Diabetic polyneuropathy with/out neuropathic pain in Mali: A cross-sectional study in two reference diabetes treatment centers in Bamako (Mali), Western Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) with or without neuropathic pain is a frequent complication of diabetes. This work aimed to determine the prevalence of diabetic polyneuropathy, to describe its epidemiological aspects, and to analyze the therapeutic itinerary of patients with DPN.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study performed synchronously over six months at two major follow-up sites for patients with diabetes in Mali. DPN was diagnosed based on the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI). The neuropathic nature of the pain and the quality of life of patients were evaluated by the DN4 and the ED-5D scale, respectively. We used three (3) different questionnaires to collect data from patients (one at inclusion and another during the follow-up consultation) and from the caregivers of patients with DPN.
RESULTS: We included 252 patients with diabetes, and DPN was found to have a healthcare facility-based prevalence of 69.8% (176/252). The sex ratio was approximately three females for every male patient. The patients were mostly 31 to 60 years of age, 83% had type 2 diabetes, and 86.9% had neuropathic pain Approximately half of the patients (48.3%) had autonomic neuropathy and they reported moderate to intense pain, which was mainly described as a burning sensation. The patients exhibited impaired exteroceptive and proprioceptive sensations in 51.7% of cases. The patients smoked tobacco in 3.4% of cases, while 36.6% of the patients were obese and had dyslipidemia. The caregivers clearly indicated that appropriate medications were not readily accessible or available for their patients with DPN.
CONCLUSION: The healthcare facility-based prevalence of DPN with or without neuropathic pain was high in our cohort. These inexpensive and easy-to-use tools (MNSI, DN4) can be used to adequately diagnose DPN in the African context. In Mali, screening and early treatment of patients at risk of DPN should allow for a reduction of the burden of the disease, while caregivers need to be adequately trained to manage DPN.

Introduction

The demographic changes taking place in developing countries are characterized by an increasing burden from non-transmissible diseases such as diabetes [1, 2]. The prevalence of diabetes in adulthood is 6% worldwide, with four out of five patients (80%) from low- or middle-income countries [3, 4]. Diabetes specifically impairs specific organs including the eyes, nerves, heart, and vasculature. Diabetes has conventionally been designated as being either type 1 or type 2 [5].

Compared to the Western world where “diseases of affluence” are rampant, Africa has long been thought to be significantly less affected. Interestingly, 7.1 million Africans are currently estimated to have diabetes, and this number could reach 18.6 million by 2030 [6]. Numerous socio-economic and cultural challenges will have to be overcome if the fight against diabetes in Africa is to be successful [7, 8].

A recent study in Mali has shown that the direct and indirect costs related to diabetes are not only higher than those of other chronic non-communicable diseases, but these costs are also much higher in relative terms than those in developed countries [9].

Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) with or without neuropathic pain is one of the most dreaded complications of diabetes [10]. DPN is a frequent and disabling complication, potentially affecting half of all patients with diabetes [11, 12]. DPN is defined as “a distal symmetric sensorimotor polyneuropathy, attributable to metabolic and microvascular changes resulting from chronic exposure to hyperglycemia” [13], or “the presence of symptoms or signs of peripheral nerve dysfunction in people afflicted with diabetes after exclusion of other causes” [14].

DPN has a considerable economic impact on the affected individuals and society in general. In the United States, the financial burden of the care allocated to DPN is estimated to be 10.9 billion dollars per year. Approximately 27% of the direct medical costs related to diabetes stem from neuropathic diabetes [14]. Surprisingly, DPN is nonetheless far from being considered a health priority in many countries [13, 15]. DPN is a serious complication of diabetes. Indeed, it can lead to foot ulceration and it inexorably progresses all the way to an increased risk of foot amputation with consequently a high mortality rate [16-18]. It is noteworthy that, compared to the other complications of diabetes, DPN is more often associated with depression and anxiety disorders. It, therefore, requires early and effective treatment [19]. In practice, it is essential to develop effective intervention strategies to limit the physical and psychological impacts of DPN on patients [20, 21]. Most experts predict that DPN could well have severe consequences for health systems worldwide in general and in Africa in particular [22].

Epidemiological and clinical aspects as well as the quality of life of the patients with DPN have been understudied in Africa, especially French-speaking Western African countries. This study aimed to fill this knowledge gap in two ways by: (i) describing epidemiological aspects of diabetic polyneuropathy and (ii) analyzing the therapeutic itinerary of patients with DPN in Mali.

Materials and methods

Operational definitions

Polyneuropathy

Polyneuropathy was defined as the presence of symptoms and signs compatible with distal symmetric peripheral neuropathy that had been progressing for more than three (3) months [23].

Proprioception impairment (PI)

This was considered to be present in patients with one or more of the following signs: hypopallesthesia to a tuning fork, difficulty localizing the big toe (arthrokinetic reflex), and a positive Romberg’s sign.

Objective exteroception impairment (OEI)

This was considered to be present in patients with one or more of the following signs: numbness, hyperesthesia to touch, and hypoesthesia or insensitivity to heat (a tube of hot water) or to cold (an ice pack).

Autonomic neuropathy (AN)

The screening for autonomic neuropathy (AN) was purely clinical based on an interview, physical examination, and available non-invasive clinical tests, as defined by the American Diabetes Association [13]. Targeted signs or symptoms were related to dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system (parasympathetic or sympathetic or both). We took into account the clinically- manifested abnormalities during an oriented patient history taking and a meticulous physical examination assisted as needed by clinical tests.

The signs were (i) cardiovascular (orthostatic hypotension; leg edema; lengthening of the QT segment, and permanent tachycardia and ventricular arrhythmia on the electrocardiogram); (ii) digestive (dysphagia, retrosternal burn, gastroesophageal reflux; gastroparesis, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, abdominal distension, early satiety, urgent postprandial motor diarrhea, and constipation); (iii) urinary (perturbed perception of the need to urinate, dysuria, chronic urinary retention; urgent need to urinate, and imperious urination with leaks); (iv) genital signs: decreased vaginal secretions and anorgasmia in women, and retrograde ejaculation, erectile dysfunction in men; (v) pupillary motor abnormalities (abnormal photomotor reflex to light from a flashlight); (vi) damage to the sweat system (anhidrosis of the extremities of the lower limbs, dry skin, and hyperhidrosis, i.e., diffuse sweating).

Clinical tests were carried out to assess the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. For the parasympathetic system, we measured changes in the heart rate (HR) during (i) deep breathing (the patient performed sequences of six (6) cycles per minute, then a maximum expiration over five (5) seconds); (ii) a Valsalva maneuver (15 s exhalation pressure). The maximum inspiration rate (I)/minimum expiration rate (E) was recorded. The normal value is I/E > 22 beats per minute (BPM) for patients under 60 years of age and I/E > 15 bpm for patients over 60 years of age. For the sympathetic system, blood pressure was measured in the orthostatic position at one, three, and five minutes to detect orthostatic hypotension. A decrease in blood pressure was considered significant when there was a drop of at least 20 mm Hg in the systolic pressure and/or 10 mm Hg in the diastolic pressure. A standard electrocardiogram (EKG) assessment was performed during the consultation to determine the duration of the QT segment using an ECG ruler on Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3. The norms were < 0.43 s for men and < 0.45 s for women. We considered that the QT was lengthened or prolonged when it was > 0.45 s for men and > 0.47 s for women. Ventricular tachycardia was defined as a heart rate greater than 120 beats/min. The cutoffs for HbA1c for this work were less than 7% for type 2 diabetes and 7%-7.5% for type 1 diabetes. Autonomic neuropathy was presumed to be present when there were at least three (3) dysfunctions based on the clinical examination and tests [24].

Dyslipidemia

This was characterized by the presence of one or more of the following: high levels of total cholesterol and/or triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, or a low level of HDL. The cutoffs for lipoprotein were as follows:

Total cholesterol: normal value < 5.16 mmol/L, with a range of 5.16–6.16 mmol/L, and 6.20 mmol/L was considered high.

LDL cholesterol: normal value < 2.58 mmol/L, with a range 3.35–4.0 mmol/L, and 4.12–4.87 mmol/L was considered high.

HDL cholesterol: a value was considered normal if < 1.0 mmol/L and high if ≥ 1.54 mmol/L.

Triglycerides: normal value < 1.71 mmol/L and a value of ≥ 2.28 mmol/L was considered high.

Obesity

This was defined as patients who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 Kg/m2.

DN4 questionnaire

This allows determination of the probability of neuropathic pain. It is divided into ten (10) “Yes” or “No” items to be checked, where Yes equals 1 point and No equals zero points. The final score is out of 10. When a patient scores ≥ 4/10, the test is positive, and it has a sensitivity of 82.9% and a specificity of 89.9% [25].

