015 and 2017, the prevalence of diabetes among adults aged 18 and older in China was 11.2% [1].

Diabetes might be complicated by various illnesses, leading to a vicious cycle of infections and uncontrolled hyperglycemia [2]. UTI is prevalent in this population, constituting a significant proportion of infections. Infection can trigger acute problems in individuals with diabetes, hence contributing significantly to mortality rates. In comparison to those without diabetes, patients with diabetes had a 1.21–2.2 times higher relative risk of UTI [3]. Community-acquired UTI is a primary contributor to bloodstream infections within the community, constituting around 30–35% of bacteremia cases among adults [4]. Among patients with sepsis, it has been shown that the most common infection site is urinary system, following the respiratory tract and abdomen [5]. In the case of patients with UTI, diabetes has been identified as a distinct risk factor for the development of urosepsis [6]. This association may be attributed to the impaired immune function often seen in individuals with diabetes [7].

Sepsis is a critical and potentially fatal consequence that necessitates prompt identification of affected individuals to facilitate the implementation of early and efficacious treatment strategies. A delay of one hour in the administration of antibiotics for urinary-derived sepsis was reportedly associated with a reduction in patient survival rate by 7.6% [8].Therefore, the incidence of sepsis may be reduced by implementing timely risk assessment and appropriate antibiotic therapy. There are literature reports on the identification of risk factors for progression to sepsis in patients with different diseases [9,10], but there are few reports on progression to sepsis in patients with diabetes mellitus complicated with UTI. Hence, our objective was to ascertain certain indications that might be used to promptly identify the distinguishing features of diabetic individuals with UTI exacerbated by sepsis. This endeavor aims to provide valuable insights for clinical diagnosis and therapy.

Materials and methods

Patients’ inclusion and exclusion criteria

From January 2011 to June 2022, the data of individuals with diabetes and UTI, that were admitted to Dongyang People’s Hospital, were retrospectively collected from the clinical record database if they satisfied the diagnostic criteria. Individuals were diagnosed with diabetes upon meeting one of the aforementioned criteria [11]: (1) fasting blood glucose level ≥7.0 mmol/L, (2) 2-hour postprandial blood glucose level ≥11.1 mmol/L, (3) random blood glucose level ≥11.1 mmol/L, (4) glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥6.5%. The confirmation of a UTI diagnosis may be achieved if patients exhibit one of the following conditions: (1) typical symptoms of UTI + pyuria (defined as >5 white blood cells WBCs/HP) + positive urine nitrite test, (2) WBCs >10/HP in the urine sediment obtained from the middle part of a cleaning centrifuge/typical symptoms of UTI + urinary bacterial count ≥105/ml, (3) urinary bacterial count ≥105/ml for two consecutive times, and the bacteria and subtypes of the two times were the same, (4) the urine obtained from a bladder puncture showed positive results for culture, (5) typical symptoms of UTI + early morning clean midstream urine centrifuge urine sediment Gram stain before treatment to find bacteria (bacteria >1/oil mirror field)[12]. The exclusion criteria for this study included the existence of an immunodeficiency condition.

Specimen collection, bacterial culture and species identification

The process of collecting and transferring specimens adhered to the established guidelines of the health industry in the People’s Republic of China, namely the WS/T640-2018 standard for specimen collection and transit in clinical microbiology. Briefly, urine samples of 20–50 mL were collected using sterile containers, while blood samples of 5–10 mL were taken in a blood culture vial manufactured by bioMérieux, France. The specimens were maintained under ambient conditions and promptly transported to the laboratory within 2 hours. The specimens were subjected to culturing on blood agar and Mackand agar plates (Kangtai, Wenzhou). Subsequently, they were incubated at 35°C under a 5% CO2 atmosphere for 24 to 48 hours. The species identification was conducted via a Vitek2 Compact system and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) when visible colonies were seen on the medium plates. The strains used for quality control in this study included Klebsiella oxytoca ATCC700324, Staphylococcus. saprophyticus ATCCBAA750, and Escherichia coli ATCC8739.

Data collection

The retrospective acquisition of patients’ information was conducted from a clinical record database, encompassing age, gender, medical history of hypertension, coronary heart disease, malignant tumor, complications related to diabetes, utilization of glucocorticoids and catheterization, procalcitonin (PCT) levels upon initial admission, c-reactive protein (CRP), ALB, WBC, HbA1c, urine leukocyte (LEU), urine glucose levels, presence of sepsis, and blood culture results. The diagnostic criteria for sepsis were used in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock [13].

