Diabetic neuropathy is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. To date, limited data in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes demonstrate nerve fiber repair after intervention. This may reflect a lack of efficacy of the interventions but may also reflect difficulty of the tests currently deployed to adequately assess nerve fiber repair, particularly in short-term studies. Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) represents a novel noninvasive means to quantify nerve fiber damage and repair. Fifteen type 1 diabetic patients undergoing simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation (SPK) underwent detailed assessment of neurologic deficits, quantitative sensory testing (QST), electrophysiology, skin biopsy, corneal sensitivity, and CCM at baseline and at 6 and 12 months after successful SPK. At baseline, diabetic patients had a significant neuropathy compared with control subjects. After successful SPK there was no significant change in neurologic impairment, neurophysiology, QST, corneal sensitivity, and intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD). However, CCM demonstrated significant improvements in corneal nerve fiber density, branch density, and length at 12 months. Normalization of glycemia after SPK shows no significant improvement in neuropathy assessed by the neurologic deficits, QST, electrophysiology, and IENFD. However, CCM shows a significant improvement in nerve morphology, providing a novel noninvasive means to establish early nerve repair that is missed by currently advocated assessment techniques.

PURPOSE. To assess the diagnostic validity of a fully automated image analysis algorithm of in vivo confocal microscopy images in quantifying corneal subbasal nerves to diagnose diabetic neuropathy.METHODS. One hundred eighty-six patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1/ T2DM) and 55 age-matched controls underwent assessment of neuropathy and bilateral in vivo corneal confocal microscopy (IVCCM). Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), branch density (CNBD), and length (CNFL) were quantified with expert, manual, and fully-automated analysis. The areas under the curve (AUC), odds ratios (OR), and optimal thresholds to rule out neuropathy were estimated for both analysis methods.RESULTS. Neuropathy was detected in 53% of patients with diabetes. A significant reduction in manual and automated CNBD (P < 0.001) and CNFD (P < 0.0001), and CNFL (P < 0.0001) occurred with increasing neuropathic severity. Manual and automated analysis methods were highly correlated for CNFD (r ¼ 0.9, P < 0.0001), CNFL (r ¼ 0.89, P < 0.0001), and CNBD (r ¼ 0.75, P < 0.0001). Manual CNFD and automated CNFL were associated with the highest AUC, sensitivity/specificity and OR to rule out neuropathy.CONCLUSIONS. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy is associated with significant corneal nerve loss detected with IVCCM. Fully automated corneal nerve quantification provides an objective and reproducible means to detect human diabetic neuropathy.

OBJECTIVEQuantitative assessment of small fiber damage is key to the early diagnosis and assessment of progression or regression of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN). Intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) is the current gold standard, but corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), an in vivo ophthalmic imaging modality, has the potential to be a noninvasive and objective image biomarker for identifying small fiber damage. The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of CCM and IENFD by using the current guidelines as the reference standard.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSEighty-nine subjects (26 control subjects and 63 patients with type 1 diabetes), with and without DSPN, underwent a detailed assessment of neuropathy, including CCM and skin biopsy.RESULTSManual and automated corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) (P < 0.0001), branch density (CNBD) (P < 0.0001) and length (CNFL) (P < 0.0001), and IENFD (P < 0.001) were significantly reduced in patients with diabetes with DSPN compared with control subjects. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identifying DSPN was 0.82 for manual CNFD, 0.80 for automated CNFD, and 0.66 for IENFD, which did not differ significantly (P = 0.14).CONCLUSIONSThis study shows comparable diagnostic efficiency between CCM and IENFD, providing further support for the clinical utility of CCM as a surrogate end point for DSPN.