Brain alterations in regions associated with end-organ diabetic microvascular disease in diabetes mellitus: A UK Biobank study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with structural grey matter alterations in the brain, including changes in the somatosensory and pain processing regions seen in association with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. In this case-controlled biobank study, we aimed to ascertain differences in grey and white matter anatomy in people with DM compared with non-diabetic controls (NDC). METHODS: This study utilises the UK Biobank prospective, population-based, multicentre study of UK residents. Participants with diabetes and age/gender-matched controls without diabetes were selected in a three-to-one ratio. We excluded people with underlying neurological/neurodegenerative disease. Whole brain, cortical, and subcortical volumes (188 regions) were compared between participants with diabetes against NDC corrected for age, sex, and intracranial volume using univariate regression models, with adjustment for multiple comparisons. Diffusion tensor imaging analysis of fractional anisotropy (FA) was performed along the length of 50 white matter tracts. RESULTS: We included 2404 eligible participants who underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging (NDC, n = 1803 and DM, n = 601). Participants with DM had a mean (±standard deviation) diagnostic duration of 18 ± 11 years, with adequate glycaemic control (HbA1C 52 ± 13 mmol/mol), low prevalence of microvascular complications (diabetic retinopathy prevalence, 5.8%), comparable cognitive function to controls but greater self-reported pain. Univariate volumetric analyses revealed significant reductions in grey matter volume (whole brain, total, and subcortical grey matter), with mean percentage differences ranging from 2.2% to 7% in people with DM relative to NDC (all p < 0.0002). The subcortical (bilateral cerebellar cortex, brainstem, thalamus, central corpus callosum, putamen, and pallidum) and cortical regions linked to sensorimotor (bilateral superior frontal, middle frontal, precentral, and postcentral gyri) and visual functions (bilateral middle and superior occipital gyri), all had lower grey matter volumes in people with DM relative to NDC. People with DM had significantly reduced FA along the length of the thalamocortical radiations, thalamostriatal projections, and commissural fibres of the corpus callosum (all; p < 0·001). INTERPRETATION: This analysis suggests that anatomic differences in brain regions are present in a cohort with adequately controlled glycaemia without prevalent microvascular disease when compared with volunteers without diabetes. We hypothesise that these differences may predate overt end-organ damage and complications such as diabetic neuropathy and retinopathy. Central nervous system alterations/neuroplasticity may occur early in the natural history of microvascular complications; therefore, brain imaging should be considered in future mechanistic and interventional studies of DM.

Female sex is a risk factor for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: the EURODIAB prospective diabetes complications study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: While the risk factors for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) are now well recognised, the risk factors for painful DPN remain unknown. We performed analysis of the EURODIAB Prospective Complications Study data to elucidate the incidence and risk factors of painful DPN. METHODS: The EURODIAB Prospective Complications Study recruited 3250 participants with type 1 diabetes who were followed up for 7.3±0.6 (mean ± SD) years. To evaluate DPN, a standardised protocol was used, including clinical assessment, quantitative sensory testing and autonomic function tests. Painful DPN (defined as painful neuropathic symptoms in the legs in participants with confirmed DPN) was assessed at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, 234 (25.2%) out of 927 participants with DPN had painful DPN. At follow-up, incident DPN developed in 276 (23.5%) of 1172 participants. Of these, 41 (14.9%) had incident painful DPN. Most of the participants who developed incident painful DPN were female (73% vs 48% painless DPN p=0.003) and this remained significant after adjustment for duration of diabetes and HbA1c (OR 2.69 [95% CI 1.41, 6.23], p=0.004). The proportion of participants with macro- or microalbuminuria was lower in those with painful DPN compared with painless DPN (15% vs 34%, p=0.02), and this association remained after adjusting for HbA1c, diabetes duration and sex (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In this first prospective study to investigate the risk factors for painful DPN, we definitively demonstrate that female sex is a risk factor for painful DPN. Additionally, there is less evidence of diabetic nephropathy in incident painful, compared with painless, DPN. Thus, painful DPN is not driven by cardiometabolic factors traditionally associated with microvascular disease. Sex differences may therefore play an important role in the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain in diabetes. Future studies need to look at psychosocial, genetic and other factors in the development of painful DPN.

