Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes with and without sensorimotor polyneuropathy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) in patients with diabetes is associated with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess signs of CAN and autonomic symptoms and to investigate the impact of sensorimotor neuropathy on CAN by examining type 2 diabetes patients with (DPN [distal sensorimotor polyneuropathy]) and without distal sensorimotor polyneuropathy (noDPN) and healthy controls (HC). Secondarily, we aimed to describe the characteristics of patients with CAN. METHODS: A population of 374 subjects from a previously described cohort of the Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes (DD2) were included. Subjects were examined with the Vagus™ device for the diagnosis of CAN, where two or more abnormal cardiovascular autonomic reflex tests indicate definite CAN. Autonomic symptoms were assessed with Composite Autonomic Symptom Score 31 (COMPASS 31) questionnaire. DPN was defined according to the Toronto consensus panel definition. RESULTS: Definite CAN was present in 22% with DPN, 7% without DPN and 3% of HC, and 91% of patients with definite CAN had DPN. Patients with DPN and definite CAN reported higher COMPASS 31 scores compared to patients with noDPN (20.0 vs. 8.3, p < 0.001) and no CAN (22.1 vs. 12.3, p = 0.01). CAN was associated with HbA1c and age in a multivariate logistic regression analysis but was not associated with IEFND or triglycerides. INTERPRETATION: One in five patients with DPN have CAN and specific CAN characteristics may help identify patients at risk for developing this severe diabetic complication. Autonomic symptoms were strongly associated with having both DPN and CAN, but too unspecific for diagnosing CAN.

Assessing Corneal Confocal Microscopy and Other Small Fiber Measures in Diabetic Polyneuropathy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Damage to small nerve fibers is common in diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN), and the diagnosis of DPN relies on subjective symptoms and signs in a combination with objective confirmatory tests, typically electrophysiology or intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) from skin biopsy. Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) has been introduced as a tool to detect DPN. However, it is unclear if CCM can reliably be used to diagnose DPN and how the technique compares with other commonly used measures of small fiber damage, such as IENFD, cold detection threshold (CDT), and warm detection threshold (WDT). Therefore, we assessed and compared the use of CCM, IENFD, CDT, and WDT in the diagnosis of DPN in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this cohort study, the participants underwent detailed neurologic examination, electrophysiology, quantification of IENFD, CCM, and quantitative sensory testing. Definition of DPN was made in accordance with the Toronto criteria for diabetic neuropathy (without relying on IENFD and thermal thresholds). RESULTS: A total of 214 patients with at least probable DPN, 63 patients without DPN, and 97 controls without diabetes were included. Patients with DPN had lower CCM measures (corneal nerve fiber length [CNFL], nerve fiber density, and branch density), IENFD, CDT, and WDT compared with patients without DPN (p ≤ 0.001, <0.001, 0.002, p < 0.001, p = 0.003, and <0.005, respectively), whereas there was no difference between controls and patients with diabetes without DPN. All 3 CCM measures showed a very low diagnostic sensitivity with CNFL showing the highest (14.4% [95% CI 9.8-18.4]) and a specificity of 95.7% (88.0-99.1). In comparison, the sensitivity of abnormal CDT and/or WDT was 30.5% (24.4-37.0) with a specificity of 84.9% (74.6-92.2). The sensitivity of abnormal IENFD was highest among all measures with a value of 51.1% (43.7-58.5) and a specificity of 90% (79.5-96.2). CCM measures did not correlate with IENFD, CDT/WDT, or neuropathy severity in the group of patients with DPN. DISCUSSION: CCM measures showed the lowest sensitivity compared with other small fiber measures in the diagnosis of DPN. This indicates that CCM is not a sensitive method to detect DPN in recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that CCM measures aid in the detection of DPN in recently diagnosed type 2 diabetics but with a low sensitivity when compared with other small fiber measures.

Comparison of diabetic and idiopathic sensory polyneuropathies with respect to nerve fibre affection and risk factors.