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was conducted via SPSS 26.0. The counting data was presented in cases and percentages. The analysis included the use of the Chi-square test to investigate the differences between the two groups. In cases of a normal distribution, The continual data with normal distribution was often denoted as mean ± standard deviation, whereas the data with non-normal distribution was represented by medians accompanied by quartiles. The difference on continual data between groups was examined via an independent sample t-test (for data exhibiting a normal distribution) or a u-test (for data displaying a non-normal distribution). Continuous variables with P values less than 0.05 were then included in a univariable logistic regression analysis, and the cut-off values were established using the maximum Youden index. The significant variables identified in the previous analysis were included in a multivariable logistic regression model, using a forward direction approach. These variables were then merged to assess their potential utility in distinguishing between the two groups, as measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Ethics approval

This study involved human participants and was approved by the Ethics Committee and Institutional Review Board of Dongyang People’s Hospital (No. 2023-YX-409). The data were collected and analyzed anonymously. The need for informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study and all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Results

Urine and blood culture in diabetes patients with UTI

All 1919 patients were tested for urine culture, including 1106 (57.63%) positive cases. Moreover, blood culture was tested in 445 cases, with 186 (41.80%) positive cases.

Isolation of pathogenic bacteria in urine and blood

A comprehensive collection of 1185 strains of pathogenic bacteria were obtained from 1106 urine samples, while 186 bacteria isolates were identified from 186 blood culture samples. Escherichia coli was the most prevalent pathogenic bacterium found in urine and blood samples, with Klebsiella pneumoniae being the subsequent most often seen. The distribution of strain species exhibited subsequent variations (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Isolation of pathogenic bacteria in urine and blood samples.

Fig 1

(a) the top ten bacteria isolated from urine samples; (b) the top five bacteria isolated from blood samples.

Sepsis-related factors by univariable analysis

Among the 1919 diabetic cases with UTI, 268 developed sepsis as a complication. The results of the univariate analysis indicated that the sepsis group exhibited lower ALB concentration compared to the non-sepsis group. Conversely, the sepsis group had greater levels of CRP, PCT, HbA1c, and WBC in comparison to the non-sepsis group. The prevalences of patients in the sepsis group exhibiting positive LEU, positive urine glucose, catheter usage, and glucocorticoid use were greater (Table 1).

Table 1. Univariable analysis of the differences in sepsis and non-sepsis groups.

Variables sepsis (n = 268) Non-sepsis (n = 1651) Z χ2 P
Age (year) 70 (59, 78) 70 (61, 79) -1.331 0.183
Male in Gender, n (%) 100 (37.31) 596 (36.10) 0.701
ALB (g/L) 31.4 (28.6, 34.3) 37.1 (33.6, 40.2) -12.209 <0.001
CRP (mg/L) 111.63 (43.33, 184.63) 13.59 (2.5, 58.8) -14.488 <0.001
PCT (ng/ml) 3.265 (0.771, 13.25) 0.166 (0.061, 0.566) -16.445 <0.001
HbA1c (%) 7.7 (6.5, 9.8) 7 (6.2, 8.7) -4.326 <0.001
WBC (109/L) 12.04 (8.76, 17.56) 7.56 (5.87, 10.77) -12.078 <0.001
LEU positive in urine, n (%) 211 (81.78) 1171 (73.51) 8.035 0.005
Glucose in urine n (%) 19.105 0.002
4+ 61 (22.76) 252 (15.52)
3+ 29 (10.82) 142 (8.74)
2+ 12 (4.48) 79 (4.86)
1+ 27 (10.07) 106 (6.53)
± 6 (2.24) 67 (4.13)
- 133 (49.63) 978 (60.22)
Complications of diabetes, n (%) 48 (17.91) 320 (19.38) 0.322 0.570
Hypertension, n (%) 160 (59.7) 1084 (65.66) 3.587 0.058
Malignant tumor, n (%) 25 (9.33) 194 (11.75) 1.338 0.247
Coronary heart disease, n (%) 39 (14.55) 354 (21.44) 6.72 0.010
Catheterization, n (%) 23 (8.58) 74 (4.48) 8.076 0.004
Glucocorticoid use, n (%) 70 (26.12) 241 (14.6)   22.541 <0.001

ALB, albumin; CRP, C-reactive protein; PCT, procalcitonin; HbA1c, glycated haemoglobin; WBC, white blood cell count; LEU, leukocyte; glucose in urine 4+, glucose concentration ≥2000 mg/dL; 3+, 500–1999 mg/dL; 2+, 250–499 mg/dL; 1+, 100–249 mg/dL; ±, 50–99 mg/dL; -, < 50 mg/dL.