Higher Sensory Cortical Energy Metabolism in Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: Evidence From a Cerebral Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Study.

Alterations in the resting-state functional connectivity and hyperperfusion of pain processing areas of the brain have been demonstrated in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). However, the mechanisms underlying these abnormalities are poorly understood; thus there is good rationale to explore whether there is higher energy consumption in the pain processing areas of the brain. We performed a 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy study to explore cellular energy usage (bioenergetics) in the primary somatosensory (S1) cortex in a well-characterized cohort of participants with painful and painless DPN. S1 phosphocreatine (PCr):ATP, a measure of energy consumption, was significantly reduced in painful compared with painless DPN. This is indicative of greater S1 cortical energy consumption in painful DPN. Furthermore, S1 PCr:ATP correlated with pain intensity during the MRI. S1 PCr:ATP was also significantly lower in painful-DPN individuals with moderate/severe pain compared with those with low pain. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate higher S1 cortical energy metabolism in painful compared with painless DPN. Moreover, the relationship between PCr:ATP and neuropathic pain measures shows that S1 bioenergetics is related to the severity of neuropathic pain. S1 cortical energetics may represent a biomarker of painful DPN and could have the potential to serve as a target for therapeutic interventions. ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS: Energy consumption within the primary somatosensory cortex appears to be greater in painful compared with painless diabetic peripheral neuropathy. The measure of energy metabolism, PCr:ATP, within the somatosensory cortex correlated with pain intensity and was lower in those with moderate/severe compared with low pain. To our knowledge. this is the first study to indicate higher cortical energy metabolism in painful compared with painless diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and thus has the potential to act as a biomarker for clinical pain trials.

Structural Brain Alterations in Key Somatosensory and Nociceptive Regions in Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: Despite increasing evidence demonstrating structural and functional alterations within the central nervous system in diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), the neuroanatomical correlates of painful and painless DPN have yet to be identified. Focusing on structural MRI, the aims of this study were to 1) define the brain morphological alterations in painful and painless DPN and 2) explore the relationships between brain morphology and clinical/neurophysiological assessments. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 277 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes (no DPN [n = 57], painless DPN [n = 77], painful DPN [n = 77]) and 66 healthy volunteers (HVs) were enrolled. All underwent detailed clinical/neurophysiological assessment and brain 3T MRI. Participants with painful DPN were subdivided into the irritable (IR) nociceptor and nonirritable (NIR) nociceptor phenotypes using the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain protocol. Cortical reconstruction and volumetric segmentation were performed with FreeSurfer software and voxel-based morphometry implemented in FSL. RESULTS: Both participants with painful and painless DPN showed a significant reduction in primary somatosensory and motor cortical thickness compared with HVs (P = 0.02; F[3,275] = 3.36) and participants with no DPN (P = 0.01; F[3,275] = 3.80). Somatomotor cortical thickness correlated with neurophysiological measures of DPN severity. There was also a reduction in ventrobasal thalamic nuclei volume in both painless and painful DPN. Participants with painful DPN with the NIR nociceptor phenotype had reduced primary somatosensory cortical, posterior cingulate cortical, and thalamic volume compared with the IR nociceptor phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: In this largest neuroimaging study in DPN to date, we demonstrated significant structural alterations in key somatomotor/nociceptive brain regions specific to painless DPN and painful DPN, including the IR and NIR nociceptor phenotypes.

Deep Learning Classification of Treatment Response in Diabetic Painful Neuropathy: A Combined Machine Learning and Magnetic Resonance Neuroimaging Methodological Study.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been shown successfully to assess and stratify patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN). This supports the idea of using neuroimaging as a mechanism-based technique to individualise therapy for patients with painful DPN. The aim of this study was to use deep learning to predict treatment response in patients with pDPN using resting state functional imaging (rs-fMRI). We divided 43 painful pDPN patients into responders and non-responders to lidocaine treatment (responders n = 29 and non-responders n = 14). We used rs-fMRI to extract functional connectivity features, using group independent component analysis (gICA), and performed automated treatment response deep learning classification with three-dimensional convolutional neural networks (3D-CNN). Using gICA we achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 96.60% and F1-Score of 95% in a ten-fold cross validation (CV) experiment using our described 3D-CNN algorithm. To our knowledge, this is the first study utilising deep learning methods to classify treatment response in pDPN.