Intensity of the pain

A categorical scale was used that involved verbal inquiry of the patient to evaluate their pain subjectively by indicating one of the following five (5) categories: no pain; mild pain; moderate pain; intense pain; and extremely intense pain [25].

The Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI) test

This is a diagnostic tool for DNP, and it has two parts (the patient’s experience of the pain/discomfort and a strict clinical evaluation). A patient was considered to have DPN when their score was ≥ 7 on part one and ≥ 2.5 on part two of the test.

The EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D scales)

The EQ-5D scale provides a straightforward descriptive profile of the health status of a patient [26]. This instrument evaluates five (5) parameters (mobility; self-care; usual activities; pain/discomfort; and anxiety/depression). Each parameter is categorized as one of the following three (3) levels: no problem, some problems, and severe problems.

Study design

This work was carried out synchronously at two sites by a multidisciplinary team that included neurologists, diabetologists, and general practitioners. These two sites were the Gabriel Touré University Hospital Center of Bamako (GT-UHC), which is the 3rd reference healthcare facility in the country, designated as expert level in the Malian health pyramid, and the Center against Diabetes in Mali (CCD), which comprises the Malian association of patients with diabetes or the Malian Association for the fight against Diabetes. It is affiliated with the International Diabetes Federation. Its headquarters are in the capital city Bamako, with a focal point in all of the country’s health districts. It represents a basic healthcare facility at the first level in the Malian health pyramid. The CCD sees an average of 12,660 patients with diabetes per month, while the GT-UHC averages 400 such patients every month. Therefore, these two health facilities were very substantial recruitment sites of patients with diabetes. We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive study from May to November 2019. Our study included volunteers who were 16 years of age or older who had type 1 or type 2 diabetes and who were able to understand and answer questions in French (the official language of the country) or in Bambara (the national language of the country) and who complied with a follow-up visit at the GT-UHC and/or the CCD. The sample size was estimated to be 252 using Kish’s formula (n = Z2 * (P*Q)/i2) [27], with an estimated prevalence of diabetic polyneuropathy in Mali of 50% [28, 29], a 95% confidence interval yielding Z = 1.96, and accuracy i = 9%. The sampling was systematic based on the order of arrival of eligible patients at one of the two facilities, but randomized, i.e., only every fourth eligible patient was recruited.

Data collection

We used three (3) questionnaires: one for the initial evaluation of patients with DPN, one for their current assessment, and another to survey the caregivers of patients with DPN. Data regarding the patients with DPN were collected during a structured face-to-face interview. The current questionnaire comprised the following seven (7) parts: (i) sociodemographic data, (ii) clinical and biological data related to diabetes, (iii) diagnosis of the DPN with the test (MNSI), (iv) DN4 to identify the neuropathic pain, (v) data related to their standard of living, (vi) the quality of life with the ED-5D scale, and (vii) the knowledge, practices, and therapeutic itinerary of patients with DPN. The questionnaire was pretested at a study site outside the CCD and the GT-UHC. This allowed us to shorten the interview. Prior to their recruitment into our study, the patients underwent testing for fasting glycemia, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), creatininemia levels, lipid levels (total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, and triglycerides), HIV serology, a complete blood count, serum electrolytes, syphilis serology (TPHA/VDRL), and uric acid levels. The data were collected in two stages: (i) a randomly selected patient completed an initial simplified questionnaire to determine the notion of chronic pain/discomfort suggestive of DPN with or without neuropathic pain (paresthesia, pain, falls, difficulty walking, balance disorder, numbness of the lower limbs, a burning sensation, other ailments), (ii) patients determined to be positive for DPN based on this screening would then complete our full study questionnaire. The translation of the questionnaire from French to Bambara and the back translation from Bambara to French were carried out at the National Directorate of Languages of Mali (DNAFLA).

Survey of caregivers of patients with DPN

We surveyed 45 neurologists who were conveniently selected throughout Africa to document the issues of accessibility and availability of medications used to treat DPN. They filled out a structured, semi-open questionnaire, sent by email, inquiring about their prescription habits, the availability, accessibility, and the cost of prescription medications used to treat patients with DPN.

Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed using Prism GraphPad version 8.0 software. Frequency tables and average values were produced. The Chi2 test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare the proportions, with statistical significance at p < 0.05. A binary regression model with DPN as a dichotomous dependent variable (with/without DPN) was performed. The odds ratios (OR) with the 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure the associations.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the relevant authorities at the two study sites. Our study protocol was approved by the International Review Board (IRB) at the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry in Bamako, Mali. Our protocol has been validated by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy of Bamako under number N "2O2O / 209 / CE / FMOS-FAPH. We obtained informed consent from each eligible patient with DPN prior to their recruitment. We emphasized the aim and benefits of the study. The main benefit for our study participants was access to care of diabetic neuropathy with international standards. No monetary compensation was provided. The patients paid for their own blood analysis, which was part of their normal routine blood work. No additional examinations were performed at the patients’ expense. Patients with DPN who either refused to participate or were not randomly selected were still entitled to their regular and routine care at both of the study sites without any prejudice.

Results

Sociodemographic and clinical data

Two hundred fifty-two (N = 252) patients with diabetes were randomly selected at the two health facilities (126 at the GT-UHC and 126 at the CCD) in Bamako. In total, the patients had diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) in 69.8% (176/252) of cases, including 81.7% (103/126) from the GT-UHC and 57.9% (73/126) from the CCD. Type 2 diabetes was found in 83% (146/176) of the patients with DPN.

The patients were from Bamako in 85.8% (151/176) of cases, and 66% (116/176) of them were between 31 to 60 years of age. The sex ratio was approximately three females for every male. Our patients were housekeepers in 41.4% (73/176) of cases, with their highest level of education being primary school in 38.1% (67/176) or illiteracy (i.e., no formal schooling) in 34.7% (61/176). The patients did not earn a wage nor did they have a set salary in 66.5% (117/ 176) of cases. Only 19.9% (35/176) of the patients had an income higher than the minimum guaranteed interprofessional wage. summarizes the sociodemographic data.

The 176 patients included in the study had a positive score for the MNSI, i.e., the interview part of the MNSI (score ≥ 7) and the physical examination MNSI (score ≥ 2.5). The average delay in the onset of neurological signs was 6 ± 5 years. The patients had neuropathic pain in 86.9% (153/176) of cases based on the DN4. The delay in the onset of the neuropathic pain was relatively short, at less than two years in 19.9% (35/176) of cases. Neuropathic pain revealed diabetes in 17% (30/176) of the included cases.

The patients rated their pain as moderate or intense in 48.3% (85/176) of cases or as very intense in 37.5% (66/176). The pain was often perceived as either a burning sensation in 34.1% (60/176) (95% CI [27.4–41.3] of cases or as a tingling sensation in 24.4% (43/176) ().

The neurological examination and risk factors associated with DPN

Based on the assessment with the DN4 tool, 86.9% (153/176) of the patients had neuropathic pain.

Thirty-two of the patients without DNP (n = 76) had signs of neuropathic pain, while some of the patients had other signs indicative of a mechanical or inflammatory cause of the pain.

The type of treatment in general and DPN were statistically associated (Fisher’s exact test, p-value = .045, see ).

The patients had impaired proprioceptive and exteroceptive sensations in 51.7% (91/176) of cases (95% CI [44.3–59.0]). Autonomic neuropathy (digestive, genital, sweat-related, and cardiovascular disorders) was found in 48.3% (85/176) of cases. Male patients reported erectile dysfunction in 69.6% (32/46) of cases. A varying degree of distal motor deficit was noted in the lower limbs in 27.8% (49/176) of cases ().

The patients with DPN were obese with and without dyslipidemia in 36.6% (65/176) (95% CI [27.9–41.9]) and 28.4% (50/176) (95% CI [22.1–35.4]) of cases, respectively. This association was found in 34.7% of the sample (61/176). The patients with DPN were heavy tobacco smokers in 3.40% (6/176) of cases ().

Therapeutic itinerary, attitudes, and practices of patients with DPN

Our study participants received no specific pain treatment in 63.1% (111/176) of cases, while in 36.9% (65/176) of cases they were treated with amitriptyline. The patients with DPN who were in pain were four times more likely to receive amitriptyline at the GT-UHC than those seen at the CCD, (odds ratio = 4.13, 95% CI = [2.05–8.32]) ().

The patients with DPN reported simultaneous use of conventional medicine along with traditional medicine in 84.7% (149/176) of cases and on its own in 15.3% (27/176). The patients with DPN were three times more likely to use both conventional and traditional medicine simultaneously at the CCD than those seen at the GT-UHC (odds ratio = 3.69, 95% CI = [2.05–8.32]) ().