The cut-off value of enrolled continual variables in the univariate analysis

The recorded cut-off values for ALB, CRP, PCT, HbA1c, and WBC were 34.35 g/L, 55.84 mg/L, 1.015 ng/ml, 8.35% and 8.485X109/L, respectively. The values corresponding to the AUCs were 0.782, 0.787, 0.849, 0.595, and 0.731, respectively (S1 Table).

The independent risk factors for sepsis by multivariate logistic regression analysis

PCT was excluded from further investigation because of a missing rate of 47.68%. Subsequently, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted, including ALB, CRP, HbA1c, WBC, LEU, urine glucose, coronary heart disease, catheterization, and glucocorticoid usage as variables. The findings indicated that diabetic patients with UTI who exhibited ALB<34.35 g/L, CRP>55.84 mg/L, and WBC>8.485X109/L were identified as risk factors for sepsis (Table 2).

Table 2. The risk factors for sepsis in diabetic patients with urinary tract infection by multivariable analysis.

Variables β SB Walsχ2 P Exp(B) Exp(B) 95% CI
ALB <34.35 g/L 1.219 0.245 24.747 0.000 3.385 2.094–5.473
CRP >55.84 mg/L 1.229 0.256 22.977 0.000 3.418 2.068–5.650
WBC >8.485 109/L 1.087 0.269 16.299 0.000 2.965 1.749–5.026

ALB, albumin; CRP, C-reactive protein; WBC, white blood cell count.

Based on the aforementioned parameters, the AUC of logistic regression model was 0.809, with a standard error of 0.016. Additionally, the asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval ranged from 0.778 to 0.839. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the model was 0.821, while the specificity was 0.673 (Fig 2).

Fig 2. ROC analysis of logistic regression based on the combination of CRP, WBC and ALB.

Fig 2

Discussion

In the present investigation, a total of 268 cases, accounting for 13.97% of patients with both diabetes and UTIs, were found to be concomitant with sepsis. The important risk factors associated with sepsis during hospitalization were the levels of ALB, CRP, and WBC.

The prevalence of pathogenic bacteria in urine was mostly attributed to Escherichia coli, a finding that aligns with the strains identified in urinary tract samples documented by CHINET in 2022 [14]. However, based on our collected data, Klebsiella pneumoniae and yeasts ranked second in terms of prevalence. In contrast, the CHINET data indicated that Enterococcus and Klebsiella pneumoniae were the predominant species. This may be attributed to the distinctive characteristics within our patient community, as individuals with diabetes have a higher susceptibility to opportunistic infections. It is noteworthy that yeast is among the primary pathogens associated with nosocomial opportunistic infections [15]. The microbial composition of pathogenic bacteria obtained from blood samples of individuals with diabetes exhibited distinct distributions compared to those present in urine samples. The first two pathogens identified were Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, subsequently succeeded by coagulase negative Staphylococcus and Staphylococcus aureus. The observed distribution of strains in the bloodstream of individuals with diabetes exhibited a high degree of conformity with the data provided by CHINET. The presence of coagulase negative Staphylococcus in a blood culture sample should be considered as a potential indication of contamination during a surgical procedure. Staphylococcus aureus has several virulence factors to enhance the strain’s capacity to invade the bloodstream [12].

ALB is the predominant protein found in plasma, making it a valuable marker for assessing the nutritional status of individuals in clinical settings. The substance has antioxidant properties and also functions as a ligand after binding to bacteria [16]. Our study indicates that ALB is a significant contributing factor to the development of sepsis in individuals with diabetes and UTI. This relationship may be attributed to three possible mechanisms. First, albumin serves as a nutritional indicator, and individuals exhibiting hypoalbuminemia are indicative of suboptimal nutritional health. Second, albumin has distinct pharmacological characteristics such as antioxidant capabilities and the ability to operate as a transporter. Consequently, a deficiency in albumin may potentially impact the efficacy of the agent-containing treatment. Third, albumin is recognized as a negative acute phase protein. Consequently, the presence of hypoalbuminemia in patients may indicate an elevated inflammatory condition, which might possibly result in unfavorable consequences [17].

