4.6 Article

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy associated with diabetes: a European multicentre comparative reappraisal

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2020-322971

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction The association between chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) and diabetes is uncertain despite important diagnostic and management implications. Methods We retrospectively analysed two European cohorts, totaling 257 patients with 'definite' or 'probable' CIDP, from Serbia and Birmingham, UK. Results Diabetes was present at CIDP diagnosis in 25/139 (18%) subjects in the Serbian cohort and in 23/118 (19.5%) in the UK cohort. In both cohorts, diabetes prevalence was higher than local general population prevalence rates (RR: 2.09; 95% CI 1.39 to 2.95 and RR: 2.22; 95% CI 1.46 to 3.17, respectively). Considering typical CIDP only, diabetes prevalence was greater than expected in both cohorts (RR: 2.58; 95% CI 1.60 to 3.82 and RR: 2.68; 95% CI 1.71 to 3.87, respectively). CIDP with diabetes occurred later in life than CIDP without diabetes (58.96 years, SD: 11.09 vs 51.71 years, SD: 16.02; p=0.003) and presented more frequently in the typical form than in patients without diabetes (79.2% vs 61.2%; p=0.02). Baseline Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment disability scores were similar in patients with and without diabetes (p=0.90). Proportions of treatment responders were similar in both groups (70% vs 74.9%; p=0.65), as were response amplitudes (p=0.87). Discussion Our results, both for all CIDP and typical CIDP presentations, support a twofold increased relative risk of diabetes compared with the general population. CIDP with diabetes appears to present older and more frequently in the typical form, as compared with CIDP without diabetes. CIDP with diabetes appears similar to CIDP without diabetes in disability levels at diagnosis and probability, as well as amplitude of treatment response.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据