Changed cerebral function and morphology serve as neuroimaging evidence for subclinical type 2 diabetic polyneuropathy.

Introduction: Central and peripheral nervous systems are all involved in type 2 diabetic polyneuropathy mechanisms, but such subclinical changes and associations remain unknown. This study aims to explore subclinical changes of the central and peripheral and unveil their association. Methods: A total of 55 type-2 diabetes patients consisting of symptomatic (n = 23), subclinical (n = 12), and no polyneuropathy (n = 20) were enrolled in this study. Cerebral morphology, function, peripheral electrophysiology, and clinical information were collected and assessed using ANOVA and post-hoc analysis. Gaussian random field correction was used for multiple comparison corrections. Pearson/Spearman correlation analysis was used to evaluate the association of the cerebral with the peripheral. Results: When comparing the subclinical group with no polyneuropathy groups, no statistical differences were shown in peripheral evaluations except amplitudes of tibial nerves. At the same time, functional connectivity from the orbitofrontal to bilateral postcentral and middle temporal cortex increased significantly. Gray matter volume of orbitofrontal and its functional connectivity show a transient elevation in the subclinical group compared with the symptomatic group. Besides, gray matter volume in the orbitofrontal cortex negatively correlated with the Neuropathy Symptom Score (r = -0.5871, p < 0.001), Neuropathy Disability Score (r = -0.3682, p = 0.009), and Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions (r = -0.4403, p = 0.003), and also found correlated positively with bilateral peroneal amplitude (r > 0.4, p < 0.05) and conduction velocities of the right sensory sural nerve(r = 0.3181, p = 0.03). Similarly, functional connectivity from the orbitofrontal to the postcentral cortex was positively associated with cold detection threshold (r = 0.3842, p = 0.03) and negatively associated with Neuropathy Symptom Score (r = -0.3460, p = 0.01). Discussion: Function and morphology of brain changes in subclinical type 2 diabetic polyneuropathy might serve as an earlier biomarker. Novel insights from subclinical stage to investigate the mechanism of type 2 diabetic polyneuropathy are warranted.

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. DESIGN: A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis. SETTING: Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective. RESULTS: A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)]. LIMITATIONS: Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable. FUTURE WORK: Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The number of people with diabetes is growing rapidly in the UK and is predicted to rise to over 5 million by 2025. Diabetes causes nerve damage that can lead to severe painful symptoms in the feet, legs and hands. One-quarter of all people with diabetes experience these symptoms, known as 'painful diabetic neuropathy'. Current individual medications provide only partial benefit, and in only around half of patients. The individual drugs, and their combinations, have not been compared directly against each other to see which is best. We conducted a study to see which treatment pathway would be best for patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. The study included three treatment pathways using combinations of amitriptyline, duloxetine and pregabalin. Patients received all three treatment pathways (i.e. amitriptyline treatment for 6 weeks and pregabalin added if needed for a further 10 weeks, duloxetine treatment for 6 weeks and pregabalin added if needed for a further 10 weeks and pregabalin treatment for 6 weeks and amitriptyline added if needed for a further 10 weeks); however, the order of the treatment pathways was decided at random. We compared the level of pain that participants experienced in each treatment pathway to see which worked best. On average, people said that their pain was similar after each of the three treatments and their combinations. However, two treatments in combination helped some patients with additional pain relief if they only partially responded to one. People also reported improved quality of life and sleep with the treatments, but these were similar for all the treatments. In the health economic analysis, the value for money and quality of life were similar for each pathway, and this resulted in uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness conclusions, with no one pathway being more cost-effective than the others. The treatments had different side effects, however; pregabalin appeared to make more people feel dizzy, duloxetine made more people nauseous and amitriptyline resulted in more people having a dry mouth. The pregabalin supplemented by amitriptyline pathway had the smallest number of treatment discontinuations due to side effects and may be the safest for patients.