The most commonly used traditional practice was phytotherapy. Thus, most patients used leaves, bark, or roots of local plants as beverages or in fumigation. Another common traditional practice was the use of “gris-gris”, a rope made by marabouts in which knots were made for incantations. Gris-gris were attached to the sore limbs, usually the thighs just above the knees (). A less common traditional practice was scarification of the lower limbs (.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of patients with DPN

In 55.1% (97/176) of cases, the patients knew that their DPN was associated with diabetes. They reported irregular observance of the treatment for glycemic control during the follow-up period in 57.4% (101/176) of cases. The patients who were irregular observers either stated that they had financial issues in 88.1% (88/101) of cases, or they had decided to shift fully from conventional medicine to traditional medicine in 10% (10/101) of cases. In 23.29% (41/176) of cases, the patients did not observe their conventional treatment at all ().

Quality of life of the patients with DPN

The five (5) parameters of the ED-5D scale on the quality of life of the patients with DPN were as follows ():

Mobility: The patients with DPN who were more than 60 years of age presented the most difficulty in regard to mobility, at 87.5% (21/24) p = 3.9*10-. They were either confined or bedridden.

Autonomy: The patients with DPN reported difficulties in terms of grooming and dressing/undressing in 91/176 (51.7%) of cases. The patients who were 61 years of age or more had more DPN than those in the 16 to 30 and the 31 to 60 years of age brackets, p = 0.0001 and p = 0.005, respectively.

Pain/discomfort: The patients with DPN reported pain or discomfort in 39% (69/176) of cases. Approximately three-fourths, or 76.8% (53/69), of these patients were between 31–60 years of age.

Anxiety/Depression: The patients with DPN aged 31–60 year’s old experienced severe anxiety or depression in 56% (14/25) of cases. The survey of the caregivers of the patients with DPN had an 82% (37/45) response rate. The treatments for DPN were clearly reported to be unaccessible and non-available to most patients. Table 4 summarizes the variation of drug costs in the treatment of neuropathic pain confronted with the national SMIG used in ten African countries (African Neurologist survey data).

Table 4

Costs of drugs used in the medical treatment of neuropathic pain relative to the minimum national industrial wage in ten African countries (official sources).

Country	Drugs; Market price for one month of treatment (US dollars)					Minimum wage (US dollars)
	Neurontin®	Lyrica® 75 mg	Topalgic® 100 mg	Laroxyl® 25 mg	Tegretol®
	Gabapentin 300 mg	Pregabalin 75 mg	Tramadol 100 mg	Amitriptyline 25 mg	Carbamazepine 400 mg
Mali	48	62	22.6	7.17	9.29	80.69
Benin	39.49	83.05	19.85	5.46	9.46	80.28
Cameroon	-	51.03	4.19	5.31	9.45	72.53
Ivory Coast	68.50	52.99	8.32	5.34	11.14	119.99
Djibouti	61	38	5	7.50	9.14	85.89
Morocco	67.34	116.60	21.70	16.47	8.95	336.67
Niger	41.28	52.38	16.48	5.85	11.60	60.08
Senegal	87.36	65.65	16.64	5.50	8.70	95.39
Burkina Faso	45.80	44.27	6.10	4.58	10.68	64.42
Togo	53.78	48.12	4.26	6.30	10.20	69.99

Discussion

This work was carried out in the setting of our daily medical practice. It was inspired by the recommendations of the American Diabetes Association and the American Academy of Neurology consensus conference on DPN [28]. The DPN classification, from the above two scientific societies based on clinical aspects, makes it possible for clinicians in developing countries that lack sophisticated technical platforms to conduct clinical research work on this pathology with or without electrodiagnosis. However, in order for the clinical data to be robust, they recommended (i) the use of questionnaires or a validated interview technique and (ii) a rigorous neurological evaluation [28]. Our work fits these conditions perfectly. In addition, the 1988 recommendations were recently revised by the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group [12], which categorizes patients with DPN into four (4) groups based on clinical and paraclinical criteria: (i) possible DPN; (ii) probable DPN; (iii) confirmed DPN; and (iv) subclinical DPN. These authors recommend that groups 1, 2, and 3 are used for clinical practice and that groups 3 and 4 are used for research studies. In addition, a close correlation has been established between clinical data collected under rigorous conditions and neuropathological abnormalities in DPN [12].

DPN prevalence in Mali is higher than the average prevalence in the literature

This cross-sectional study was conducted by a multidisciplinary team. This study was the first of its kind in French-speaking Western Africa to specifically address the various aspects of DPN and neuropathic pain. Data were collected from the GT-UHC, a leading reference healthcare facility at the third level, and from the CCD, a peripheral healthcare facility at the first level of the Malian health pyramid, which allowed us to obtain an overview on DPN in our context.

The prevalence of DPN was 69.8%, and type 2 diabetes was a common feature, occurring in 82.9% of cases. In line with most DPN prevalence studies from the Western countries, Truini et al. [30] in Italy reported a much lower DPN prevalence of 36%. In France, 4,400 adult patients with diabetes were monitored from 1947 to 1973. Half of these patients (50%) developed a peripheral neuropathy by the end of the follow-up period [31]. Another European study included both type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients. The authors reported an overall prevalence of 43% (50.8% type 2 diabetes and 25.6% type 1 diabetes) [11]. In Denmark, the prevalence of DPN was reported to be 18% in patients recently diagnosed (i.e., less than five years) with diabetes [32]. In the USA, a review of the literature over a 10-year period that included 321 articles reported a DPN prevalence of 26.8% [14].

A number of studies from African countries have reported results similar to those in Western countries. In South Africa, a study carried out at both public and private healthcare centers involving 1,046 patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were monitored by 50 diabetes treatment centers, yielding a DPN prevalence of 30.3% [15]. In Morocco, the prevalence of DPN has been reported to be 15% [33]. In Egypt, the overall prevalence of DPN in patients with diabetes has been reported to be 29.3% [34]. In Ethiopia, a study on the quality of life of 220 patients with diabetes has reported a prevalence of DPN of 78.9% [4].

In practice, the disparity between the prevalences of DPN across countries is considerable. Overall, the data showed that approximately a third of patients with diabetes developed DPN with or without pain [35].

The relatively high prevalence of DPN in our cohort compared to the prevalences reported in the above-mentioned studies could be explained by several factors, particularly the performance of the diagnostic tools (MNSI, DN4), combined with examination of patients by a multidisciplinary (neurologist, diabetologist) and experienced research team. Furthermore, it has been well-established that the MNSI is a straightforward and non-invasive tool validated in the context of DPN diagnosis. Other risk factors such as the relatively high average age of our patients, a long duration of the disease, and poor glycemic control may also explain the high prevalence of DPN in our study.

The MNSI has been shown to be effective compared to other more invasive tools such as electroneuromyography, sensory system tests, cutaneous biopsies, and Sudoscan™ tests, which are in fact largely unaccessible in Mali. The MNSI, when optimally used in association with a thorough clinical examination by an experienced clinician, has an increased sensitivity for diagnosing DPN [36, 37]. We found a female predominance and a higher frequency of type 2 diabetes, which is in line with what has been reported in the literature [35, 38].

The risk factors for DPN in Africa in general and Mali in particular differ from those found elsewhere

In contrast to the Western countries, the main risk factors associated with DPN in Mali were obesity (28.4%) and dyslipidemia (12.5%). In the Western world, excessive consumption of alcohol and tobacco are known risk factors for DPN [33, 34]. Alcohol and tobacco have, however, very rarely been reported as associated factors in African studies. Indeed, in a study of 300 patients with diabetes in Morocco, alcohol and tobacco were not mentioned as factors associated with the occurrence of DPN [33]. In our study, only 4.5% of the patients smoked tobacco. Female patients formed the bulk of our sample, and for sociocultural reasons women in Mali generally do not consume either tobacco or alcohol.

Obesity was found to be the main factor in 73.9% of our patients. A significant increase in the average BMI has been observed in Africa over the past 35 years [39]. Furthermore, a steeper curve was noted in African women relative to trends worldwide. In all African countries, there is a strong positive association between the average BMI and the prevalence of diabetes, irrespective of gender [39].

Other than the recruitment bias, discordance in the prevalence between different areas could be due to a racial or genetic difference in susceptibility. Indeed, racial differences have been reported in DPN [35]. Other studies have obtained evidence of a genetic susceptibility, as they showed a tight link between painful DPN and certain hereditary channelopathies such as mutation of the SCN9A gene, which codes for the sodium channel Nav1.7 [40, 41]. This genetic disparity underscores the need for clinical as well as genetic studies in Africa to further explore this issue.

