Clinical recognition of DPN is imperative for allowing timely symptom management to reduce the morbidity associated with this condition.

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.

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.

Background:Although the health benefits of regular physical activity and exercise are well established and have been incorporated into national public health recommendations, there is a relative lack of understanding pertaining to the harmful effects of physical inactivity. Experimental paradigms including complete immobilization and bed rest are not physiologically representative of sedentary living. A useful ‘real-world’ approach to contextualize the physiology of societal downward shifts in physical activity patterns is that of short-term daily step reduction.Results:Step-reduction studies have largely focused on musculoskeletal and metabolic health parameters, providing relevant disease models for metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes (T2D), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), sarcopenia and osteopenia/osteoporosis. In untrained individuals, even a short-term reduction in physical activity has a significant impact on skeletal muscle protein and carbohydrate metabolism, causing anabolic resistance and peripheral insulin resistance, respectively. From a metabolic perspective, short-term inactivity-induced peripheral insulin resistance in skeletal muscle and adipose tissue, with consequent liver triglyceride accumulation, leads to hepatic insulin resistance and a characteristic dyslipidaemia. Concomitantly, various inactivity-related factors contribute to a decline in function; a reduction in cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle mass and muscle strength.Conclusions:Physical inactivity maybe particularly deleterious in certain patient populations, such as those at high risk of T2D or in the elderly, considering concomitant sarcopenia or osteoporosis. The effects of short-term physical inactivity (with step reduction) are reversible on resumption of habitual physical activity in younger people, but less so in older adults. Nutritional interventions and resistance training offer potential strategies to prevent these deleterious metabolic and musculoskeletal effects.Impact:Individuals at high risk of/with cardiometabolic disease and older adults may be more prone to these acute periods of inactivity due to acute illness or hospitalization. Understanding the risks is paramount to implementing countermeasures.

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.