This study found that diabetic individuals with UTIs and sepsis had substantially higher levels of CRP and WBC and a lower level of ALB compared to those without sepsis. However, the only usage of PCT had the AUC over 0.8, suggesting that it was a powerful indicator for recognizing sepsis compared to CRP. This finding is similar to previous research [18]. A prospective multicenter cohort research revealed that a PCT cut-off value of 0.25 ng/mL could effectively detect the presence of bacteremia in patients with febrile UTIs. The sensitivity o was 95%, while the specificity was 50% [19]. Our findings revealed a PCT cut-off value of 1.015, with a sensitivity of 0.717 and a specificity of 0.847. These results are consistent with the findings reported by Zhang et al, who set a PCT cut-off value of 1.51 [20]. Nevertheless, the testing results for ALB, WBC and CRP could be obtained within a shorter duration comparing to PCT, resulting into an earlier evaluation of sepsis risk in diabetic patients with UTI. Fortunately, the combination of ALB, WBC and CRP could predict the risk with an AUC of 0.809, comparable to only PCT. Hence, it is possible to use the parameters of WBC, CRP and ALB as indicators to estimate the likelihood of sepsis in patients, prior to the acquisition of PCT test results.

The formation of HBA1c via non-enzymatic reactions is a continuous, gradual, and irreversible process. As a result, the content of HBA1c is influenced by historical blood glucose levels rather than the instant concentration. It is independent of circumstances such as fasting, insulin injection, and the use of hypoglycemic medicines prior to measurement. The prevailing consensus is that the concentration of HbA1c is a reliable indicator of the mean blood glucose level over 8 to 12 weeks. This study indicates that the HbA1c level was a significant predictor associated with sepsis in diabetic patients with UTIs, after the exclusion of infection-related blood indicators (CRP and WBC) (S2 Table). However, the AUC was 0.782 (95% confidence interval: 0.739–0.824), indicating that it is less sensitive than the three-indicators model (S1 Fig)

The hyperglycemic condition seen in individuals with diabetes has been shown to have an impact on the functioning of immune cells. This, in turn, leads to a compromised immunological response, rendering diabetic patients unable to effectively defense the invasion of pathogens [21]. When blood glucose levels above the range of 160 to 180mg/dl, a significant amount of glucose is eliminated via the urine, resulting in the formation of glucosuria. The increased prevalence of individuals exhibiting positive urine glucose in the sepsis group is indicative of a heightened susceptibility to severe infection resulting from hyperglycemia. Moreover, the presence of an indwelling catheter facilitates bacterial colonization, leading to the formation of biofilm [22]. Additionally, it facilitates the retrograde flow of urine from the bladder to the kidneys, contributing to inhibiting the contraction of the ureter, hence exacerbating bacterial growth and elevating the susceptibility to UTI in conjunction with sepsis [23]. Based on our findings, urine glucose, cardiovascular disease, and catheterization do not exhibit a significant association with the risk of sepsis. However, it is worth noting that other researches have reported these characteristics as potential risk factors for sepsis [24,25]. Comparing to the blood markers, these indications may lack prediction power, hence resulting in their exclusion from the final model in this study.

However, this study has some limitations. The data was collected from single center and a possible reduced applicability of the findings might exist for other patient population. Due to a long study period in this retrospective study, the temporal bias on the diagnosis and treatment for diabetes, sepsis and urinary tract infection could not be avoided. The modifications in the guidelines mainly have impact on the incidence of enrolled disease, but have a limited role in the finally enrolled risk factors related to sepsis. In addition, other risk factors (such as urinary system stones, blood creatinine, etc.) for the development of sepsis in patients with diabetes complicated with urinary tract infection were not included in the study due to excessive absence from the clinical record database.