The pathogenesis of DPN remains unclear, although its origin appears to be multifactorial [42]. The factors thought to be involved are intricate and comprise: (i) direct axonal attack of metabolic origin due to hyperglycemia, (ii) ischemic axonopathy secondary to microangiopathy, (iii) an autoimmune or chronic inflammatory phenomenon, and (iv) a genetic predisposition.

Furthermore, oxidative stress, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and resistance to insulin can give rise to mitochondrial dysfunction [43]. Affliction of the non-myelinated C-fibers is responsible for the pain and certain subjective sensory manifestations (allodynia, paresthesia) [44]. At the pathological level, segmental axonal demyelination has been noted, followed by full axonal degeneration [45]. Randomized clinical trials have shown that glycemic control can slow the progression of peripheral neuropathy in DPN [46].

DPN has major socio-economic consequences

DPN is predominant in patients who are 30–60 years of age, with predictable socio-economic consequences for them and society. This situation could become a major issue in Africa in light of the increasing number of patients with diabetes. In addition to being a pressing health issue, comorbidity of diabetes and HIV/AIDS could restrain development because both are prevalent among young adults and adolescents [47].

The low socio-economic level of patients with diabetes has been widely reported in the African medical literature [47, 48]. Most patients in our study had a low socio-economic status. They had no or a minimal salary, below the interprofessional guaranteed minimum wage in Mali (SMIG, 80 USD). In Ethiopia, the average monthly income of patients with diabetes was 58.6 USD [4]. In Zambia, individuals with type 2 diabetes reported psychosocial difficulties, a lack of information, and difficulty meeting basic needs such as food and transportation [48].

Most of the patients with DPN in our study had no or little formal education. The low level of education could negatively influence the quality of life of such patients. A good level of education would promote compliance with the treatment and result in increased earnings [48, 49].

Our patients indicated irregularities in regard to being able to follow the maintenance treatment in 57.4% of cases, and 23.3% of the patients reported a complete interruption of their treatment. Non-compliance with treatment is well known in patients with diabetes in Africa [50, 51].

In our study, 86.9% of the patients afflicted with DPN exhibited neuropathic pain. It has been reported that four out of five patients with diabetes experience neuropathic pain at some point in the course of the disease [52]. In our work, the DPN was not painful in 13.1% of the patients. The identification of patients with DPN without pain remains a clinical and diagnostic challenge as they often go unnoticed. These patients can potentially develop irreversible neurological damage that leads to amputation of the affected limbs [53].

The delay in the occurrence of the neuropathic pain was short (less than two years) in 19.9% of the patients. Diabetes was diagnosed due to the onset of neuropathic pain in 17.04% of the patients. Our results are in line with what has been reported in the literature in this regard. The early occurrence (within two years) of the neuropathic pain in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes has also recently been reported elsewhere [54].

In the context of scarceness of electrophysiologic equipment in most African neurology departments, the MNSI is a simple yet effective tool for a positive diagnosis of DPN

We opted to use the MNSI to diagnose DPN. This tool is based entirely on the typically encountered symptoms in DPN [55]. It has a low sensitivity (40%) and a high specificity (92%), which makes it important to combine its use with a thorough clinical examination by an expert [56].

Thus, there are five neurological syndromes that are typically linked with diabetes: symmetrical polyneuropathy (the most frequent), autonomic neuropathy, polyradiculopathy, small-fiber neuropathies, and mononeuropathies [57, 58]. At the clinical level, sensory signs and autonomic neuropathy are often the inaugural symptoms [59, 60]. The sensory symptoms often recap the clinical picture. In our study, nearly all of the patients with DPN exhibited exteroceptive or proprioceptive disorders. Typically, motor manifestations occur at the advanced stages of the disease [12]. Only 27.8% of the patients were examined for motor disorders. Autonomic neuropathy was present in 48.3%. Indeed, autonomic neuropathy is one of the most common and serious complications of diabetes. Cardiac, digestive, sweat gland, and erectile dysfunction remain the most frequent manifestations [39]. The presence of autonomic neuropathy, particularly the cardiac manifestation, has been correlated with an elevated mortality rate [61]. In our study, 69.6% of the male patients with DPN reported erectile dysfunction versus 50% in the study by Mwila et al. in Zambia [48]. A Nigerian study reported known inadequacies in the treatment of DPN in Africa [61].

EQ-5D is a suitable tool to evaluate the quality of life of patients

The analysis of the five parameters of the EQ-5D scale (mobility, autonomy, usual activities, discomfort/pain, and depression/anxiety) revealed a negative impact of DPN on the quality of life of the patients, especially in the elderly ones. The EQ-5D scale is a straightforward tool at the cognitive level. It only takes a few minutes to administer and is widely used to evaluate the various parameters of the quality of life, both in the general population and in clinical research. However, its performance appears to depend on the sociocultural realities of the studied population, as the concept of quality of life is not universal [62].

In Africa, studies in Zimbabwe and in Nigeria have validated this scale as a reliable tool for evaluation of the quality of life, even in patients with a low level of education [63, 64]. Of all the complications of diabetes, DPN with or without pain has the greatest association with anxiety and depression. In practice, the physical and mental components of the quality of life are significantly altered in patients with DPN. In the literature, anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders have been noted in approximately 43% of patients with DPN [19]. This situation warrants implementation of strategies even in the absence of pain [19].

The use of traditional medicine is a reality. It should, therefore, be integrated into the conception of adopted health strategies

DPN in its conventional form is irreversible. The treatment hence aims to prevent progression of the disease and its associated complications [65]. The three main principles of this treatment are based on three entities: glycemic control, foot care, and management of the pain.

Management of neuropathic pain is currently lacking. Indeed, only 36.9% of the patients had a treatment targeting the neuropathic pain, based on amitriptyline alone. This drug is the only one prescribed as the first-line therapeutic arsenal in DPN and validated in the guidelines [66]. This situation shows the lack of training of caregivers in regard to the treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with DPN.

Furthermore, this deficiency in the treatment of neuropathic pain appears to be more pronounced in the CCD than in the GT-UHC, thus pointing out the need to train caregivers at the peripheral healthcare facilities. This therapeutic gap in the treatment of neuropathic pain appears to be a general phenomenon as it has also been reported previously in several European and African studies [52, 61]. We believe that, in our context, other than the training of caregivers, this gap is probably linked to the inaccessibility (high cost) and the non-availability of certain first-line drugs that have been shown to be effective in neuropathic pain.

In practice, in light of the substantial impact of DPN on the health, the quality of life of the patients, and the cost of the care, the American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening for DPN in all patients with diabetes at the time of their diagnosis along with annual visits for monitoring [67].

Most patients with DPN concomitantly used traditional and conventional medicines. In a work investigating the use of traditional medicine among patients with diabetes in three African countries, only 28% of the traditional healers in Mali, 20% of those in Mozambique, and 16% of those in Zambia referred their patients to a hospital to manage complications from diabetes [68]. This finding highlights the need to establish a setting for innovative exchange between traditional therapists and the conventional health system in order to achieve optimal treatment of diabetes and its complications. Moreover, the WHO estimates that 80% of the population of sub-Saharan Africa uses traditional medicine [69]. Furthermore, certain plants used in traditional medicine have anti-diabetic potential [70, 71].

Limitations of the study

The limitations are inherent to the problem of adapting the tools of the survey. We believe that adapting these tools validated in other areas of the world remains an essential prerequisite for avoiding distortion of the information collected from the general population. We have also noted difficulties in the use of certain files as, in keeping with the health policies of Mali, the cost of performing additional examinations was borne entirely by our patients, with the risk of results that are often not robust. Lastly, we have often had difficulty explaining the quality of life, as this concept is not a universally held notion. Tailoring this concept to the African sociocultural realities could be important for further studies. Markers based on electrodiagnosis, sensory system testing, nerve biopsy, skin biopsy, corneal confocal microscopy, pharmacological tests, skin vasomotor reflexes, and pupillometry are not available in Mali. We, therefore, did not use any such markers in this study. In addition, the data were collected over a relatively short period of time that was independent of us for two main reasons: (i) completion of the study questionnaire took approximately 40 minutes, which was too long for some of the patients and even for a number of physicians from the CCD because they were part-time workers or often volunteers in this center (ii) MD theses had time constraints since the residents in neurology had to be graded by the end of their fourth year.

Conclusion

Our study confirms the high prevalence of DPN with or without pain in Mali. The diagnosis of DPN can be ensured in the African context by straightforward, inexpensive, and easy to use screening tools (MNSI, DN4). Screening and early treatment of patients at risk should allow the burden of DPN to be reduced. Training of caregivers remains a priority. The best approach to managing diabetes is to consider the sociocultural realities of patients with diabetes, as has been suggested in the literature [72].

