Nicola Pritchard1, Cirous Dehghani, Katie Edwards, Edward Burgin, Nick Cheang, Hannah Kim, Merna Mikhaiel, Gemma Stanton, Anthony W Russell, Rayaz A Malik, Nathan Efron. 1. *Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia; †School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia; ‡Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia; §Center for Endocrinology and Diabetes, Institute of Human Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; and ¶Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, Doha, Qatar.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare small nerve fiber damage in the central cornea and whorl area in participants with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and to examine the accuracy of evaluating these 2 anatomical sites for the diagnosis of DPN. METHODS: A cohort of 187 participants (107 with type 1 diabetes and 80 controls) was enrolled. The neuropathy disability score (NDS) was used for the identification of DPN. The corneal nerve fiber length at the central cornea (CNFLcenter) and whorl (CNFLwhorl) was quantified using corneal confocal microscopy and a fully automated morphometric technique and compared according to the DPN status. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were used to compare the accuracy of the 2 corneal locations for the diagnosis of DPN. RESULTS: CNFLcenter and CNFLwhorl were able to differentiate all 3 groups (diabetic participants with and without DPN and controls) (P < 0.001). There was a weak but significant linear relationship for CNFLcenter and CNFLwhorl versus NDS (P < 0.001); however, the corneal location × NDS interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.17). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was similar for CNFLcenter and CNFLwhorl (0.76 and 0.77, respectively, P = 0.98). The sensitivity and specificity of the cutoff points were 0.9 and 0.5 for CNFLcenter and 0.8 and 0.6 for CNFLwhorl. CONCLUSIONS: Small nerve fiber pathology is comparable at the central and whorl anatomical sites of the cornea. Quantification of CNFL from the corneal center is as accurate as CNFL quantification of the whorl area for the diagnosis of DPN.
PURPOSE: To compare small nerve fiber damage in the central cornea and whorl area in participants with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and to examine the accuracy of evaluating these 2 anatomical sites for the diagnosis of DPN. METHODS: A cohort of 187 participants (107 with type 1 diabetes and 80 controls) was enrolled. The neuropathy disability score (NDS) was used for the identification of DPN. The corneal nerve fiber length at the central cornea (CNFLcenter) and whorl (CNFLwhorl) was quantified using corneal confocal microscopy and a fully automated morphometric technique and compared according to the DPN status. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were used to compare the accuracy of the 2 corneal locations for the diagnosis of DPN. RESULTS: CNFLcenter and CNFLwhorl were able to differentiate all 3 groups (diabeticparticipants with and without DPN and controls) (P < 0.001). There was a weak but significant linear relationship for CNFLcenter and CNFLwhorl versus NDS (P < 0.001); however, the corneal location × NDS interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.17). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was similar for CNFLcenter and CNFLwhorl (0.76 and 0.77, respectively, P = 0.98). The sensitivity and specificity of the cutoff points were 0.9 and 0.5 for CNFLcenter and 0.8 and 0.6 for CNFLwhorl. CONCLUSIONS: Small nerve fiber pathology is comparable at the central and whorl anatomical sites of the cornea. Quantification of CNFL from the corneal center is as accurate as CNFL quantification of the whorl area for the diagnosis of DPN.
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: Neil S Lagali; Stephan Allgeier; Pedro Guimarães; Reza A Badian; Alfredo Ruggeri; Bernd Köhler; Tor Paaske Utheim; Beatrice Peebo; Magnus Peterson; Lars B Dahlin; Olov Rolandsson Journal: Sci Data Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Aubrey Hargrave; Justin A Courson; Vanna Pham; Paul Landry; Sri Magadi; Pooja Shankar; Sam Hanlon; Apoorva Das; Rolando E Rumbaut; C Wayne Smith; Alan R Burns Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alise Kalteniece; Maryam Ferdousi; Ioannis Petropoulos; Shazli Azmi; Safwaan Adam; Hassan Fadavi; Andrew Marshall; Andrew J M Boulton; Nathan Efron; Catharina G Faber; Giuseppe Lauria; Handrean Soran; Rayaz A Malik Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 4.379