D Ziegler1, N Papanas, W Rathmann, M Heier, M Scheer, C Meisinger. 1. Institute for Clinical Diabetology, German Diabetes Center at the Heinrich Heine University, Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research, Düsseldorf, Germany. dan.ziegler@ddz.uni-duesseldorf.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neuropad is a novel indicator test for sudomotor dysfunction, which has not been validated as a screening tool in a population-based study. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of Neuropad as a screening tool for distal symmetric polyneuropathy among elderly subjects with diabetes and pre-diabetes in the general population. METHODS: Eligible subjects aged 61-82 years (n = 940) from the KORA F4 survey were examined, 201 of whom had diabetes and 231 had pre-diabetes (WHO 1999 criteria). Polyneuropathy was defined by the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI) score >3. RESULTS: Polyneuropathy was diagnosed in 60 (29.9%) subjects with diabetes and in 45 (19.5%) subjects with pre-diabetes, respectively (p = 0.013). The sensitivity and negative predictive value of Neuropad (reading time: 10 min) for the diagnosis of polyneuropathy were moderately high, reaching 76.7% and 78.1% in subjects with diabetes and 57.8% and 76.5% in those with pre-diabetes, respectively. Conversely, the specificity and positive predictive value for the diagnosis of polyneuropathy were rather low: 35.5% and 33.6% in diabetic individuals and 33.3% and 17.3% in subjects with pre-diabetes, respectively. Use of the >2 cut-off and MNSI combined with monofilament examination did not improve the diagnostic performance of Neuropad. CONCLUSIONS: In the elderly general population with diabetes and pre-diabetes, Neuropad has reasonable sensitivity but rather low specificity for the diagnosis of polyneuropathy. It is a useful simple and inexpensive tool to screen for and to exclude polyneuropathy as desired, while its low specificity implies that a longer reading time merits consideration.
BACKGROUND: Neuropad is a novel indicator test for sudomotor dysfunction, which has not been validated as a screening tool in a population-based study. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of Neuropad as a screening tool for distal symmetric polyneuropathy among elderly subjects with diabetes and pre-diabetes in the general population. METHODS: Eligible subjects aged 61-82 years (n = 940) from the KORA F4 survey were examined, 201 of whom had diabetes and 231 had pre-diabetes (WHO 1999 criteria). Polyneuropathy was defined by the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI) score >3. RESULTS:Polyneuropathy was diagnosed in 60 (29.9%) subjects with diabetes and in 45 (19.5%) subjects with pre-diabetes, respectively (p = 0.013). The sensitivity and negative predictive value of Neuropad (reading time: 10 min) for the diagnosis of polyneuropathy were moderately high, reaching 76.7% and 78.1% in subjects with diabetes and 57.8% and 76.5% in those with pre-diabetes, respectively. Conversely, the specificity and positive predictive value for the diagnosis of polyneuropathy were rather low: 35.5% and 33.6% in diabetic individuals and 33.3% and 17.3% in subjects with pre-diabetes, respectively. Use of the >2 cut-off and MNSI combined with monofilament examination did not improve the diagnostic performance of Neuropad. CONCLUSIONS: In the elderly general population with diabetes and pre-diabetes, Neuropad has reasonable sensitivity but rather low specificity for the diagnosis of polyneuropathy. It is a useful simple and inexpensive tool to screen for and to exclude polyneuropathy as desired, while its low specificity implies that a longer reading time merits consideration.
Authors: Troels S Jensen; Pall Karlsson; Sandra S Gylfadottir; Signe T Andersen; David L Bennett; Hatice Tankisi; Nanna B Finnerup; Astrid J Terkelsen; Karolina Khan; Andreas C Themistocleous; Alexander G Kristensen; Mustapha Itani; Søren H Sindrup; Henning Andersen; Morten Charles; Eva L Feldman; Brian C Callaghan Journal: Brain Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Varo Kirthi; Anugraha Perumbalath; Emily Brown; Sarah Nevitt; Ioannis N Petropoulos; Jamie Burgess; Rebecca Roylance; Daniel J Cuthbertson; Timothy L Jackson; Rayaz A Malik; Uazman Alam Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2021-05