Search

Objective: Axonal excitability reflects ion channel function, and it is proposed that this may be a biomarker in painful (vs painless) polyneuropathy. Our objective was to investigate the relationship between axonal excitability parameters and chronic neuropathic pain in deeply phenotyped cohorts with diabetic or chemotherapy-induced distal symmetrical polyneuropathy., Methods: Two hundred thirty-nine participants with diabetic polyneuropathy were recruited from sites in the UK and Denmark, and 39 participants who developed chemotherapy-induced polyneuropathy were recruited from Denmark. Participants were separated into those with probable or definite neuropathic pain and those without neuropathic pain. Axonal excitability of large myelinated fibers was measured with the threshold tracking technique. The stimulus site was the median nerve, and the recording sites were the index finger (sensory studies) and abductor pollicis brevis muscle (motor studies)., Results: Participants with painless and painful polyneuropathy were well matched across clinical variables. Sensory and motor axonal excitability measures, including recovery cycle, threshold electrotonus, strength-duration time constant, and current-threshold relationship, did not show differences between participants with painful and painless diabetic polyneuropathy, and there were only minor changes for chemotherapy-induced polyneuropathy., Interpretation: Axonal excitability did not significantly differ between painful and painless diabetic or chemotherapy-induced polyneuropathy in a multicenter observational study. Threshold tracking assesses the excitability of myelinated axons; the majority of nociceptors are unmyelinated, and although there is some overlap of the "channelome" between these axonal populations, our results suggest that alternative measures such as microneurography are required to understand the relationship between sensory neuron excitability and neuropathic pain. ANN NEUROL 2022;91:506-520., (© 2022 The Authors. Annals of Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Neurological Association.)

Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) can be classified based on fiber diameter into three subtypes: small fiber neuropathy (SFN), large fiber neuropathy (LFN), and mixed fiber neuropathy (MFN). We examined the effect of different diagnostic models on the frequency of polyneuropathy subtypes in type 2 diabetes patients with DPN. This study was based on patients from the Danish Center for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort. We defined DPN as probable or definite DPN according to the Toronto Consensus Criteria. DPN was then subtyped according to four distinct diagnostic models. A total of 277 diabetes patients (214 with DPN and 63 with no DPN) were included in the study. We found a considerable variation in polyneuropathy subtypes by applying different diagnostic models independent of the degree of certainty of DPN diagnosis. For probable and definite DPN, the frequency of subtypes across diagnostic models varied from: 1.4% to 13.1% for SFN, 9.3% to 21.5% for LFN, 51.4% to 83.2% for MFN, and 0.5% to 14.5% for non-classifiable neuropathy (NCN). For the definite DPN group, the frequency of subtypes varied from: 1.6% to 13.5% for SFN, 5.6% to 20.6% for LFN, 61.9% to 89.7% for MFN, and 0.0% to 6.3% for NCN. The frequency of polyneuropathy subtypes depends on the type and number of criteria applied in a diagnostic model. Future consensus criteria should clearly define sensory functions to be tested, methods of testing, and how findings should be interpreted for both clinical practice and research purpose., (© 2020 Peripheral Nerve Society.)

Background and purpose: Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) is a common complication of diabetes. Using the Toronto criteria for diabetic polyneuropathy and the grading system for neuropathic pain, the performance of neuropathy scales and questionnaires were assessed by comparing them to a clinical gold standard diagnosis of DPN and painful DPN in a cohort of patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Methods: A questionnaire on neuropathy and pain was sent to a cohort of 5514 Danish type 2 diabetes patients. A sample of 389 patients underwent a detailed clinical examination and completed neuropathy questionnaires and scales. Results: Of the 389 patients with a median diabetes duration of 5.9 years, 126 had definite DPN (including 53 with painful DPN), 88 had probable DPN and 53 had possible DPN. There were 49 patients with other causes of polyneuropathy, neuropathy symptoms or pain, 10 with subclinical DPN and 63 without DPN. The sensitivity of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument questionnaire to detect DPN was 25.7% and the specificity 84.6%. The sensitivity of the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Scoring System, including questionnaire and clinical examination, was 62.9% and the specificity was 74.6%. Conclusions: Diabetic polyneuropathy affects approximately one in five Danish patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes but neuropathic pain is not as common as previously reported. Neuropathy scales with clinical examination perform better compared with questionnaires alone, but better scales are needed for future epidemiological studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Excitability testing with threshold tracking was performed in 111 type 2 diabetics with and without diabetic polyneuropathy and 60 controls. • Changes in sensory and motor excitability in diabetic polyneuropathy were subtle, perhaps because of the relatively short disease duration. • There were only weak correlations between the excitability parameters and clinical scores. The aim of the present study was to gain insight into the pathophysiology of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) and examine the diagnostic value of sensory and motor axonal excitability testing. One hundred and eleven type 2 diabetics with and without DPN (disease duration: 6.36 ± 0.25 years) and 60 controls were included. All participants received a thorough clinical examination including Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI) score, nerve conduction studies (NCS), and sensory and motor excitability tests. Patients were compared by the likelihood of neuropathy presence, ranging from no DPN (17), possible/probable DPN (46) to NCS-confirmed DPN (48). Motor excitability tests showed differences in rheobase and depolarizing threshold electrotonus measures between NCS-confirmed DPN group and controls but no changes in hyperpolarising threshold electrotonus or recovery cycle parameters. Sensory excitability showed even less changes despite pronounced sensory NCS abnormalities. There were only weak correlations between the above motor excitability parameters and clinical scores. Changes in excitability in the examined patient group were subtle, perhaps because of the relatively short disease duration. Less pronounced excitability changes than NCS suggest that axonal excitability testing is not of diagnostic value for early DPN and does not provide information on the mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• MScanFit MUNE yields detailed information on motor unit loss. • Motor involvement in diabetic neuropathy may be present as early as sensory involvement. • MScanFit MUNE provides sensitive detection of motor involvement in diabetic polyneuropathy. Detection of motor involvement in diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) by nerve conduction studies (NCS) does not occur until there is substantial loss of motor units, because collateral reinnervation maintains compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude. Motor unit number estimation (MUNE) methods may therefore be more sensitive. This study was undertaken to test whether the novel method, MScanFit MUNE (MScan) can detect motor involvement in DPN despite normal NCS. Fifty-two type-2 diabetic patients and 38 healthy controls were included. The median nerve was examined in all participants using standard NCS and a detailed CMAP scan, used for MScan. Additional lower extremity NCS in patients were used for DPN diagnosis. Of 52 diabetic patients, 21 had NCS-defined DPN while lower extremity NCS were normal in 31 patients. MScan motor unit number and size showed higher sensitivity and incidence of abnormality than motor NCS parameters, and a similar sensitivity to sensory NCS. MScan is able to detect motor axonal damage at times when collateral reinnervation limits NCS changes. MScan is a sensitive method to detect motor involvement in DPN, which our data suggests is present as early as sensory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]