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

29 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-18728

Diabetic polyneuropathy with/out Neuropathic pain in Mali: a cross-sectional study in two reference Diabetes treatment centers in Bamako (Mali), Western Africa

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. MAIGA,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address all the major issues raised by both reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 07 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rayaz A Malik, MBChB, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Whilst your data is potentially useful and informative, the paper is let down by inadequate analysis and presentation.

The queries need to be addressed fully.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Souleymane Papa Coulibaly.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is the second study to determine the prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in diabetes (T1D & T2D) in secondary health care in Bamako, Mali. The study recruited 252 patients with diabetes and the prevalence of DPN was 176/252 (69.8%), which is relatively high compared to other countries. Although the paper is not of a publishable standard due to low sample size, poorly written, incorrect statistical analysis and misdiagnosis of autonomic neuropathy, I would recommend it for major revision on the basis of novelty for including the level of income and education which may have an important association with DPN and sufficient data have been collected.

The recruitment lasted for 8 months. I would recommend to the authors to recruit more patients given that the Center for Combating Diabetes (CCD) has an average of 12660 patients with diabetes per month. If the circumstances do not allow this add this as a study limitation.

Correct the power analysis. The previously reported prevalence of DPN by Traore et al. that you used for your sample size calculation was not 50% but 67.7%. So you will have to state that with a population estimate of 12660 in CCD, an estimated prevalence of DPN of 67.7% and margin of error of 6% the minimum sample is 230. It is not recommended to exceed 5% margin of error but with 5% margin of error the minimum sample size is 328, which is higher than your sample size (n=252). I want to emphasize that this power analysis is only to determine the prevalence of DPN. It is not enough to assess for association between risk factors like obesity, dyslipidemia with DPN. Mention this as a study limitation.

The paper is poorly written, not only grammatically but also there are incomplete sentences (i.e. aimed to determine the prevalence to describe) and inappropriate use of words or terms (i.e. treatments remain “pregnant” in Africa/ diabetics patients /one for the initial evaluation “on” for present evaluation). Avoid using the term diabetic, instead use patient with diabetes. The writing needs significant improvement.

If the combination of obesity and dyslipidemia was associated with DPN, please show in the table in frequency as n (%) of those with obesity and dyslipidemia in the group with/out DPN and provide the p value using chi-square analysis. Avoid repeating the percentage twice in the tables. Why is the percentage of combination of obesity and dyslipidemia 34.7 and 36.6. It should be 36.6%.

You show the percentage of different level of education, income, gender in Table 1 but you have not determined what is their association with DPN. Do a chi-square analysis and include the frequency between those with/out DPN and the p value.

Was there no association between those been treated with conventional, unconventional (i.e. Voodoo amulet) treatment and no treatment with DPN?

Were any of the 5 parameters from the quality of life assessment associated with DPN? The reporting of the percentage of people with difficulty with grooming and getting dressed, mobility, anxiety, day-to-day activities are not related to the objective of the study if you have not assessed for their association with DPN. Do a chi-square analysis or remove this data if the numbers between those with/out DPN are not enough. Without this you can’t state in your conclusion that “DPN has a negative impact on the quality of life, independently of the pain”.

I can’t emphasize on how much important is that you keep the analysis focused and simple, remove irrelevant information, shorten the results and discussion and avoid errors. Remove Table 3 because this is not a review paper. Although you do not need to repeat in the results everything written in the Tables you need to be consistent. In the results 38.1% have done primary school but in the table 38.1% are from primary and secondary school. Similar thing with the income level, check the discrepancy about the 66.5% in the results and Table 1.

Autonomic neuropathy cannot be defined by one sign only (i.e. urinary retention, erectile disorder or cuts or sores on the feet). It is best to leave this out.

In the methods you mentioned that HbA1c obtained, HbA1c was not included in the analysis. Why is that? If you have enough HbA1c data you should include it.

If the Center for Combating Diabetes (CCD) is composed of hospitals or centers inside or outside Bamako mention this in the methods. It is recommended that you include the study design and ethical approval before the assessments.

In the authorship, Nadine ATTAL has no affiliation and none of the authors are affiliated with Federal Pain Palliative Care and Support.

Reviewer #2: The study examined the prevalence of painful and painless diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in Mali and fills an important gap in literature in this country. Moreover, it highlights the lack of treatment of a very large proportion of patients with painful Diabetic Neuropathy and the impact of that on quality of life . As such, the findings are interesting , however, there are major issues with the methodology , missing data , presentation of the data and statistical analyses methods which may have impacted on the conclusions drawn by the authors, which I'll detail in the coming points :

1 The baseline characteristics data is very poorly presented and a lot of important data is missing -The mean age, weight, BMI, duration of diabetes, HbA1c, BP, and details of lipids panel values are lacking from the baseline characteristics table(1) and Table 11. These are important risk factors that need clear presentation in the main baseline characteristics table. It would be very important to compare between those who were diagnosed with DPN vs those who weren't . The same comparisons need to be made between those who had painful DPN and those who do not have the condition.

2-The association of risk factors with DPN in Table 11 is not very informative . while obesity was clearly defined with BMI > 30, dyslipidemia has not been defiend in the methods section. The way of obtaining the odd ratios was not cleary defined in the statistical methods. Ideally, Binary regression model with DPN as a dichotomous dependent variable and feeding in all risk factors in the model including gender, duration of diabetes, HbA1c, age, plus the other variables included in table 1 and then show the independent predictors of DPN and painful DPN with the odd ratios and P values.

3-The authors did not mention any information about the prevalence of foot ulceration and amputation in this sample. This is important to show the magnitude of the problem of the end product of this neglected complication of diabetes.

4-While the diagnosis of DPN is a straightforward clinical one and MNSI and DN4 are very robust, its a diagnosis of exclusion . Has B12, folate deficiency and other causes of neuroapathy been excluded ? Its important to mention this in the methodology to acknowledge that in limitations section if not done.

5-The authors attributed the high prevalence of DPN in this study to the performance of the diagnostic tools used together with the expertise of the team, however, other risk factors such as old age, longer duration of diabetes and poor glycemic control may be contributing factors and need to be mentioned in the discussion .

6- The only medication mentioned by the authors for painful neuropathy is Amitriptyline, how about the use of other agents mentioned in Table IV? any combinations ? Is it a cost issue alone or individual physician treatment approaches ?

7-The English language needs major editing for grammar and spelling mistakes and sentence formation , ideally by a native English-speaker .

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Georgios Ponirakis

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

7 Oct 2020

Memo of Responses to the Reviewers’ comments

From: Professor Youssoufa MAIGA

Corresponding author

Bamako, September 5th, 2020

To: The PLOS One editorial office

Thank you for your thorough review with many very useful comments. Below are our responses (highlighted in green) to the reviewers’ comments.

Foreword:

The conclusions of the American Diabetes Association and the American Academy of Neurology consensus conference (Report and recommendations of the San Antonio Conference on diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes 37: 1000–1004, 1988), served as the basis for this work.

The following paragraph has been added on page 16 of the revised manuscript.

“This work was carried out in the setting of our daily clinical medical practice. It was inspired by the recommendations of the American Diabetes Association and the American Academy of Neurology consensus conference on DPN [28]. The DPN classification, from the above two scientific societies based on clinical aspects, makes it possible for clinicians in developing countries that lack sophisticated technical platforms to conduct clinical research work on this pathology with or without electrodiagnosis. However, in order for the clinical data to be robust, they recommended (i) the use of questionnaires or a validated interview technique and (ii) a rigorous neurological evaluation [28]. Our work fits these conditions perfectly. In addition, the 1988 recommendations were recently revised by the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group [12], which categorizes patients with DPN into four (4) groups based on clinical and paraclinical criteria: (i) possible DPN; (ii) probable DPN; (iii) confirmed DPN; and (iv) subclinical DPN. These authors recommend that groups 1, 2, and 3 are used for clinical practice and that groups 3 and 4 are used for research studies. In addition, a close correlation has been established between clinical data collected under rigorous conditions and neuropathological abnormalities in DPN [12].”

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Comment 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response 1: The journal requirements have been taken into account in the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment 2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Response 2: My ORCID iD is 0000-0003-4102-8328

Comment 3. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Souleymane Papa Coulibaly.

Response 3: Information on the co-author Souleymane Papa Coulibaly has been added.

Comment 4. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Response 4: We have included additional statistical analyses in order to be more rigorous.

Comment 5. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Response 5: All of the data will be made available in a public repository.

Comment 6. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in Standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Response 6: This new version of the manuscript has been edited by a native English speaker to correct typographical and grammatical errors.