Background and purpose: Chronic distal sensory or sensorimotor polyneuropathy is the most common pattern of polyneuropathy. The cause of this pattern is most often diabetes or unknown. This cross-sectional study is one of the first studies to compare the demographics, cardiovascular risk factors and clinical characteristics of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) with idiopathic polyneuropathy (IPN). Methods: Patients with DPN were included from a sample of 389 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) enrolled from a national cohort of patients with recently diagnosed T2DM (Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort). Patients with IPN were included from a regional cohort of patients with symptoms of polyneuropathy referred for workup at a combined secondary and tertiary neurological centre (database cohort). Results: A total of 214 patients with DPN were compared with a total of 88 patients with IPN. Patients with DPN were older (67.4 vs 59 years) and had a longer duration of neuropathy symptoms. Patients with DPN had greater body mass index (32 vs 27.4 kg/m2) and waist circumference (110 cm vs 97 cm); higher frequency of hypertension diagnosis (72.9% vs 30.7%); lower total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels; and a higher prevalence of use of statins (81.8% vs 19.3%). DPN was associated with a slightly higher autonomic score and total score on the Neuropathy Symptom Score; lower frequency of hyperalgesia, allodynia and decreased vibration on quantitative sensory testing; lower intraepidermal nerve fibre density count and higher frequency of small-fibre neuropathy. Conclusion: DPN and IPN showed clear differences in neuropathy characteristics, indicating that these two entities are to be regarded as aetiologically and pathogenetically distinct.

Axonal Excitability Does Not Differ between Painful and Painless Diabetic or Chemotherapy-Induced Distal Symmetrical Polyneuropathy in a Multicenter Observational Study.

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.

The characteristics of pain and dysesthesia in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Patients with diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) may experience paresthesia, dysesthesia, and pain. We aimed to characterize the predictors, symptoms, somatosensory profile, neuropathy severity, and impact of painful DPN and dysesthetic DPN. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional study of type 2 diabetes patients with confirmed DPN, diagnosed using widely accepted methods including a clinical examination, skin biopsy, and nerve conduction studies. FINDINGS: Of 126 patients with confirmed DPN, 52 had DPN without pain or dysesthesia, 21 had dysesthetic DPN, and 53 painful DPN. Patients with painful DPN were less physically active and suffered from more pain elsewhere than in the feet compared to patients with DPN without pain. Patients with painful DPN had the largest loss of small and large sensory fiber function, and there was a gradient of larger spatial distribution of sensory loss from DPN without dysesthesia/pain to dysesthetic DPN and to painful DPN. This could indicate that patients with dysesthesia had more severe neuropathy than patients without dysesthesia but less than patients with painful DPN. Patients with dysesthetic and painful DPN had higher symptom scores for depression and fatigue than those without dysesthesia/pain with no difference between dysesthetic and painful DPN. CONCLUSIONS: There was a gradient of increasing sensory loss from DPN without dysesthesia/pain to dysesthetic DPN and to painful DPN. Pain and dysesthesia are common in DPN and both interfere with daily life. It is therefore important to consider dysesthesia when diagnosing and treating patients with neuropathy.

Analysis of Macrophages and Peptidergic Fibers in the Skin of Patients With Painful Diabetic Polyneuropathy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The mechanisms of pain in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy are unknown. Studies have suggested a role of inflammation and increased neuropeptides peripherally in pain generation. This study examined the possible skin markers of painful diabetic polyneuropathy (P-DPN): macrophages, substance P (SP), and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). METHODS: The participants were included from a large Danish cross-sectional clinical study of type 2 diabetes. We diagnosed definite diabetic polyneuropathy using the Toronto criteria and used the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group classification for defining P-DPN. We included 60 skin biopsies from patients with diabetic polyneuropathy-30 with P-DPN and 30 with nonpainful diabetic polyneuropathy (NP-DPN)-and 30 biopsies from healthy controls of similar age and sex. The biopsies were stained using PGP 9.5, IbA1, and SP and CGRP primary markers. RESULTS: There was increased macrophage density in patients with P-DPN (8.0%) compared with that in patients with NP-DPN (5.1%, p < 0.001), and there was increased macrophage density in patients with NP-DPN (5.1%) compared with that in healthy controls (3.1%, p < 0.001). When controlling for neuropathy severity, body mass index, age, and sex, there was still a difference in macrophage density between patients with P-DPN and patients with NP-DPN. Patients with P-DPN had higher median nerve fiber length density (274.5 and 155 mm-2 for SP and CGRP, respectively) compared with patients with NP-DPN (176 and 121 mm-2 for SP and CGRP, respectively, p = 0.009 and 0.04) and healthy controls (185.5 and 121.5 mm-2 for SP and CGRP, respectively), whereas there was no difference between patients with NP-DPN and controls without diabetes (p = 0.64 and 0.49, respectively). The difference between P-DPN and NP-DPN for SP and CGRP was significant only in female patients, although a trend was seen in male patients. DISCUSSION: The findings point to a possible involvement of the innate immune system in the pathogenesis of neuropathic pain in patients with DPN, although markers of activated macrophages were not measured in this study.

