Ioannis N Petropoulos1, Maryam Ferdousi2, Andrew Marshall3, Uazman Alam2, Georgios Ponirakis1, Shazli Azmi2, Hassan Fadavi2, Nathan Efron4, Mitra Tavakoli2, Rayaz A Malik1. 1. Division of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College-Qatar, Qatar Foundation, Education City, Doha, Qatar 2Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes, University of Manchester and Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centr. 2. Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes, University of Manchester and Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom. 3. Clinical Neurophysiology, Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom. 4. Queensland University of Technology, School of Optometry and Vision Science, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In vivo corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) is increasingly used as a surrogate endpoint in studies of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN). However, it is not clear whether imaging the central cornea provides optimal diagnostic utility for DPN. Therefore, we compared nerve morphology in the central cornea and the inferior whorl, a more distal and densely innervated area located inferior and nasal to the central cornea. METHODS: A total of 53 subjects with type 1/type 2 diabetes and 15 age-matched control subjects underwent detailed assessment of neuropathic symptoms (NPS), deficits (neuropathy disability score [NDS]), quantitative sensory testing (vibration perception threshold [VPT], cold and warm threshold [CT/WT], and cold- and heat-induced pain [CIP/HIP]), and electrophysiology (sural and peroneal nerve conduction velocity [SSNCV/PMNCV], and sural and peroneal nerve amplitude [SSNA/PMNA]) to diagnose patients with (DPN+) and without (DPN-) neuropathy. Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) and length (CNFL) in the central cornea, and inferior whorl length (IWL) were quantified. RESULTS: Comparing control subjects to DPN- and DPN+ patients, there was a significant increase in NDS (0 vs. 2.6 ± 2.3 vs. 3.3 ± 2.7, P < 0.01), VPT (V; 5.4 ± 3.0 vs. 10.6 ± 10.3 vs. 17.7 ± 11.8, P < 0.01), WT (°C; 37.7 ± 3.5 vs. 39.1 ± 5.1 vs. 41.7 ± 4.7, P < 0.05), and a significant decrease in SSNCV (m/s; 50.2 ± 5.4 vs. 48.4 ± 5.0 vs. 39.5 ± 10.6, P < 0.05), CNFD (fibers/mm2; 37.8 ± 4.9 vs. 29.7 ± 7.7 vs. 27.1 ± 9.9, P < 0.01), CNFL (mm/mm2; 27.5 ± 3.6 vs. 24.4 ± 7.8 vs. 20.7 ± 7.1, P < 0.01), and IWL (mm/mm2; 35.1 ± 6.5 vs. 26.2 ± 10.5 vs. 23.6 ± 11.4, P < 0.05). For the diagnosis of DPN, CNFD, CNFL, and IWL achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75, 0.74, and 0.70, respectively, and a combination of IWL-CNFD achieved an AUC of 0.76. CONCLUSIONS: The parameters of CNFD, CNFL, and IWL have a comparable ability to diagnose patients with DPN. However, IWL detects an abnormality even in patients without DPN. Combining IWL with CNFD may improve the diagnostic performance of CCM.
PURPOSE: In vivo corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) is increasingly used as a surrogate endpoint in studies of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN). However, it is not clear whether imaging the central cornea provides optimal diagnostic utility for DPN. Therefore, we compared nerve morphology in the central cornea and the inferior whorl, a more distal and densely innervated area located inferior and nasal to the central cornea. METHODS: A total of 53 subjects with type 1/type 2 diabetes and 15 age-matched control subjects underwent detailed assessment of neuropathic symptoms (NPS), deficits (neuropathy disability score [NDS]), quantitative sensory testing (vibration perception threshold [VPT], cold and warm threshold [CT/WT], and cold- and heat-induced pain [CIP/HIP]), and electrophysiology (sural and peroneal nerve conduction velocity [SSNCV/PMNCV], and sural and peroneal nerve amplitude [SSNA/PMNA]) to diagnose patients with (DPN+) and without (DPN-) neuropathy. Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) and length (CNFL) in the central cornea, and inferior whorl length (IWL) were quantified. RESULTS: Comparing control subjects to DPN- and DPN+ patients, there was a significant increase in NDS (0 vs. 2.6 ± 2.3 vs. 3.3 ± 2.7, P < 0.01), VPT (V; 5.4 ± 3.0 vs. 10.6 ± 10.3 vs. 17.7 ± 11.8, P < 0.01), WT (°C; 37.7 ± 3.5 vs. 39.1 ± 5.1 vs. 41.7 ± 4.7, P < 0.05), and a significant decrease in SSNCV (m/s; 50.2 ± 5.4 vs. 48.4 ± 5.0 vs. 39.5 ± 10.6, P < 0.05), CNFD (fibers/mm2; 37.8 ± 4.9 vs. 29.7 ± 7.7 vs. 27.1 ± 9.9, P < 0.01), CNFL (mm/mm2; 27.5 ± 3.6 vs. 24.4 ± 7.8 vs. 20.7 ± 7.1, P < 0.01), and IWL (mm/mm2; 35.1 ± 6.5 vs. 26.2 ± 10.5 vs. 23.6 ± 11.4, P < 0.05). For the diagnosis of DPN, CNFD, CNFL, and IWL achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75, 0.74, and 0.70, respectively, and a combination of IWL-CNFD achieved an AUC of 0.76. CONCLUSIONS: The parameters of CNFD, CNFL, and IWL have a comparable ability to diagnose patients with DPN. However, IWL detects an abnormality even in patients without DPN. Combining IWL with CNFD may improve the diagnostic performance of CCM.
Authors: Mitra Tavakoli; Cristian Quattrini; Caroline Abbott; Panagiotis Kallinikos; Andrew Marshall; Joanne Finnigan; Philip Morgan; Nathan Efron; Andrew J M Boulton; Rayaz A Malik Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-04-30 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: P J Dyck; K M Kratz; J L Karnes; W J Litchy; R Klein; J M Pach; D M Wilson; P C O'Brien; L J Melton; F J Service Journal: Neurology Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Caroline A Abbott; Rayaz A Malik; Ernest R E van Ross; Jai Kulkarni; Andrew J M Boulton Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Ioannis N Petropoulos; Uazman Alam; Hassan Fadavi; Omar Asghar; Patrick Green; Georgios Ponirakis; Andrew Marshall; Andrew J M Boulton; Mitra Tavakoli; Rayaz A Malik Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Dan Ziegler; Karsten Winter; Alexander Strom; Andrey Zhivov; Stephan Allgeier; Nikolaos Papanas; Iris Ziegler; Jutta Brüggemann; Bernd Ringel; Sabine Peschel; Bernd Köhler; Oliver Stachs; Rudolf F Guthoff; Michael Roden Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ilia Ostrovski; Leif E Lovblom; Mohammed A Farooqi; Daniel Scarr; Genevieve Boulet; Paul Hertz; Tong Wu; Elise M Halpern; Mylan Ngo; Eduardo Ng; Andrej Orszag; Vera Bril; Bruce A Perkins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 3.240