Comparison of amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (OPTION-DM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is common and often distressing. Most guidelines recommend amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin, or gabapentin as initial analgesic treatment for DPNP, but there is little comparative evidence on which one is best or whether they should be combined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of different combinations of first-line drugs for treatment of DPNP. METHODS: OPTION-DM was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, crossover trial in patients with DPNP with mean daily pain numerical rating scale (NRS) of 4 or higher (scale is 0-10) from 13 UK centres. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), with a predetermined randomisation schedule stratified by site using permuted blocks of size six or 12, to receive one of six ordered sequences of the three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin (A-P), pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline (P-A), and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin (D-P), each pathway lasting 16 weeks. Monotherapy was given for 6 weeks and was supplemented with the combination medication if there was suboptimal pain relief (NRS >3), reflecting current clinical practice. Both treatments were titrated towards maximum tolerated dose (75 mg per day for amitriptyline, 120 mg per day for duloxetine, and 600 mg per day for pregabalin). The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average daily pain during the final week of each pathway. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17545443. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 252 patients were screened, 140 patients were randomly assigned, and 130 started a treatment pathway (with 84 completing at least two pathways) and were analysed for the primary outcome. The 7-day average NRS scores at week 16 decreased from a mean 6·6 (SD 1·5) at baseline to 3·3 (1·8) at week 16 in all three pathways. The mean difference was -0·1 (98·3% CI -0·5 to 0·3) for D-P versus A-P, -0·1 (-0·5 to 0·3) for P-A versus A-P, and 0·0 (-0·4 to 0·4) for P-A versus D-P, and thus not significant. Mean NRS reduction in patients on combination therapy was greater than in those who remained on monotherapy (1·0 [SD 1·3] vs 0·2 [1·5]). Adverse events were predictable for the monotherapies: we observed a significant increase in dizziness in the P-A pathway, nausea in the D-P pathway, and dry mouth in the A-P pathway. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this was the largest and longest ever, head-to-head, crossover neuropathic pain trial. We showed that all three treatment pathways and monotherapies had similar analgesic efficacy. Combination treatment was well tolerated and led to improved pain relief in patients with suboptimal pain control with a monotherapy. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.

Reduced Thalamic Volume and Metabolites in Type 1 Diabetes with Polyneuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: Thalamus is essential in processing of sensory information. This study explored the associations between thalamic volume and intra-thalamic metabolites and associations to clinical and experimental characteristics of sensory function in adults with diabetic polyneuropathy. METHODS: 48 adults with type 1 diabetes and confirmed distal symmetric peripheral neuropathy (DPSN) and 28 healthy controls participated in a cross-sectional study and underwent a brain magnetic resonance imaging scan. Estimates for thalamic volume were extracted using voxel-based morphometry and intra-thalamic N-acetylaspartate/creatine (NAA/cre) levels were assessed by magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Associations between thalamic volume and clinical measures, quantitative sensory testing and neuropathic phenotype were explored. RESULTS: In diabetes, reduced gray matter volume was identified including bilateral thalamus (all p≤0.001) in comparison to healthy participants. Thalamic volume estimates were positively associated to intra-thalamic NAA/cre (r=0.4; p=0.006), however not to diabetes duration (p=0.5), severity of DSPN (p=0.7), or presence of pain (p=0.3). Individuals with the lowest thalamic volume had greatest loss of protective sensation (light touch using von Frey-like filaments, p=0.037) and highest pain tolerance to electric stimulation (tetanic stimulation, p=0.008) compared to individuals with the highest thalamic volume. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort with type 1 diabetes and severe DSPN, thalamic atrophy was present and associated with reduced NAA/cre, indicating thalamic structural loss and dysfunction. Thalamic atrophy was associated to reduced sensory function involving large fiber neuropathy and sensation to tetanic stimulation that may reflect synaptic transmission. This may ultimately contribute to the current understanding of the pathophysiology behind the perception changes evident in DSPN.

The Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy.