Reviewer #1:

This is the second study to determine the prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in diabetes (T1D & T2D) in secondary health care in Bamako, Mali. The study recruited 252 patients with diabetes and the prevalence of DPN was 176/252 (69.8%), which is relatively high compared to other countries. Although the paper is not of a publishable standard due to low sample size, poorly written, incorrect statistical analysis and misdiagnosis of autonomic neuropathy, I would recommend it for major revision on the basis of novelty for including the level of income and education which may have an important association with DPN and sufficient data have been collected.

This prevalence of approximately 50% DPN in diabetic patients is what has been reported previously in Mali (Traoré 2014) and generally in the literature (Bouhassira et al. PLoS ONE 2013). The estimated prevalence of 50% of diabetic polyneuropathy was used to calculate the size of our sample, and a sample of 252 patients largely meets our requirements.

We believe that the prevalence of 50% found in Mali in a health district (first reference level after the peripheral facilities represented by community healthcare centers and dispensaries), seemed to us to be relatively high before the start of our study. Our work carried out at a 3rd level of the healthcare pyramid (the Gabriel Touré UHC), which recruits long-standing diabetic patients; and in a facility entirely dedicated to diabetic patients could not have a lower prevalence than that found in a health district. In addition, it has been shown that up to 50% of diabetic peripheral neuropathies can be asymptomatic, the demonstration of which requires rigorous neurological evidence. [Rodica Pop-Busui Care 2017; 40: 136–154]

Comment 1. What is the added value that our work brings as compared to the previous work carried out in Malian and in other African studies?

Response 1: This work provides added value compared to previous work carried out on the issue in Mali and in sub-Saharan Africa. This added value is as follows: (i) the work was carried out at two facilities dedicated to providing care for diabetic patients (a peripheral associative healthcare facility and a 3rd level healthcare facility in the Malian healthcare pyramid system); (ii) it involved a multidisciplinary team comprising neurologists, diabetologists, psychiatrists, and epidemiologists; (iii) it used validated, simple, and inexpensive tools that can readily be translated into local languages (MNSI, DN4, ED-5D); (iv) it took into account the sociocultural and economic aspects of DPN management. To our knowledge, this work is the first to integrate all of these important aspects into the African context. In addition, it has been reported that there is a close correlation between clinical data collected under rigorous conditions and the neuropathological abnormalities of the DPN.

The definition of Diabetic Neuropathy has been revised in the manuscript.

The following paragraphs have been added on pages 5-7 of the revised manuscript.

“The screening for autonomic neuropathy (AN) was purely clinical based on an interview, physical examination, and available non-invasive clinical tests, as defined by the American Diabetes Association [13]. Targeted signs or symptoms were related to dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system (parasympathetic or sympathetic or both). We took into account the clinically-manifested abnormalities during an oriented patient history taking and a meticulous physical examination assisted as needed by clinical tests.

The signs were (i) cardiovascular (orthostatic hypotension; leg edema; lengthening of the QT segment, and permanent tachycardia and ventricular arrhythmia on the electrocardiogram); (ii) digestive (dysphagia, retrosternal burn, gastroesophageal reflux; gastroparesis, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, abdominal distension, early satiety, urgent postprandial motor diarrhea, and constipation); (iii) urinary (perturbed perception of the need to urinate, dysuria, chronic urinary retention; urgent need to urinate, and imperious urination with leaks); (iv) genital signs: decreased vaginal secretions and anorgasmia in women, and retrograde ejaculation, erectile dysfunction in men; (v) pupillary motor abnormalities (abnormal photomotor reflex to light from a flashlight); (vi) damage to the sweat system (anhidrosis of the extremities of the lower limbs, dry skin, and hyperhidrosis, i.e., diffuse sweating).

Clinical tests were carried out to assess the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. For the parasympathetic system, we measured changes in the heart rate (HR) during (i) deep breathing (the patient performed sequences of six (6) cycles per minute, then a maximum expiration over five (5) seconds); (ii) a Valsalva maneuver (15 s exhalation pressure). The maximum inspiration rate (I)/minimum expiration rate (E) was recorded. The normal value is I/E > 22 beats per minute (BPM) for patients under 60 years of age and I/E > 15 bpm for patients over 60 years of age.

For the sympathetic system, blood pressure was measured in the orthostatic position at one, three, and five minutes to detect orthostatic hypotension. A decrease in blood pressure was considered significant when there was a drop of at least 20 mm Hg in the systolic pressure and/or 10 mm Hg in the diastolic pressure.

A standard electrocardiogram (EKG) assessment was performed during the consultation to determine the duration of the QT segment using an ECG ruler on Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3. The norms were < 0.43 s for men and < 0.45 s for women. We considered that the QT was lengthened or prolonged when it was > 0.45 s for men and > 0.47 s for women. Ventricular tachycardia was defined as a heart rate greater than 120 beats/min. The cutoffs for HbA1c for this work were less than 7% for type 2 diabetes and 7%-7.5% for type 1 diabetes. Autonomic neuropathy was presumed to be present when there were at least three (3) dysfunctions based on the clinical examination and tests [24].

Dyslipidemia: this was characterized by the presence of one or more of the following: high levels of total cholesterol and/or triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, or a low level of HDL.

The cutoffs for lipoprotein were as follows:

Total cholesterol: normal value < 5.16 mmol/L, with a range of 5.16-6.16 mmol/L, and 6.20 mmol/L was considered high.

(i) LDL cholesterol: normal value < 2.58 mmol/L, with a range 3.35-4.0 mmol/L, and 4.12-4.87 mmol/L was considered high.

(ii) HDL cholesterol: a value was considered normal if < 1.0 mmol/L and high if ≥ 1.54 mmol/L.

(iii) Triglycerides: normal value < 1.71 mmol/L and a value of ≥ 2.28 mmol/L was considered high.”

Table I shows the income level of the patients.

Comment 2. The recruitment lasted for 8 months. I would recommend to the authors to recruit more patients given that the Center for Combating Diabetes (CCD) has an average of 12660 patients with diabetes per month. If the circumstances do not allow this add this as a study limitation.

Response 2: This limitation has been addressed in the Limitations of the study section of the manuscript.

The duration of the data collection period was dictated by several factors: First, the availability of the CCD doctors who work mostly part-time in the center and are hence under significant time constraints. Secondly, the position of the principal investigator (Professor of Neurology at the Faculty of Medicine) allowed us to have the residents conduct their doctoral theses on parts of this study. The doctoral theses also had time constraints. Finally, this work was not funded. Therefore, once further funding is obtained, a large-scale study will allow this obstacle to be overcome.

Comment 3. Correct the power analysis. The previously reported prevalence of DPN by Traore et al. that you used for your sample size calculation was not 50% but 67.7%. So you will have to state that with a population estimate of 12660 in CCD, an estimated prevalence of DPN of 67.7% and margin of error of 6% the minimum sample is 230. It is not recommended to exceed 5% margin of error but with 5% margin of error the minimum sample size is 328, which is higher than your sample size (n=252). I want to emphasize that this power analysis is only to determine the prevalence of DPN.

Response 3: The chosen margin of error was 5% with our 95% confidence interval. Our minimal sample size should be valid.

Comment 4. It is not enough to assess for association between risk factors like obesity, dyslipidemia with DPN. Mention this as a study limitation.

Response 4: We performed a linear regression analysis between obesity and dyslipidemia with DPN as the dependent variable and we assumed that they were risk factors. This has been added to the Limitations of the study section of the manuscript.

Comment 5. The paper is poorly written, not only grammatically but also there are incomplete sentences (i.e. aimed to determine the prevalence to describe) and inappropriate use of words or terms (i.e. treatments remain “pregnant” in Africa/ diabetics patients /one for the initial evaluation “on” for present evaluation). Avoid using the term diabetic, instead use patient with diabetes. The writing needs significant improvement.

Response 5: The manuscript has been re-written to address these various issues and errors relating to the grammar and spelling.

Comment 6. If the combination of obesity and dyslipidemia was associated with DPN, please show in the table in frequency as n (%) of those with obesity and dyslipidemia in the group with/out DPN and provide the p value using chi-square analysis. Avoid repeating the percentage twice in the tables. Why is the percentage of combination of obesity and dyslipidemia 34.7 and 36.6. It should be 36.6%.

Response 6: For Table I, the contingency tables now include the variables requested by the reviewer. We have calculated and presented the OR and the Chi-square statistic with the p-value.

In Table II, the value for the combination of obesity and dyslipidemia is 34.7%.

Comment 7. You show the percentage of different level of education, income, gender in Table 1 but you have not determined what their association with DPN is. Do a chi-square analysis and include the frequency between those with/out DPN and the p value

Response 7: This has now been done, as indicated in Table I.

