Small nerve fiber quantification in the diagnosis of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy: Comparing corneal confocal microscopy with intraepidermal nerve fiber density

234Citations
Citations of this article
137Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Quantitative 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 METHODS Eighty-nine subjects (26 control subjects and 63 patients with type 1 diabetes), with and without DSPN, underwent a detailed assessment of neuropathy, including CCMand skin biopsy. RESULTS Manual 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). CONCLUSIONS This study shows comparable diagnostic efficiency between CCM and IENFD, providing further support for the clinical utility of CCMas a surrogate end point for DSPN.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chen, X., Graham, J., Dabbah, M. A., Petropoulos, I. N., Ponirakis, G., Asghar, O., … Malik, R. A. (2015). Small nerve fiber quantification in the diagnosis of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy: Comparing corneal confocal microscopy with intraepidermal nerve fiber density. Diabetes Care, 38(6), 1138–1144. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc14-2422

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free