Normative reference values for the dorsal sural nerve derived from a large multicenter cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Dorsal sural nerve conduction studies (NCS) may increase the sensitivity for the diagnosis of polyneuropathy, but clinical use is limited by a lack of reliable normative reference values in all age-groups. The aim of our study was to develop reference values for the dorsal sural nerve, based on a large multicenter cohort of healthy subjects. METHODS: Bilateral antidromic NCS were performed using standard surface electrodes in 229 healthy subjects (aged 21-80 years; median: 54 years). We assessed the normality of data distribution for amplitudes and conduction velocity (CV) and for their logarithmic (ln) transformation. The effects of age and height were determined using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Sensory potentials were present in all subjects. Logarithmically transformed data were normally distributed. Age2 and height were most significantly associated with amplitude, and age and height with CV, respectively. There was no significant side-difference. Mean amplitudes (right and left) were 4.8 and 4.9 µV and mean CV 46.7 and 46.9 m/s. Reference limits were e (3.712515 - 0.0000956 * age2 - 0.0115883 * height ±â€¯1.96 * 0.51137) for amplitude and e (4.354374 - 0.0021081 * age - 0.0023354 * height ±â€¯1.96 * 0.11161) for CV. CONCLUSIONS: Dorsal sural nerve NCS are robust and have well defined normative limits. SIGNIFICANCE: The findings provide a basis for more sensitive NCS in clinical practice and future studies of the diagnostic accuracy of NCS in polyneuropathy.

Test-retest and time dependent variation and diagnostic values of vibratory sensation determined by biothesiometer and the Rydel-Seiffer tuning fork.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Polyneuropathy is a common neurological disorder with many potential causes. An essential part in screening, diagnosis, and follow-up evaluation of polyneuropathy is testing of the sensory function including vibratory sensation. The graduated Rydel-Seiffer tuning fork and the biothesiometer have been developed to quantify vibratory sensation through detection thresholds. The aim of this study is to compare the vibration detection thresholds determined by the two instruments regarding intraindividual temporal changes, interindividual variation in healthy subjects and comparison of the diagnostic value in patients with a clinical suspicion of polyneuropathy. METHODS: Ninety-four healthy subjects, 98 patients with and 97 patients without a diagnosis of polyneuropathy were included. Quantitative sensory testing including biothesiometry, structured clinical examination, and nerve conduction studies were performed three times during 52 weeks in healthy subjects and once in patients. RESULTS: There were no significant changes over time for neither the Rydel-Seiffer tuning fork nor the biothesiometer, and both had larger between-subject variation than within-subject variation. Relative intertrial variability was largest for the biothesiometer. Diagnostic value (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) was moderate for both methods (Rydel-Seiffer tuning fork: 58%, 74%, 70%, 64%; biothesiometer: 47%, 77%, 68%, 59%). INTERPRETATION: The Rydel-Seiffer tuning fork and the biothesiometer have a low test-retest and time dependent variation. They perform almost equally as diagnostic tools in patients with suspected polyneuropathy with a tendency toward better performance of the tuning fork.

Painful and non-painful diabetic neuropathy, diagnostic challenges and implications for future management.