Comment 8. Was there no association between those been treated with conventional, unconventional (i.e. Voodoo amulet) treatment and no treatment with DPN?

Response 8: No association was found between the use of traditional medical practices and DPN.

We found an association between the two variables (the type of treatment in general and DPN) using Fisher's exact test, with a p-value = .045. (< 0.05 for statistical significance).

Comment 9. Were any of the 5 parameters from the quality of life assessment associated with DPN? The reporting of the percentage of people with difficulty with grooming and getting dressed, mobility, anxiety, day-to-day activities are not related to the objective of the study if you have not assessed for their association with DPN. Do a chi-square analysis or remove this data if the numbers between those with/out DPN are not enough. Without this you can’t state in your conclusion that “DPN has a negative impact on the quality of life, independently of the pain”.

Response 9: We have removed this from the conclusion because the chi-square analysis was not applicable (see Table III). Nevertheless, for those who had DPN, there were 108 more patients with autonomy problems than the number of patients without autonomy problems (p = .0001).

Comment 10. I can’t emphasize on how much important is that you keep the analysis focused and simple, remove irrelevant information, shorten the results and discussion and avoid errors. Remove Table 3 because this is not a review paper. Although you do not need to repeat in the results everything written in the Tables you need to be consistent. In the results 38.1% have done primary school but in the table 38.1% are from primary and secondary school. Similar thing with the income level, check the discrepancy about the 66.5% in the results and Table 1.

Response 10: Thank you for highlighting these issues. Table III has been redesigned with the dependent variables DPN+ and DPN-.

The error in the Results section has been corrected.

Comment 11. Autonomic neuropathy cannot be defined by one sign only (i.e. urinary retention, erectile disorder or cuts or sores on the feet). It is best to leave this out.

Response 11. This concern about the neuropathy has been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment 12. In the methods you mentioned that HbA1c obtained, HbA1c was not included in the analysis. Why is that? If you have enough HbA1c data you should include it.

Response 12: We decided to not include HbA1c in the analysis because for some of the patients this was performed under questionable technical conditions. We again wish to point out that the biological tests were entirely the responsibility of the patients.

Comment 13. If the Center for Combating Diabetes (CCD) is composed of hospitals or centers inside or outside Bamako mention this in the methods. It is recommended that you include the study design and ethical approval before the assessments.

Response 13: The following paragraph has been inserted at pages 8-9 in the Methods section.

“…and the Center against Diabetes in Mali (CCD), which comprises the Malian association of diabetic patients (Malian Association for the fight against Diabetes). It is affiliated with the International Diabetes Federation. Its headquarters are in the capital city Bamako, with a focal point in all of the country’s health districts. It represents a basic healthcare facility at the first level in the Malian healthcare pyramid.”

Comment 14. In the authorship, Nadine ATTAL has no affiliation and none of the authors are affiliated with Federal Pain Palliative Care and Support.

Response 14. This has been corrected. We have added the affiliation of Nadine ATTAL and we have now also specified the co-author affiliated with the Federal Pain Palliative Care and Support unit.

Reviewer #2:

The study examined the prevalence of painful and painless diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in Mali and fills an important gap in literature in this country.

Thank you for your interest in our work.

Comment 1. The baseline characteristics data is very poorly presented and a lot of important data is missing -The mean age, weight, BMI, duration of diabetes, HbA1c, BP, and details of lipids panel values are lacking from the baseline characteristics table(1) and Table 11. These are important risk factors that need clear presentation in the main baseline characteristics table. It would be very important to compare between those who were diagnosed with DPN vs those who weren't. The same comparisons need to be made between those who had painful DPN and those who do not have the condition.

Response 1: Table I provides data based on the duration of the diabetes. We have also added the other requested variables.

Comment 2. The association of risk factors with DPN in Table 11 is not very informative. While obesity was clearly defined with BMI > 30, dyslipidemia has not been defiend in the methods section.

The way of obtaining the odd ratios was not cleary defined in the statistical methods. Ideally, Binary regression model with DPN as a dichotomous dependent variable and feeding in all risk factors in the model including gender, duration of diabetes, HbA1c, age, plus the other variables included in table 1 and then show the independent predictors of DPN and painful DPN with the odd ratios and P values.

Response 2: Dyslipidemia has been defined in the Methods section. In this section, we have also added an improved analysis method involving a binary regression model with DPN as a dichotomous dependent variable, as recommended. This type of analysis was carried for the variables in Tables I, II, and III, as well as for the treatment of neuropathic pain (Figure 1) and the conventional treatment of DPN (Figure 2).

Comment 3. The authors did not mention any information about the prevalence of foot ulceration and amputation in this sample. This is important to show the magnitude of the problem of the end product of this neglected complication of diabetes.

Response 3: Aspects of the examination of the feet have been specified in Table II.

Comment 4. While the diagnosis of DPN is a straightforward clinical one and MNSI and DN4 are very robust, its a diagnosis of exclusion . Has B12, folate deficiency and other causes of neuroapathy been excluded ?

Response 4: We wanted to use these robust tools in the absence of other additional examinations. It should be kept in mind that the clinical examination was carried out by neurologists and residents in neurology who were familiar with these tools.

Comment 5. Its important to mention this in the methodology to acknowledge that in limitations section if not done.

Response 5: Folate and Vitamin B12 deficiencies have not been formally excluded in all of our patients given the financial constraints for some patients. We again wish to point out that, in accordance with the Malian health policy, additional investigations are borne by the patients.

Comment 6. The authors attributed the high prevalence of DPN in this study to the performance of the diagnostic tools used together with the expertise of the team, however, other risk factors such as old age, longer duration of diabetes and poor glycemic control may be contributing factors and need to be mentioned in the discussion.

Response 7: Thank you for this contribution. The sentence “Other risk factors such as the relatively high average age of our patients, a long duration of the disease, and poor glycemic control may also explain the high prevalence of DPN in our study.” has been added to the Discussion section on page 18.

Comment 7. The only medication mentioned by the authors for painful neuropathy is Amitriptyline, how about the use of other agents mentioned in Table IV? any combinations ? Is it a cost issue alone or individual physician treatment approaches ?

Response 7: As shown in Table IV, the other medications validated in the treatment of neuropathic pain (pregabalin and gabapentin) are not within the reach of our patients due to their non-availability and non-accessibility. Amitriptyline is the only drug validated in this indication that is on the list of essential drugs of the country, which can be partly explained by its low cost and its ready availability in Mali.

Furthermore, we cannot formally exclude problems with training prescribers in the treatment of neuropathic pain. We would then restrict the prescription of other drugs available in private pharmacies in large urban cities in Mali.

Comment 8. The English language needs major editing for grammar and spelling mistakes and sentence formation , ideally by a native English-speaker .

Response 8: This revised manuscript has been edited by a native English speaker.

The following paragraph has been added on page 24.

“Markers based on electrodiagnosis, sensory system testing, nerve biopsy, skin biopsy, corneal confocal microscopy, pharmacological tests, skin vasomotor reflexes, and pupillometry are not available in Mali. We, therefore, did not use any such markers in this study. . In addition, the data were collected over a relatively short period of time that was independent of us for two main reasons: (i) completion of the study questionnaire took approximately 40 minutes, which was too long for some of the patients and even for a number of physicians from the CCD because they were part-time workers or often volunteers in this center (ii) MD theses had time constraints since the residents in neurology had to be graded by the end of their fourth year. The availability of additional research funds would allow a large-scale study to be undertaken that could potentially overcome these limitations and constraints.”

Submitted filename: Memo of Responses to the Reviewers..docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Oct 2020

Diabetic polyneuropathy with/out Neuropathic pain in Mali: a cross-sectional study in two reference Diabetes treatment centers in Bamako (Mali), Western Africa

PONE-D-20-18728R1

Dear Dr. MAIGA,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rayaz A Malik, MBChB, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Most of the major issues have been addressed.

Reviewers' comments:

22 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-18728R1

Diabetic polyneuropathy with/out Neuropathic pain in Mali: a cross-sectional study in two reference diabetes treatment centers in Bamako (Mali), Western Africa

Dear Dr. MAIGA:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Rayaz A Malik

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Sociodemographic data of patients with DPN.

