No abstract

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.

OBJECTIVECorneal confocal microscopy is a novel diagnostic technique for the detection of nerve damage and repair in a range of peripheral neuropathies, in particular diabetic neuropathy. Normative reference values are required to enable clinical translation and wider use of this technique. We have therefore undertaken a multicenter collaboration to provide worldwide age-adjusted normative values of corneal nerve fiber parameters.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA total of 1,965 corneal nerve images from 343 healthy volunteers were pooled from six clinical academic centers. All subjects underwent examination with the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph corneal confocal microscope. Images of the central corneal subbasal nerve plexus were acquired by each center using a standard protocol and analyzed by three trained examiners using manual tracing and semiautomated software (CCMetrics). Age trends were established using simple linear regression, and normative corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), corneal nerve fiber branch density (CNBD), corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL), and corneal nerve fiber tortuosity (CNFT) reference values were calculated using quantile regression analysis.RESULTSThere was a significant linear age-dependent decrease in CNFD (−0.164 no./mm2 per year for men, P < 0.01, and −0.161 no./mm2 per year for women, P < 0.01). There was no change with age in CNBD (0.192 no./mm2 per year for men, P = 0.26, and −0.050 no./mm2 per year for women, P = 0.78). CNFL decreased in men (−0.045 mm/mm2 per year, P = 0.07) and women (−0.060 mm/mm2 per year, P = 0.02). CNFT increased with age in men (0.044 per year, P < 0.01) and women (0.046 per year, P < 0.01). Height, weight, and BMI did not influence the 5th percentile normative values for any corneal nerve parameter.CONCLUSIONSThis study provides robust worldwide normative reference values for corneal nerve parameters to be used in research and clinical practice in the study of diabetic and other peripheral neuropathies.

This study demonstrates good repeatability for the manual assessment of all major corneal NF parameters with the exception of NBD, which highlights the difficulty in defining nerve branches and suggests the need for experienced observers or automated image analysis to ensure optimal repeatability.

ObjectivesCorneal confocal microscopy (CCM) is a rapid, non-invasive, reproducible technique that quantifies small nerve fibres. We have compared the diagnostic capability of CCM against a range of established measures of nerve damage in patients with diabetic neuropathy.MethodsIn this cross sectional study, thirty subjects with Type 1 diabetes without neuropathy (T1DM), thirty one T1DM subjects with neuropathy (DSPN) and twenty seven non-diabetic healthy control subjects underwent detailed assessment of neuropathic symptoms and neurologic deficits, quantitative sensory testing (QST), electrophysiology, skin biopsy and corneal confocal microscopy (CCM).ResultsSubjects with DSPN were older (C vs T1DM vs DSPN: 41.0±14.9 vs 38.8±12.5 vs 53.3±11.9, P = 0.0002), had a longer duration of diabetes (P<0.0001), lower eGFR (P = 0.006) and higher albumin-creatinine ratio (P = 0.03) with no significant difference for HbA1c, BMI, lipids and blood pressure. Patients with DSPN were representative of subjects with diabetic neuropathy with clinical signs and symptoms of neuropathy and greater neuropathy deficits quantified by QST, electrophysiology, intra-epidermal nerve fibre density and CCM. Corneal nerve fibre density (CNFD) (Spearman’s Rho = 0.60 P<0.0001) and IENFD (Spearman’s Rho = 0.56 P<0.0001) were comparable when correlated with peroneal nerve conduction velocity. For the diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy the sensitivity for CNFD was 0.77 and specificity was 0.79 with an area under the ROC curve of 0.81. IENFD had a diagnostic sensitivity of 0.61, specificity of 0.80 and area under the ROC curve of 0.73.ConclusionsCCM is a valid accurate non-invasive method to identify small nerve fibre pathology and is able to diagnose DPN.

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a debilitating consequence of diabetes that may be present in as many as one in five patients with diabetes. The objective assessment of PDN is difficult, making it challenging to diagnose and assess in both clinical practice and clinical trials. No single treatment exists to prevent or reverse neuropathic changes or to provide total pain relief. Treatment of PDN is based on three major approaches: intensive glycaemic control and risk factor management, treatments based on pathogenetic mechanisms, and symptomatic pain management. Clinical guidelines recommend pain relief in PDN through the use of antidepressants such as amitriptyline and duloxetine, the γ-aminobutyric acid analogues gabapentin and pregabalin, opioids and topical agents such as capsaicin. Of these medications, duloxetine and pregabalin were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2004 and tapentadol extended release was approved in 2012 for the treatment of PDN. Proposed pathogenetic treatments include α-lipoic acid (stems reactive oxygen species formation), benfotiamine (prevents vascular damage in diabetes) and aldosereductase inhibitors (reduces flux through the polyol pathway). There is a growing need for studies to evaluate the most potent drugs or combinations for the management of PDN to maximize pain relief and improve quality of life. A number of agents are potential candidates for future use in PDN therapy, including Nav 1.7 antagonists, N-type calcium channel blockers, NGF antibodies and angiotensin II type 2 receptor antagonists.