Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • A blood-based biomarker for DPN could support diagnosis and follow-up of DPN. • NfL levels were higher in +DPN than in -DPN individuals. • NfL's potential as a biomarker for the presence of DPN is however unlikely. • NfL was associated with worse peripheral nerve function in type 2 diabetes. • NfL's relation to nerve function indicates value of NfL in evaluation of DPN severity. To investigate the relationship between neurofilament light chain (NfL) and the presence and severity of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN). We performed cross-sectional analysis of data from 178 participants of the ADDITION-Denmark cohort of people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes and 32 healthy controls. Biobank serum samples were analyzed for NfL using single-molecule array. DPN was defined by Toronto criteria for confirmed DPN. Original and axonal nerve conduction study (NCS) sum z-scores were used as indicators of the severity of DPN and peripheral nerve damage. 39 (21.9%) participants had DPN. Serum NfL (s-NfL) was significantly higher in participants with DPN (18.8 ng/L [IQR 14.4; 27.9]) than in participants without DPN (15.4 ng/L [IQR 11.7; 20.1]). There were no unadjusted s-NfL differences between controls (17.6 ng/L [IQR 12.7; 19.8]) and participants with or without DPN. Higher original and axonal NCS sum z-scores were associated with 10% higher s-NfL (10.2 and 12.1% [95% CI's 4.0; 16.8 and 6.6; 17.9] per 1 SD). The AUC of s-NfL for DPN was 0.63 (95% CI 0.52; 0.73). S-NfL is unlikely to be a reliable biomarker for the presence of DPN. S-NfL is however associated to the severity of the nerve damage underlying DPN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We examined whether diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) and diabetic foot ulcers in type 2 diabetes can be accurately identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision discharge diagnosis codes, surgery codes, and drug prescription codes. Methods: We identified all type 2 diabetes patients in the Central Denmark region, 2009–2016, who had ≥1 primary/secondary diagnosis code of "diabetes with neurological complication" (E10.4-E14.4), "diabetic polyneuropathy" (G63.2), or "polyneuropathy, unspecified" (G62.9). Patients with potential painful DPN and non-painful DPN were identified based on prescription history for serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, or gabapentinoids. Likewise, type 2 diabetes patients with potential foot ulcers were identified based on diagnosis or surgery codes. We used medical record review as the reference standard and calculated positive predictive values (PPVs). Results: Of 53 randomly selected patients with potential painful DPN, 38 were classified as having DPN when validated against medical records; of these, 18 also had neuropathic pain, yielding a PPV of 72% (95% CI: 58–83%) for DPN and 34% (95% CI: 22–48%) for painful DPN. Likewise, among 54 randomly selected patients with potential non-painful DPN, 30 had DPN based on medical record data; of these, 27 had non-painful DPN, yielding PPVs of 56% (95% CI: 41–69%) and 50% (95% CI: 36–64%), respectively. Secondary E-chapter codes often denoted stroke or mononeuropathies, rather than DPN. Excluding secondary E-chapter codes from the algorithm increased the PPV for DPN to 78% (95% CI: 63–89%) for the painful DPN cohort and to 74% (95% CI: 56–87%) for the non-painful DPN cohort. Of 53 randomly selected patients with potential diabetic foot ulcer, only 18 diagnoses were confirmed; PPV=34% (95% CI: 22–48%). Conclusion: G-chapter and primary E-chapter diagnosis codes can detect type 2 diabetes patients with hospital-diagnosed DPN, and may be useful in epidemiological research. In contrast, our diabetic foot ulcer algorithm did not perform well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/introduction: To examine the prevalence of falls and fractures, and the association with symptoms of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) in patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes., Materials and Methods: A detailed questionnaire on neuropathy symptoms and falls was sent to 6,726 patients enrolled in the Danish Center for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort (median age 65 years, diabetes duration 4.6 years). Complete data on fractures and patient characteristics were ascertained from population-based health registries. We defined possible DPN as a score ≥4 on the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instruments questionnaire. Using Poisson regression analyses, we estimated the adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) of falls and fractures, comparing patients with and without DPN., Results: In total, 5,359 patients (80%) answered the questions on the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instruments questionnaire and falls. Within the year preceding the questionnaire response, 17% (n = 933) reported at least one fall and 1.4% (n = 76) suffered from a fracture. The prevalence ratio of falls was substantially increased in patients with possible DPN compared with those without (aPR 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.06-2.63). The prevalence ratio increased with the number of falls from aPR 1.51 (95% CI 1.22-1.89) for one fall to aPR 5.89 (95% CI 3.84-9.05) for four or more falls within the preceding year. Possible DPN was associated with a slightly although non-significantly increased risk of fractures (aPR 1.32, 95% CI 0.75-2.33)., Conclusions: Patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes and symptoms of DPN had a highly increased risk of falling. These results emphasize the need for preventive interventions to reduce fall risk among patients with type 2 diabetes and possible DPN., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Aim: To estimate the incidence of falls in individuals with type 2 diabetes compared to healthy controls and to describe the characteristics of fallers with type 2 diabetes in relation to motor dysfunction, postural instability and diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN)., Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of individuals with type 2 diabetes with DPN (n = 54), without DPN (n = 38) and healthy controls (n = 39). Falls were recorded within the preceding year. DPN was defined by clinical scores and nerve conduction studies. Motor function was assessed by a 6-min walk test (6 MWT), five-time sit-to-stand test (FTSST) and isokinetic dynamometry at the non-dominant ankle and knee. An instability index (ST) was measured using static posturography. Univariate and bivariate descriptive statistics were used for group comparisons., Results: Compared with healthy controls, individuals with diabetes had a higher incidence of falls 36%, (n = 33) versus 15%, (n = 6), p = 0.02. There were no differences in falls when comparing individuals with and without DPN. Fallers had an impaired 6 MWT versus non-fallers (450 ± 153 m vs. 523 ± 97 m respectively), a slower FTSST (11.9 ± 4.2 s vs. 10.3 ± 2.9 s respectively) and a higher ST (53 ± 29 vs. 41 ± 17 respectively), p < 0.02 for all., Conclusion: Individuals with type 2 diabetes reported a higher number of falls within the preceding year compared to healthy controls, irrespective of the presence of DPN. The main factors associated with falls were increased postural instability, lower walking capacity and slower sit-to-stand movements. The 6 MWT, FTSST and posturography should be considered in future screening programs in identification of individuals at risk for falls., (© 2020 Diabetes UK.)

Aims: In this cross-sectional study, we explored the utility of corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) measures for detecting diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) and their association with clinical variables, in a cohort with type 2 diabetes., Methods: CCM, nerve conduction studies, and assessment of symptoms and clinical deficits of DPN were undertaken in 144 participants with type 2 diabetes and 25 controls. DPN was defined according to the Toronto criteria for confirmed DPN., Results: Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) was lower both in participants with confirmed DPN (n = 27) and in participants without confirmed DPN (n = 117) compared with controls (P = 0.04 and P = 0.01, respectively). No differences were observed for CNFD (P = 0.98) between participants with and without DPN. There were no differences in CNFL and CNBD between groups (P = 0.06 and P = 0.29, respectively). CNFD was associated with age, height, total- and LDL cholesterol., Conclusions: CCM could not distinguish patients with and without neuropathy, but CNFD was lower in patients with type 2 diabetes compared to controls. Age may influence the level of CCM measures., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)