Preceding the joint meeting of the 19th annual Diabetic Neuropathy Study Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (NEURODIAB) and the 8th International Symposium on Diabetic Neuropathy in Toronto, Canada, 13–18 October 2009, expert panels were convened to provide updates on classification, definitions, diagnostic criteria, and treatments of diabetic peripheral neuropathies (DPNs), autonomic neuropathy, painful DPNs, and structural alterations in DPNs.

Рабочая группа по диабету, предиабету и сердечно-сосудистым заболеваниям европейского общества кардиологов (ESC) в сотрудничестве с европейской ассоциацией по изучению диабета (EASD).

The Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) Subcommittee of the Toronto Consensus Panel on Diabetic Neuropathy worked to update CAN guidelines, with regard to epidemiology, clinical impact, diagnosis, usefulness of CAN testing, and management. CAN is the impairment of cardiovascular autonomic control in the setting of diabetes after exclusion of other causes. The prevalence of confirmed CAN is around 20%, and increases up to 65% with age and diabetes duration. Established risk factors for CAN are glycaemic control in type 1 and a combination of hypertension, dyslipidaemia, obesity, and glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes. CAN is a risk marker of mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, and possibly a progression promoter of diabetic nephropathy. Criteria for CAN diagnosis and staging are: (1) one abnormal cardiovagal test result identifies possible or early CAN; (2) at least two abnormal cardiovagal test results are required for definite or confirmed CAN; and (3) the presence of orthostatic hypotension in addition to abnormal heart rate test results identifies severe or advanced CAN. Progressive stages of CAN are associated with increasingly worse prognosis. CAN assessment is relevant in clinical practice for (1) diagnosis of CAN clinical forms, (2) detection and tailored treatment of CAN clinical correlates (e.g. tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, non-dipping, QT interval prolongation), (3) risk stratification for diabetic complications and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and (4) modulation of targets of diabetes therapy. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CAN testing is lacking. Apart from the preventive role of intensive glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes, recommendations cannot be made for most therapeutic approaches to CAN.

!Background: The prevalence and socioeconomic burden of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and associated co-morbidities are rising worldwide. Aims: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for preventing T2DM. Methods: A European multidisciplinary consortium systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening and interventions for T2DM prevention using SIGN criteria. Results: Obesity and sedentary lifestyle are the main modifiable risk factors. Age and ethnicity are non-modifiable risk factors. Case-finding should follow a step-wise procedure using risk questionnaires and oral glucose tolerance testing. Persons with impaired glucose tolerance and/or fasting glucose are at high-risk and should be prioritized for intensive intervention. Interventions supporting lifestyle changes delay the onset of T2DM in high-risk adults (numberneeded-to-treat: 6.4 over 1.8-4.6 years). These should be supported by inter-sectoral strategies that create health promoting environments. Sustained body weight reduction by ≥ 5% lowers risk. Currently metformin, acarbose and orlistat can be considered as second-line prevention options. The population approach should use organized measures to raise awareness and change lifestyle with specific approaches for adolescents, minorities and disadvantaged people. Interventions promoting lifestyle changes are more effective if they target both diet and physical activity, mobilize social support, involve the planned use of established behaviour change techniques, and provide frequent contacts. Cost-effectiveness analysis should take a societal perspective. Conclusions: Prevention using lifestyle modifications in highrisk individuals is cost-effective and should be embedded in evaluated models of care. Effective prevention plans are predicated upon sustained government initiatives comprising advocacy, community support, fiscal and legislative changes, private sector engagement and continuous media communication.

No abstract

No abstract

SummaryThis consensus document provides evidence-based guidelines regarding the evaluation of diabetic cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) for human research studies; the guidelines are the result of the work of the CAN Subcommittee of the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group. The subcommittee critically reviewed the limitations and strengths of the available diagnostic approaches for CAN and the need for developing new tests for autonomic function.It was concluded that the most sensitive and specific approaches currently available to evaluate CAN in clinical research are: (1) heart rate variability, (2) baroreflex sensitivity, (3) muscle sympathetic nerve activity, (4) plasma catecholamines, and (5) heart sympathetic imaging. It was also recommended that efforts should be undertaken to develop new non-invasive and safe CAN tests to be used in clinical research, with higher sensitivity and specificity, for studying the pathophysiology of CAN and evaluating new therapeutic approaches. Copyright  2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords diabetic neuropathy; heart rate variability; baroreflex sensitivity; microneurography; catecholamines; cardiac imaging Abbreviations: BRS -baroreflex sensitivity; CAN -cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy; CARTs -cardiovascular autonomic reflex tests; DHPG -3, 4-dihydroxyphenylglycol; HED -[ 11 C]-metahydroxyephedrine; HRV -heart rate variability; MIBG -[ 123 I]-metaiodobenzylguanidine; MSNA -muscle sympathetic nerve activity.

Peripheral neuropathy affects about 30% of people with diabetes mellitus. Between 16% and 26% of diabetes patients experience chronic pain. This may be referred to as diabetic neuropathic pain (DNP) or diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). Minimum requirements for diagnosis of DPNP should include assessment of pain and symptoms and neurological examination, with the accent on sensory examination. Given that depression and other co-morbidities are commonly associated with this condition, a broad approach to management is essential. Lifestyle intervention and optimisation of glycaemic control are recommended as initial steps in management. An evidence-based treatment algorithm for DPNP has been proposed, recommending initial use of either a tri-cyclic antidepressant, selective serotonin noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor or alpha-2-delta agonist, depending on patient co-morbidities and contra-indications. Addition of an opioid agonist may be required in the event of inadequate pain control. Irrespective of which treatment is offered, only about one third of patients are likely to achieve more than 50% pain relief. Further research to improve the diagnosis and management of DPNP is needed.