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (painful-DPN) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition, affecting up to one-third of patients with diabetes. This condition can have a profound impact resulting in a poor quality of life, disruption of employment, impaired sleep, and poor mental health with an excess of depression and anxiety. The management of painful-DPN poses a great challenge. Unfortunately, currently there are no Food and Drug Administration (USA) approved disease-modifying treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) as trials of putative pathogenetic treatments have failed at phase 3 clinical trial stage. Therefore, the focus of managing painful- DPN other than improving glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factor modification is treating symptoms. The recommended treatments based on expert international consensus for painful- DPN have remained essentially unchanged for the last decade. Both the serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SNRI) duloxetine and α2δ ligand pregabalin have the most robust evidence for treating painful-DPN. The weak opioids (e.g. tapentadol and tramadol, both of which have an SNRI effect), tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and α2δ ligand gabapentin are also widely recommended and prescribed agents. Opioids (except tramadol and tapentadol), should be prescribed with caution in view of the lack of definitive data surrounding efficacy, concerns surrounding addiction and adverse events. Recently, emerging therapies have gained local licenses, including the α2δ ligand mirogabalin (Japan) and the high dose 8% capsaicin patch (FDA and Europe). The management of refractory painful-DPN is difficult; specialist pain services may offer off-label therapies (e.g. botulinum toxin, intravenous lidocaine and spinal cord stimulation), although there is limited clinical trial evidence supporting their use. Additionally, despite combination therapy being commonly used clinically, there is little evidence supporting this practise. There is a need for further clinical trials to assess novel therapeutic agents, optimal combination therapy and existing agents to determine which are the most effective for the treatment of painful-DPN. This article reviews the evidence for the treatment of painful-DPN, including emerging treatment strategies such as novel compounds and stratification of patients according to individual characteristics (e.g. pain phenotype, neuroimaging and genotype) to improve treatment responses.

Preservation of thalamic neuronal function may be a prerequisite for pain perception in diabetic neuropathy: A magnetic resonance spectroscopy study.

Introduction: In this study, we used proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (1H-MRS) to determine the neuronal function in the thalamus and primary somatosensory (S1) cortex in different subgroups of DPN, including subclinical- and painful-DPN. Method: One-hundred and ten people with type 1 diabetes [20 without DPN (no-DPN); 30 with subclinical-DPN; 30 with painful-DPN; and 30 with painless-DPN] and 20 healthy volunteers, all of whom were right-handed men, were recruited and underwent detailed clinical and neurophysiological assessments. Participants underwent Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 1.5 Tesla with two 1H-MRS spectra obtained from 8 ml cubic volume voxels: one placed within left thalamus to encompass the ventro-posterior lateral sub-nucleus and another within the S1 cortex. Results: In the thalamus, participants with painless-DPN had a significantly lower NAA:Cr ratio [1.55 + 0.22 (mean ± SD)] compared to all other groups [HV (1.80 ± 0.23), no-DPN (1.85 ± 0.20), sub-clinical DPN (1.79 ± 0.23), painful-DPN (1.75 ± 0.19), ANOVA p < 0.001]. There were no significant group differences in S1 cortical neurometabolites. Conclusion: In this largest cerebral MRS study in DPN, thalamic neuronal dysfunction was found in advanced painless-DPN with preservation of function in subclinical- and painful-DPN. Furthermore, there was a preservation of neuronal function within the S1 cortex in all subgroups of DPN. Therefore, there may be a proximo-distal gradient to central nervous system alterations in painless-DPN, with thalamic neuronal dysfunction occurring only in established DPN. Moreover, these results further highlight the manifestation of cerebral alterations between painful- and painless-DPN whereby preservation of thalamic function may be a prerequisite for neuropathic pain in DPN.

Pathogenesis, diagnosis and clinical management of diabetic sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy.

Diabetic sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy (DSPN) is a serious complication of diabetes mellitus and is associated with increased mortality, lower-limb amputations and distressing painful neuropathic symptoms (painful DSPN). Our understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease has largely been derived from animal models, which have identified key potential mechanisms. However, effective therapies in preclinical models have not translated into clinical trials and we have no universally accepted disease-modifying treatments. Moreover, the condition is generally diagnosed late when irreversible nerve damage has already taken place. Innovative point-of-care devices have great potential to enable the early diagnosis of DSPN when the condition might be more amenable to treatment. The management of painful DSPN remains less than optimal; however, studies suggest that a mechanism-based approach might offer an enhanced benefit in certain pain phenotypes. The management of patients with DSPN involves the control of individualized cardiometabolic targets, a multidisciplinary approach aimed at the prevention and management of foot complications, and the timely diagnosis and management of neuropathic pain. Here, we discuss the latest advances in the mechanisms of DSPN and painful DSPN, originating both from the periphery and the central nervous system, as well as the emerging diagnostics and treatments.