Conclusion

In a cohort of individuals with diabetes and UTIs, the predominant causative agent identified in urine samples and blood samples were Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. A total of 13.97% of the patients in the study had sepsis and the risk of sepsis was related to ALB<34.35 g/L, CRP>55.84 mg/L, WBC>8.485 X 10^9/L. The early detection of sepsis in diabetic individuals with urinary tract infection may be achieved by using a combination of CRP, WBC, and ALB test findings.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The ROC curve of the prediction model based on a combination of ALB and HbA1c.

(TIF)

pone.0303557.s001.tif (862.1KB, tif)
S1 Table. The cut-off values of variables related to sepsis.

(DOCX)

pone.0303557.s002.docx (15.8KB, docx)
S2 Table. The risk factors related to sepsis excluding inflammatory indices (CRP, WBC).

(DOCX)

pone.0303557.s003.docx (13.3KB, docx)
S1 Raw data

(XLS)

pone.0303557.s004.xls (409.5KB, xls)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Fundings from the Science and Technology Bureau of Jinhua (grant No. 2022-4-278 and 2023-3-031). The funders had a role in the data collection and analysis.

References

  • 1.Li Y, Teng D, Shi X, Qin G, Qin Y, Quan H, et al. Prevalence of diabetes recorded in mainland China using 2018 diagnostic criteria from the American Diabetes Association: national cross sectional study. BMJ. 2020;369:m997. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Baker EH, Wood DM, Brennan AL, Clark N, Baines DL, Philips BJ. Hyperglycaemia and pulmonary infection. Proc Nutr Soc. 2006;65(3):227–35. doi: 10.1079/pns2006499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chen SL, Jackson SL, Boyko EJ. Diabetes mellitus and urinary tract infection: epidemiology, pathogenesis and proposed studies in animal models. J Urol. 2009;182(6 Suppl):S51–6. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hounsom L, Grayson K, Melzer M. Mortality and associated risk factors in consecutive patients admitted to a UK NHS trust with community acquired bacteraemia. Postgrad Med J. 2011;87(1033):757–62. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2010.116616 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Petrosillo N, Granata G, Boyle B, Doyle MM, Pinchera B, Taglietti F. Preventing sepsis development in complicated urinary tract infections. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2020;18(1):47–61. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2020.1700794 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhang L, Zhang F, Xu F, Wang Z, Ren Y, Han D, et al. Construction and Evaluation of a Sepsis Risk Prediction Model for Urinary Tract Infection. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:671184. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.671184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Daryabor G, Atashzar MR, Kabelitz D, Meri S, Kalantar K. The Effects of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus on Organ Metabolism and the Immune System. Front Immunol. 2020;11:1582. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01582 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589–96. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cao JD, Wang ZC, Wang YL, Li HC, Gu CM, Bai ZG, et al. Risk factors for progression of Urolith Associated with Obstructive Urosepsis to severe sepsis or septic shock. BMC Urol. 2022;22(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s12894-022-00988-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bech CM, Stensgaard CN, Lund S, Holm-Hansen C, Brok JS, Nygaard U, et al. Risk factors for neonatal sepsis in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2022;12(9):e054491. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Society CD. Guideline for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in China (2020 edition). Chin J Diabetes Mellitus. 2021;13(4):315–409. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wang H. Clincal Nephrorogy Pocket Book. Peking University Medical Press. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.CHINET. Available from: http://wwwchinetscom/Data/AntibioticDrugFast 2022;(accessed 4 November 2023).
  • 15.Lopes JP, Lionakis MS. Pathogenesis and virulence of Candida albicans. Virulence. 2022;13(1):89–121. doi: 10.1080/21505594.2021.2019950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fanali G, di Masi A, Trezza V, Marino M, Fasano M, Ascenzi P. Human serum albumin: from bench to bedside. Mol Aspects Med. 2012;33(3):209–90. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2011.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kim S, McClave SA, Martindale RG, Miller KR, Hurt RT. Hypoalbuminemia and Clinical Outcomes: What is the Mechanism behind the Relationship? Am Surg. 2017;83(11):1220–7. doi: 10.1177/000313481708301123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Simon L, Gauvin F, Amre DK, Saint-Louis P, Lacroix J. Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels as markers of bacterial infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(2):206–17. doi: 10.1086/421997 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.van Nieuwkoop C, Bonten TN, van’t Wout JW, Kuijper EJ, Groeneveld GH, Becker MJ, et al. Procalcitonin reflects bacteremia and bacterial load in urosepsis syndrome: a prospective observational study. Crit Care. 2010;14(6):R206. doi: 10.1186/cc9328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zhang W, Wang W, Hou W, Jiang C, Hu J, Sun L, et al. The diagnostic utility of IL-10, IL-17, and PCT in patients with sepsis infection. Front Public Health. 2022;10:923457. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.923457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Berbudi A, Rahmadika N, Tjahjadi AI, Ruslami R. Type 2 Diabetes and its Impact on the Immune System. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2020;16(5):442–9. doi: 10.2174/1573399815666191024085838 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jamal M, Ahmad W, Andleeb S, Jalil F, Imran M, Nawaz MA, et al. Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. J Chin Med Assoc. 2018;81(1):7–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2017.07.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Scotland KB, Lo J, Grgic T, Lange D. Ureteral stent-associated infection and sepsis: pathogenesis and prevention: a review. Biofouling. 2019;35(1):117–27. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2018.1562549 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bhojani N, Miller LE, Bhattacharyya S, Cutone B, Chew BH. Risk Factors for Urosepsis After Ureteroscopy for Stone Disease: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. J Endourol. 2021;35(7):991–1000. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.1133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dimitrijevic Z, Paunovic G, Tasic D, Mitic B, Basic D. Risk factors for urosepsis in chronic kidney disease patients with urinary tract infections. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):14414. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-93912-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Seth Agyei Domfeh