Characteristics	Modalities	% DPN+ [95% CI]	DPN+ (n = 176)	DPN- (n = 76)	OR 95% CI	p
Study site	GT-UHC	58.5 [51.1–65.6]	103	32	1.9 [1.1–3.3]	0.02
	CCD	41.5 [34.4–48.9]	73	44	1	-
Age ranges (in years)	16–30	3.4 [1.4–6.9]	6	52	.002 [.0002-.0184]	.0001
	31–60	66.0 [58.7–72.6]	116	23	.09 [.01-.71]	.005
	> 60	30.6 [24.2–37.8]	54	1	1	-
Gender	Male	26.1 [20.0–33.0]	46	29	.57 [.32–1.02]	.05
	Female	73.9 [67.0–79.9]	130	47	1	-
Socio-professional ranking	Housewives	41.5 [34.4–48.9]	73	39	.94 [.16–5.34]	.94
	Government employees and retired officials	28.9 [22.6–36.0]	51	21	1.21 [.21–7.14]	.82
	Blue collar job, merchants, farmers, and informal workers	27.3 [21.1–34.2]	48	14	1.71 [.28–10.36]	.55
	Others *	2.3 [0.7–5.4]	4	2	1	-
Residence	Bamako	85.8 [80.0–90.4]	151	63	1.25 [.60–2.59]	.55
	Outside of Bamako	14.2 [9.6–19.9]	25	13	1	-
Education level	Illiterate	34.6 [27.9–41.9]	61	41	1	-
	Literate in Arabic or in the local language	22.7 [16.9–29.4]	40	21	1.28 [.66–2.48]	.46
	Primary and secondary	38.1 [31.1–45.4]	67	6	7.51 [2.98–18.91]	.0001
	Tertiary	4.6 [2.1–8.4]	8	8	.67 [.23–1.93]	.46
Income relative to the SMIG**	No fixed salary or self-employed	66.5 [59.3–73.2]	117	6	23.4 [9.19–59.61]	.0001
	Salary below the SMIG	13.6 [9.1–19.3]	24	28	1.03 [.51–2.08]	.93
	Salary above the SMIG	19.9 [14.5–26.3]	35	42	1	-
Duration of the diabetes	< 1 year	6.8 [3.7–11.3]	12	39	1	-
	1–5 years	30.1 [23.7–37.2]	53	27	6.38 [2.88–14.14]	.0001
	5–10 years	50.6 [43.2–57.9]	89	7	41.32 [15.12–112.92]	.0001
	> 10 years	12.5 [8.2–18.0]	22	3	23.89 [6.06–93.69]	.0001
BMI	< 30 (not obese)	41.5 [34.2–45.8]	73	61	1	-
	≥ 30 (obese)	58.5 [51.2–65.8]	103	15	5.74 [3.03–10.88]	.0001
Blood pressure	Low or optimal	44.9 [37.5–52.2]	79	55	1	-
	High	55.1 [47.8–62.5]	97	21	3.22 [1.79–5.77]	.0001
HbA1c	Optimal	19.9 [14.0–25.8]	35	52	1	-
	Within normal limits or high	80.1 [74.2–86.0]	141	24	8.73 [4.75–16.05]	.0001
Total cholesterol	Low or optimal	44.3 [37.0–51.7]	78	37	1	-
	High	55.7 [48.3–63.0]	98	39	1.19 [.70–2.04]	.52
HDL	Low or optimal	57.4 [50.1–64.7]	101	24	1	-
	High	42.6 [35.3–49.9]	75	52	.34 [.19-.61]	.0002
LDL	Low or optimal	38.1 [30.9–45.2]	67	58	1	-
	High	61.9 [54.8–69.1]	109	18	4.43 [2.38–8.23]	.0001
Triglycerides	Low or optimal	54.0 [46.6–61.3]	95	53	1	-
	High	46.0 [38.7–53.4]	81	23	1.96 [1.11–3.48]	.02

*Others = students, unemployed, retired without income

Table 2

Clinical and therapeutic data of the patients with DPN.

Characteristics	Modalities	% DPN+ [95% CI]	DPN+ (n = 176)	DPN- (n = 76)	OR 95% CI	p
Intensity of the pain	Low	14.2 [9.6–19.7]	25	41	1	-
	Moderate	15.9 [11.1–21.9]	28	27	1.70 [.8–3.5]	.15
	Intense	32.4 [25.8–39.6]	57	6	15.6 [5.9–41.4]	.0001
	Very intense	37.5 [30.6–44.8]	66	2	54.1 [12.2–240.6]	.0001
Type of pain	Burning sensation	34.1 [27.4–41.3]	60	21	1	-
	Tingling	24.4 [18.5–31.2]	43	2	7.5 [1.7–33.8]	.003
	Paresthesia	18.8 [13.5–23.0]	33	51	.2 [.1-.4]	.0001
	Searing pain	13.6 [9.1–19.3]	24	1	8.4 [1.1–66.0]	.02
	Numbness	9.1 [5.5–14.0]	16	1	5.6 [.7–44.8]	.07
Foot examination	Normal (clean without a skin lesion)	40.3 [33.1–47.6]	71	63	1	-
	Abnormal (dirty with visible skin lesions)	59.7 [52.4–66.9]	105	13	7.2 [3.7–14.0]	.0001
Associated factors	Obesity	28.4 [22.1–35.4]	50	26	.5 [.1–4.5]	.66
	AHT	5.1 [2.5–9.2]	9	21	.1 [.01–1.1]	.05
	Dyslipidemia	12.5 [8.2–18.0]	22	17	.3 [.03–3.2]	.63
	Tobacco	1.1 [0.2–3.7]	2	3	.2 [.01–2.8]	.52
	Obesity + AHT	7.4 [4.2–12.0]	13	4	.8 [.1–9.5]	.99
	Obesity + Dyslipidemia	34.7 [27.9–41.9]	61	1	15.3 [.8–291.6]	.14
	Obesity + Tobacco	1.1 [0.2–3.7]	2	2	.3 [.01–4.7]	.52
	AHT + dyslipidemia	7.4 [4.2–12.0]	13	1	3.3 [.2–64.6]	.46
	Obesity + AHT+ Dyslipidemia + Tobacco	2.3 [0.7–5.4]	4	1	1	-
Status of the neuropathic pain treatment	No treatment	63.1 [55.7–69.9]	111	61	1	-
	Under treatment	36.9 [30.0–44.2]	65	15	2.4 [1.3–4.5]	.007
Type of treatment in general*	Conventional medicine (CM)	15.3 [10.6–21.2]	27	21	1	-
	CM and phytotherapy	67.7 [60.4–74.2]	119	41	2.3 [1.2–4.4]	.01
	CM and Marabout	12.5 [8.2–18.0]	22	13	1.3 [.5–3.2]	.55
	CM and scarification of the feet	4.5 [2.1–8.4]	8	1	6.2 [.7–53.7]	.13
General therapeutic observance	No therapeutic interruption	42.6 [35.5–50.0]	75	42	1	-
	Interrupted for financial reasons	50.0 [42.6–57.4]	88	20	2.5 [1.3–4.6]	.004
	Interrupted due to unavailability	1.7 [0.4–4.6]	3	5	.3 [.1–1.5]	.15
	Interrupted for a traditional treatment	5.7 [2.9–9.9]	10	9	.6 [.2–1.7]	.34

PD = Proprioception disorder, OED = Objective exteroception disorder

AN = Autonomous neuropathy, AHT = Arterial hypertension

Table 3

The health profile of the population according to the ED-5D scale.

Health profile		% DPN+ [95% CI]	DPN+	DPN-	OR 95% CI	p
			(n = 176)	(n = 76)
Mobility	No problem	33.0 [26.0–39.9]	58	68	1	-
	Some problems	53.4 [46.0–60.8]	94	7	15.7 [6.8–36.6]	.0001
	Restricted, bedridden	13.6 [8.6–18.7]	24	1	28.1 [3.7–214.4]	.0001
Autonomy	No problem	33.5 [26.5–40.5]	59	70	1	-
	Problems with autonomy	51.7 [44.3–59.1]	91	1	108.0 [14.6–798.5]	.0001
	Incapable of grooming, getting dressed	14.8 [9.5–20.0]	26	0	NA	-
Usual activities	No problems	15.9 [10.5–21.3]	28	57	1	-
	Problems	58.0 [50.7–65.2]	102	19	10.9 [5.6–21.3]	.0001
	Incapable	26.1 [19.6–32.6]	46	0	NA	-
Pain/discomfort	Absence of pain/discomfort	27.3 [20.7–33.9]	48	44	1	-
	Moderate pain/discomfort	33.5 [26.5–40.5]	59	30	2.1 [1.2–3.9]	.01
	Extreme pain/discomfort	39.0 [32.0–46.4]	69	2	37.6 [8.7–162.7]	.0001
Anxiety/Depression	Neither anxious nor depressed	59.7 [52.4–66.9]	105	39	1	-
	Moderately anxious or depressed	26.1 [19.6–32.6]	46	35	.5 [.3-.9]	.01
	Extremely anxious or depressed	14.2 [9.0–19.4]	25	2	4.6 [1.1–20.5]	.02