The Effects of Type 1 Diabetes and Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy on the Musculoskeletal System: A Case-Control Study.

Fracture risk is increased in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Diabetic neuropathy might contribute to this increased risk directly through effects on bone turnover and indirectly through effects on balance, muscle strength, and gait. We compared patients with T1D with (T1DN+, n = 20) and without (T1DN-, n = 20) distal symmetric sensorimotor polyneuropathy and controls (n = 20). We assessed areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and appendicular muscle mass by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, microarchitecture by high-resolution peripheral quantitative tomography at the standard ultra-distal site and at an exploratory 14% bone length site at the tibia and radius, bone turnover markers, and muscle strength, gait, and balance by Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). At the standard ultra-distal site, tibial cortical porosity was 56% higher in T1DN+ compared with T1DN- (p = .009) and correlated positively with the severity of neuropathy (Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score; r = 0.347, p = .028) and negatively with nerve conduction amplitude and velocity (r = -0.386, p = .015 and r = -0.358, p = .025, respectively). Similar negative correlations were also observed at the radius (r = -0.484, p = .006 and r = -0.446, p = .012, respectively). At the exploratory 14% offset site (less distal), we found higher trabecular volumetric BMD (tibia 25%, p = .024; radius 46%, p = .017), trabecular bone volume (tibia 25%, p = .023; radius 46%, p = .017), and trabecular number (tibia 22%, p = .014; radius 30%, p = .010) in T1DN- compared with controls. Both CTX and PINP were lower in participants with TD1 compared with controls. No difference was found in aBMD and appendicular muscle mass. T1DN+ had worse performance in the SPPB compared with T1DN- and control. In summary, neuropathy was associated with cortical porosity and worse performance in physical tests. Our findings suggest that bone structure does not fully explain the rate of fractures in T1D. We conclude that the increase in the risk of fractures in T1D is multifactorial with both skeletal and non-skeletal contributions. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Somatosensory network functional connectivity differentiates clinical pain phenotypes in diabetic neuropathy.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this work was to investigate whether different clinical pain phenotypes of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) are distinguished by functional connectivity at rest. METHODS: This was an observational, cohort study of 43 individuals with painful DPN, divided into irritable (IR, n = 10) and non-irritable (NIR, n = 33) nociceptor phenotypes using the German Research Network of Neuropathic Pain quantitative sensory testing protocol. In-situ brain MRI included 3D T1-weighted anatomical and 6 min resting-state functional MRI scans. Subgroup differences in resting-state functional connectivity in brain regions involved with somatic (thalamus, primary somatosensory cortex, motor cortex) and non-somatic (insular and anterior cingulate cortices) pain processing were examined. Multidimensional reduction of MRI datasets was performed using a machine-learning approach to classify individuals into each clinical pain phenotype. RESULTS: Individuals with the IR nociceptor phenotype had significantly greater thalamic-insular cortex (p false discovery rate [FDR] = 0.03) and reduced thalamus-somatosensory cortex functional connectivity (p-FDR = 0.03). We observed a double dissociation such that self-reported neuropathic pain score was more associated with greater thalamus-insular cortex functional connectivity (r = 0.41; p = 0.01) whereas more severe nerve function deficits were more related to lower thalamus-somatosensory cortex functional connectivity (r = -0.35; p = 0.03). Machine-learning group classification performance to identify individuals with the NIR nociceptor phenotype achieved an accuracy of 0.92 (95% CI 0.08) and sensitivity of 90%. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrates differences in functional connectivity in nociceptive processing brain regions between IR and NIR phenotypes in painful DPN. We also establish proof of concept for the utility of multimodal MRI as a biomarker for painful DPN by using a machine-learning approach to classify individuals into sensory phenotypes.

Nerve and Vascular Biomarkers in Skin Biopsies Differentiate Painful From Painless Peripheral Neuropathy in Type 2 Diabetes.