8 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-44217Sepsis risk in diabetic patients with urinary tract infectionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xinling,

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 Mar 24 2024 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,

Seth Agyei Domfeh, PhD

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:

“This work was supported by Key Project of Science and Technology Bureau of Jinhua, (No. 2023-3-031) and the Science and Technology Bureau of Jinhua (No. 2022-4-278)”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This study was supported by Key Project of the Science and Technology Bureau of Jinhua (grant No. 2023-3-031) and the Science and Technology Bureau of Jinhua (grant No. 2022-4-278).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work was supported by Key Project of Science and Technology Bureau of Jinhua, (No. 2023-3-031) and the Science and Technology Bureau of Jinhua (No. 2022-4-278)”

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

4. 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

5. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

6. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file [Raw Data.sav]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

7. 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.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: General impression:

The research paper provides a concise overview of the study conducted on diabetic individuals with urinary tract infections (UTIs) and their risk of developing sepsis. The article effectively communicates the research objectives, methodology, key findings, and conclusions of the study in a clear and concise manner.

The investigation was carried out to a very high technical standard, as evidenced by the article's thorough explanations of the procedures employed for specimen processing, data collecting, and statistical analysis. Making these points clear improves the findings' repeatability and dependability.

The statistical techniques applied, such as the usage of SPSS software and different tests including logistic regression, t-test, and Chi-square, are suitable for the analysis of the data. The explanation of the treatment of continuous variables according to their distribution clarifies the analysis procedure.

As is customary with categorical data, the article discusses the display of counting data in cases and percentages. When dealing with non-normally distributed data, the usage of medians and quartiles is appropriate.

It is laudable that a multivariate logistic regression model with a forward selection strategy was included in order to find important factors related to the desired outcomes. A reliable technique for assessing prediction models is the application of ROC curve analysis to determine the discriminatory strength of the selected variables.

The statistical analysis performed for the study lends support to the appropriateness of the conclusions derived from the data.

Minor issues

1. It is imperative to state the study's limitations, including the possibility of biases present in retrospective studies and the applicability of the findings to larger patient populations.

2. The study runs from January 2011 to June 2022, or more than ten years. If the analysis does not sufficiently address or account for changes in clinical practices, diagnostic criteria, or treatment procedures over time, temporal bias may be introduced. Authors should kindly state whether any notable modifications to the treatment of sepsis, UTIs, or diabetes occurred throughout the study period that would have affected the results found.

Reviewer #2: The article written by Wang et al. analysed the evolution of sepsis for diabetic patients with urinary tract infections. The title and the abstract are appropriate for the content of the text.Furthermore, the article is well constructed and analysis was well performed.Even if the statistics is very simple, the results obtained are very clear and demonstrate a relation between sepsis and biochemical parameters. The article highlights important data related to CRP, WBC and ALB which can be used to detect sepsis from early stages.