Peripheral neuropathy is one of the most common complications of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Up to half of patients with diabetes develop neuropathy during the course of their disease, which is accompanied by neuropathic pain in 30-40% of cases. Peripheral nerve injury in diabetes can manifest as progressive distal symmetric polyneuropathy, autonomic neuropathy, radiculo-plexopathies, and mononeuropathies. The most common diabetic neuropathy is distal symmetric polyneuropathy, which we will refer to as DN, with its characteristic glove and stocking like presentation of distal sensory or motor function loss. DN or its painful counterpart, painful DN, are associated with increased mortality and morbidity; thus, early recognition and preventive measures are essential. Nevertheless, it is not easy to diagnose DN or painful DN, particularly in patients with early and mild neuropathy, and there is currently no single established diagnostic gold standard. The most common diagnostic approach in research is a hierarchical system, which combines symptoms, signs, and a series of confirmatory tests. The general lack of long-term prospective studies has limited the evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of new morphometric and neurophysiological techniques. Thus, the best paradigm for screening DN and painful DN both in research and in clinical practice remains uncertain. Herein, we review the diagnostic challenges from both clinical and research perspectives and their implications for managing patients with DN. There is no established DN treatment, apart from improved glycaemic control, which is more effective in type 1 than in type 2 diabetes, and only symptomatic management is available for painful DN. Currently, less than one-third of patients with painful DN derive sufficient pain relief with existing pharmacotherapies. A more precise and distinct sensory profile from patients with DN and painful DN may help identify responsive patients to one treatment versus another. Detailed sensory profiles will lead to tailored treatment for patient subgroups with painful DN by matching to novel or established DN pathomechanisms and also for improved clinical trials stratification. Large randomized clinical trials are needed to identify the interventions, i.e. pharmacological, physical, cognitive, educational, etc., which lead to the best therapeutic outcomes.

[Alien hand syndrome is a rare symptom of stroke].

Alien hand syndrome (AHS) is a rare condition, which is defined as involuntary meaningful movements of a limb associated with loss of ownership over the limb. It affects mostly the left hand. Corticobasal degeneration, stroke and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease are the three leading causes of AHS. AHS is classically divided into three subcategories: frontal, callosal and posterior. Loss of inhibitory tone and loss of bilateral hemisphere activation are the hypothesised pathophysiologic causes of AHS. This is a case report of a posterior AHS in a 47-year-old woman after stroke in the right parietal lobe.

Small and large fiber sensory polyneuropathy in type 2 diabetes: Influence of diagnostic criteria on neuropathy subtypes.

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.

Diabetic polyneuropathy and pain, prevalence, and patient characteristics: a cross-sectional questionnaire study of 5,514 patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

Most studies of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) and painful DPN are conducted in persons with longstanding diabetes. This cross-sectional study aimed to estimate the prevalence of DPN and painful DPN, important risk factors, and the association with mental health in recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. A total of 5514 (82%) patients (median diabetes duration 4.6 years) enrolled in the Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort responded to a detailed questionnaire on neuropathy and pain. A score ≥4 on the MNSI questionnaire determined possible DPN, whereas pain presence in both feet together with a score ≥3 on the DN4 questionnaire determined possible painful DPN. The prevalence of possible DPN and possible painful DPN was 18% and 10%, respectively. Female sex, age, diabetes duration, body mass index, and smoking were associated with possible DPN, whereas only smoking showed a clear association with possible painful DPN (odds ratio 1.52 [95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.93]). Possible DPN and painful DPN were independently and additively associated with lower quality of life, poorer sleep, and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Possible DPN itself had greater impact on mental health than neuropathic pain. This large study emphasizes the importance of careful screening for DPN and pain early in the course of type 2 diabetes.

Drug-induced peripheral neuropathy.

Peripheral neuropathy can be caused by medication, and various descriptions have been applied for this condition. In this MiniReview, the term 'drug-induced peripheral neuropathy' (DIPN) is used with the suggested definition: Damage to nerves of the peripheral nervous system caused by a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention or diagnosis of a disease. Optic neuropathy is included in this definition. A distinction between DIPN and other aetiologies of peripheral neuropathy is often quite difficult and thus, the aim of this MiniReview is to discuss the major agents associated with DIPN.

[Cerebral cysticerc is a rare cause of hydrocephalus]. / Neurocysticerkose er en sjælden årsag til hydrocephalus.

We present a case of a 39-year-old woman from Thailand. She presented with dizziness and signs of raised intracranial pressure. Magnetic resonance scanning revealed multiple cysticercs in cerebrum and cerebellum, and one of the cysticercs compressed the cerebral aqueduct resulting in hydrocephalus. The patient was transferred to an infectious disease department, where appropriate treatment with albendazol was initiated. Surprisingly she was found HIV-positive with a CD4 count of approx. 10 m/l. The patient deteriorated over the following week and died due to raised intracranial pressure.