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy can be intractable with a major impact, yet the underlying pain mechanisms remain uncertain. A range of neuronal and vascular biomarkers was investigated in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (painful-DPN) and painless-DPN and used to differentiate painful-DPN from painless-DPN. Skin biopsies were collected from 61 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and 19 healthy volunteers (HV). All subjects underwent detailed clinical and neurophysiological assessments. Based on the neuropathy composite score of the lower limbs [NIS(LL)] plus seven tests, the T2D subjects were subsequently divided into three groups: painful-DPN (n = 23), painless-DPN (n = 19), and No-DPN (n = 19). All subjects underwent punch skin biopsy, and immunohistochemistry used to quantify total intraepidermal nerve fibers (IENF) with protein gene product 9.5 (PGP9.5), regenerating nerve fibers with growth-associated protein 43 (GAP43), peptidergic nerve fibers with calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), and blood vessels with von Willebrand Factor (vWF). The results showed that IENF density was severely decreased (p < 0.001) in both DPN groups, with no differences for PGP9.5, GAP43, CGRP, or GAP43/PGP9.5 ratios. There was a significant increase in blood vessel (vWF) density in painless-DPN and No-DPN groups compared to the HV group, but this was markedly greater in the painful-DPN group, and significantly higher than in the painless-DPN group (p < 0.0001). The ratio of sub-epidermal nerve fiber (SENF) density of CGRP:vWF showed a significant decrease in painful-DPN vs. painless-DPN (p = 0.014). In patients with T2D with advanced DPN, increased dermal vasculature and its ratio to nociceptors may differentiate painful-DPN from painless-DPN. We hypothesized that hypoxia-induced increase of blood vessels, which secrete algogenic substances including nerve growth factor (NGF), may expose their associated nociceptor fibers to a relative excess of algogens, thus leading to painful-DPN.

Imbalanced learning: Improving classification of diabetic neuropathy from magnetic resonance imaging.

One of the fundamental challenges when dealing with medical imaging datasets is class imbalance. Class imbalance happens where an instance in the class of interest is relatively low, when compared to the rest of the data. This study aims to apply oversampling strategies in an attempt to balance the classes and improve classification performance. We evaluated four different classifiers from k-nearest neighbors (k-NN), support vector machine (SVM), multilayer perceptron (MLP) and decision trees (DT) with 73 oversampling strategies. In this work, we used imbalanced learning oversampling techniques to improve classification in datasets that are distinctively sparser and clustered. This work reports the best oversampling and classifier combinations and concludes that the usage of oversampling methods always outperforms no oversampling strategies hence improving the classification results.

Determinants of Treatment Response in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Combined Deep Sensory Phenotyping and Multimodal Brain MRI Study.

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is difficult to manage, as treatment response is often varied. The primary aim of this study was to examine differences in pain phenotypes between responders and nonresponders to intravenous lidocaine treatment using quantitative sensory testing. The secondary aim was to explore differences in brain structure and functional connectivity with treatment response. Forty-five consecutive patients who received intravenous lidocaine treatment for painful DPN were screened. Twenty-nine patients who met the eligibility criteria (responders, n = 14, and nonresponders, n = 15) and 26 healthy control subjects underwent detailed sensory profiling. Subjects also underwent multimodal brain MRI. A greater proportion of patients with the irritable (IR) nociceptor phenotype were responders to intravenous lidocaine treatment compared with nonresponders. The odds ratio of responding to intravenous lidocaine was 8.67 times greater (95% CI 1.4-53.8) for the IR nociceptor phenotype. Responders to intravenous lidocaine also had significantly greater mean primary somatosensory cortex cortical volume and functional connectivity between the insula cortex and the corticolimbic circuitry. This study provides preliminary evidence for a mechanism-based approach for individualizing therapy in patients with painful DPN.

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy: advances in diagnosis and strategies for screening and early intervention.

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a common complication of both type 1 and 2 diabetes. It is a leading cause of lower-limb amputation and disabling neuropathic pain. Amputations in patients with diabetes have a devastating effect on quality of life and are associated with an alarmingly low life expectancy (on average only 2 years from the amputation). Amputation also places a substantial financial burden on health-care systems and society in general. With the introduction of national diabetes eye screening programmes, the prevalence of blindness in working-age adults is falling. This is not the case, however, with diabetes related amputations. In this Review, we appraise innovative point-of-care devices that enable the early diagnosis of DPN and assess the evidence for early risk factor-based management strategies to reduce the incidence and slow the progression of DPN. We also propose a framework for screening and early multifactorial interventions as the best prospect for preventing or halting DPN and its devastating sequelae.