Reviewer #3: Peer Review Report

Manuscript #: PONE-D-23-44217

Peer Review Report on “Sepsis risk in diabetic patients with urinary tract infection”

1. Original submission

1.1 Recommendation

Minor revision

2. Comments to Authors

This study was performed to analyze the risk variables associated with sepsis in diabetes individuals with urinary tract infection (UTI) in China. The manuscript is fairly written but the authors need to make some minor revision to the manuscript in order to improve the manuscript significantly.

Below are details of my concerns and I ask that the authors specifically address each of my concern or comments in their response.

Line 65: change is after objective to was

Line 72: change was before retrospectively to were

Line 77: replace the full stop after nmol/L with comma

Line 81: replace the full stop after ≥105 mL with comma

Line 83: replace full stop after same with comma

Line 84: replace full stop after culture with comma

Lines 84 to 86: consider revising the sentence beginning typical symptoms of UTI…….. as it not clear. Also early morning cleaning in the sentence should read early morning clean, gram should be written as Gram

Line 97: write CO2 as CO2

Line 101: change include to included; you either write Stap in full or use S. saprophyticus

Line 128: change involves to involved

Provide appropriate heading for Table 1, for example Table 1…………………….the table heading should be placed on top of the Table

Line 165: write table with initial upper-case letter

Line 175: The Table 2 heading is not appropriate so change it. It could be written as Table 2: Risk factors for sepsis in diabetic patients

Line 191: write enterococcus with initial upper-case letter

199: italicize Staphylococcus aureus

Line 221: change with to ‘to’

Line 229: change leads to lead

Line 246: change Supplementary table 2 to Supplementary Table 2

Line 248: change Supplementary fig 1 to Supplementary Fig 1

Line 249: change table to Table

Properly label the Table on page 11 with proper heading

Line 252: change fig to Fig

Page 23: italicize all the scientific names of bacteria besides the pie chart

**********

PLoS One. 2024 May 21;19(5):e0303557. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303557.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Apr 2024

Reviewer #1: General impression:

The research paper provides a concise overview of the study conducted on diabetic individuals with urinary tract infections (UTIs) and their risk of developing sepsis. The article effectively communicates the research objectives, methodology, key findings, and conclusions of the study in a clear and concise manner.

The investigation was carried out to a very high technical standard, as evidenced by the article's thorough explanations of the procedures employed for specimen processing, data collecting, and statistical analysis. Making these points clear improves the findings' repeatability and dependability.

The statistical techniques applied, such as the usage of SPSS software and different tests including logistic regression, t-test, and Chi-square, are suitable for the analysis of the data. The explanation of the treatment of continuous variables according to their distribution clarifies the analysis procedure.

As is customary with categorical data, the article discusses the display of counting data in cases and percentages. When dealing with non-normally distributed data, the usage of medians and quartiles is appropriate.

It is laudable that a multivariate logistic regression model with a forward selection strategy was included in order to find important factors related to the desired outcomes. A reliable technique for assessing prediction models is the application of ROC curve analysis to determine the discriminatory strength of the selected variables.

The statistical analysis performed for the study lends support to the appropriateness of the conclusions derived from the data.

Authors’ response: Thanks for positive comment from the reviewer.

Minor issues

1. It is imperative to state the study's limitations, including the possibility of biases present in retrospective studies and the applicability of the findings to larger patient populations.

Authors’ response: We agreed to the reviewer’s comment that there were some limitations in this study, including the bias in retrospective studies and possible reduced applicability of the findings in other patient population. Thus, the limitations of this study were described in the revised manuscript.

2. The study runs from January 2011 to June 2022, or more than ten years. If the analysis does not sufficiently address or account for changes in clinical practices, diagnostic criteria, or treatment procedures over time, temporal bias may be introduced. Authors should kindly state whether any notable modifications to the treatment of sepsis, UTIs, or diabetes occurred throughout the study period that would have affected the results found.

