AIM: We have assessed whether corneal confocal microscopy can be used to detect alterations in nerve morphology following an improvement in risk factors associated with diabetic neuropathy. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with diabetes with mild to moderate neuropathy and 18 control subjects underwent corneal confocal microscopy to quantify corneal nerve fibre (density, branch density, length and tortuosity) at baseline and after 24 months from first visit. This was not planned as an intervention trial and was simply an observational follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, nerve fibre density (18.8 ± 2.1 vs. 46.0 ± 3.8 number/mm(2), P = 0.001), nerve branch density (6.9 ± 1.5 vs. 35.6 ± 6.7 number/mm(2), P < 0.0001), nerve fibre length (8.3 ± 0.9 vs. 13.5 ± 0.8 mm/mm(2), P < 0.0001) and nerve fibre tortuosity (19.8 ± 1.6 vs. 22.7 ± 2.2, P < 0.05) were significantly lower in patients with diabetes than in control subjects. At follow-up, glycaemic control (HbA(1c) 64 ± 3 to 58 ± 2 mmol/mol, P = 0.08), total cholesterol (4.9 ± 0.2 to 4.2 ± 0.2 mmol/l, P = 0.01), systolic blood pressure (145.8 ± 4.9 to 135.9 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.09) and diastolic blood pressure (77.8 ± 2.7 to 70.8 ± 2.5, P = 0.03) improved. Nerve fibre density (24.1 ± 2.0, P = 0.05), nerve branch density (11.1 ± 1.3, P < 0.01) and nerve fibre tortuosity (22.6 ± 1.5, P = 0.05) increased significantly, with no change in nerve fibre length (8.4 ± 0.5). Improvement in nerve fibre density correlated significantly with the improvement in HbA(1c) (r = -0.51, P = 0.008). Via four multifactorial regressions, this confirms the negative association between HbA(1c) and nerve fibre density (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that corneal confocal microscopy may be employed in longitudinal studies to assess progression of human diabetic neuropathy and also supports the hypothesis that improvements in risk factors for diabetic neuropathy, in particular HbA(1c) , may lead to morphological repair of nerve fibres.
AIM: We have assessed whether corneal confocal microscopy can be used to detect alterations in nerve morphology following an improvement in risk factors associated with diabetic neuropathy. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with diabetes with mild to moderate neuropathy and 18 control subjects underwent corneal confocal microscopy to quantify corneal nerve fibre (density, branch density, length and tortuosity) at baseline and after 24 months from first visit. This was not planned as an intervention trial and was simply an observational follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, nerve fibre density (18.8 ± 2.1 vs. 46.0 ± 3.8 number/mm(2), P = 0.001), nerve branch density (6.9 ± 1.5 vs. 35.6 ± 6.7 number/mm(2), P < 0.0001), nerve fibre length (8.3 ± 0.9 vs. 13.5 ± 0.8 mm/mm(2), P < 0.0001) and nerve fibre tortuosity (19.8 ± 1.6 vs. 22.7 ± 2.2, P < 0.05) were significantly lower in patients with diabetes than in control subjects. At follow-up, glycaemic control (HbA(1c) 64 ± 3 to 58 ± 2 mmol/mol, P = 0.08), total cholesterol (4.9 ± 0.2 to 4.2 ± 0.2 mmol/l, P = 0.01), systolic blood pressure (145.8 ± 4.9 to 135.9 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.09) and diastolic blood pressure (77.8 ± 2.7 to 70.8 ± 2.5, P = 0.03) improved. Nerve fibre density (24.1 ± 2.0, P = 0.05), nerve branch density (11.1 ± 1.3, P < 0.01) and nerve fibre tortuosity (22.6 ± 1.5, P = 0.05) increased significantly, with no change in nerve fibre length (8.4 ± 0.5). Improvement in nerve fibre density correlated significantly with the improvement in HbA(1c) (r = -0.51, P = 0.008). Via four multifactorial regressions, this confirms the negative association between HbA(1c) and nerve fibre density (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that corneal confocal microscopy may be employed in longitudinal studies to assess progression of humandiabetic neuropathy and also supports the hypothesis that improvements in risk factors for diabetic neuropathy, in particular HbA(1c) , may lead to morphological repair of nerve fibres.
Authors: Peter J Dyck; Jane E Norell; Hans Tritschler; Klemens Schuette; Rustem Samigullin; Dan Ziegler; Edward J Bastyr; William J Litchy; Peter C O'Brien Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-05-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: A Gordon Smith; James Russell; Eva L Feldman; Jonathan Goldstein; Amanda Peltier; Sheldon Smith; Jouhaina Hamwi; Donald Pollari; Billie Bixby; James Howard; J Robinson Singleton Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Solomon Tesfaye; Nish Chaturvedi; Simon E M Eaton; John D Ward; Christos Manes; Constantin Ionescu-Tirgoviste; Daniel R Witte; John H Fuller Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R A Malik; P Kallinikos; C A Abbott; C H M van Schie; P Morgan; N Efron; A J M Boulton Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2003-05-09 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Panagiotis Kallinikos; Michael Berhanu; Clare O'Donnell; Andrew J M Boulton; Nathan Efron; Rayaz A Malik Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Mitra Tavakoli; Maryam Ferdousi; Ioannis N Petropoulos; Julie Morris; Nicola Pritchard; Andrey Zhivov; Dan Ziegler; Danièle Pacaud; Kenneth Romanchuk; Bruce A Perkins; Leif E Lovblom; Vera Bril; J Robinson Singleton; Gordon Smith; Andrew J M Boulton; Nathan Efron; Rayaz A Malik Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: B Köhler; S Allgeier; A Bartschat; R F Guthoff; S Bohn; K-M Reichert; O Stachs; K Winter; R Mikut Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 1.059
Authors: Matthew S Yorek; Alexander Obrosov; Hanna Shevalye; Sergey Lupachyk; Matthew M Harper; Randy H Kardon; Mark A Yorek Journal: J Peripher Nerv Syst Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.494