Authors’ response: Thanks for constructive comments. As the reviewer mentioned above, the clinical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment were reviewed to analyze the bias in this study. The diagnosis for sepsis was modified based on the sepsis 3.0, which was proposed in 2016. Thus, the data collected from 2011 to 2016 owned a significantly lower incidence of sepsis than that from 2017 to 2022. Another reason for the increasing incidence of sepsis was the stricter criteria for hospitalization, resulting into the fact that the patients who were accompanied by mild symptoms or less likely developed into worse status could not be hospitalized. However, the same analysis procedure was adopted in these two data (the groups admitted before and after 2016, respectively) and found that WBC, ALB and CRP were the consistent risk factors for sepsis. Therefore, the existence of bias from modification of sepsis diagnosis criteria did not change the risk factors enrolled in final prediction model. For the guidelines for UTI, there is nearly no modification. The diagnosis criteria for diabetes was modified in 2020, and adopted in clinical practice in 2021. The data from 2021 to 2022 accounted for 8% of total cases, limiting its influence on the findings. In conclusion, the bias in guidelines may have impact on the incidence of diseases, but had limited role in the risk factors related to sepsis risk in diabetic patients with UTI. The corresponding description was added in the limitation section.

Reviewer #2: The article written by Wang et al. analysed the evolution of sepsis for diabetic patients with urinary tract infections. The title and the abstract are appropriate for the content of the text. Furthermore, the article is well constructed and analysis was well performed. Even if the statistics is very simple, the results obtained are very clear and demonstrate a relation between sepsis and biochemical parameters. The article highlights important data related to CRP, WBC and ALB which can be used to detect sepsis from early stages.

Authors’ response: Thanks for kind comments from the reviewer, and we believe our findings could be helpful for clinical staffs to evaluate the risk of sepsis in diabetic patients with urinary infection.

Reviewer #3: Peer Review Report

Manuscript #: PONE-D-23-44217

Peer Review Report on “Sepsis risk in diabetic patients with urinary tract infection”

1. Original submission

1.1 Recommendation

Minor revision

2. Comments to Authors

This study was performed to analyze the risk variables associated with sepsis in diabetes individuals with urinary tract infection (UTI) in China. The manuscript is fairly written but the authors need to make some minor revision to the manuscript in order to improve the manuscript significantly.

Below are details of my concerns and I ask that the authors specifically address each of my concern or comments in their response.

Line 65: change is after objective to was

Line 72: change was before retrospectively to were

Line 77: replace the full stop after nmol/L with comma

Line 81: replace the full stop after ≥105 mL with comma

Line 83: replace full stop after same with comma

Line 84: replace full stop after culture with comma

Lines 84 to 86: consider revising the sentence beginning typical symptoms of UTI…….. as it not clear. Also early morning cleaning in the sentence should read early morning clean, gram should be written as Gram

Line 97: write CO2 as CO2

Line 101: change include to included; you either write Stap in full or use S. saprophyticus

Line 128: change involves to involved

Provide appropriate heading for Table 1, for example Table 1…………………….the table heading should be placed on top of the Table

Line 165: write table with initial upper-case letter

Line 175: The Table 2 heading is not appropriate so change it. It could be written as Table 2: Risk factors for sepsis in diabetic patients

Line 191: write enterococcus with initial upper-case letter

199: italicize Staphylococcus aureus

Line 221: change with to ‘to’

Line 229: change leads to lead

Line 246: change Supplementary table 2 to Supplementary Table 2

Line 248: change Supplementary fig 1 to Supplementary Fig 1

Line 249: change table to Table

Properly label the Table on page 11 with proper heading

Line 252: change fig to Fig

Page 23: italicize all the scientific names of bacteria besides the pie chart

Authors’ response: Thanks for detailed comments on our manuscript. We have checked the comments and modified them in revised text point by point. It was kind of the reviewer giving us helpful comments. Thanks again.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0303557.s005.docx (18.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Seth Agyei Domfeh

29 Apr 2024

Sepsis risk in diabetic patients with urinary tract infection

PONE-D-23-44217R1

Dear Dr. Xinling,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Seth Agyei Domfeh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Seth Agyei Domfeh

4 May 2024

PONE-D-23-44217R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xinling,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Seth Agyei Domfeh

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. The ROC curve of the prediction model based on a combination of ALB and HbA1c.

    (TIF)

    pone.0303557.s001.tif (862.1KB, tif)
    S1 Table. The cut-off values of variables related to sepsis.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0303557.s002.docx (15.8KB, docx)
    S2 Table. The risk factors related to sepsis excluding inflammatory indices (CRP, WBC).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0303557.s003.docx (13.3KB, docx)
    S1 Raw data

    (XLS)

    pone.0303557.s004.xls (409.5KB, xls)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0303557.s005.docx (18.5KB, 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