4.7 Article

Corneal Confocal Microscopy Predicts 4-Year Incident Peripheral Neuropathy in Type 1 Diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 671-675

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc14-2114

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [492730]
  2. JDRF [8-2008-362]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVEThis study determined if deficits in corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) assessed using corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) can predict future onset of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSCNFL and a range of other baseline measures were compared between 90 nonneuropathic patients with type 1 diabetes who did or did not develop DPN after 4 years. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the capability of single and combined measures of neuropathy to predict DPN.RESULTSDPN developed in 16 participants (18%) after 4 years. Factors predictive of 4-year incident DPN were lower CNFL (P = 0.041); longer duration of diabetes (P = 0.002); higher triglycerides (P = 0.023); retinopathy (higher on the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale) (P = 0.008); nephropathy (higher albumin-to-creatinine ratio) (P = 0.001); higher neuropathy disability score (P = 0.037); lower cold sensation (P = 0.001) and cold pain (P = 0.027) thresholds; higher warm sensation (P = 0.008), warm pain (P = 0.024), and vibration (P = 0.003) thresholds; impaired monofilament response (P = 0.003); and slower peroneal (P = 0.013) and sural (P = 0.002) nerve conduction velocity. CCM could predict the 4-year incident DPN with 63% sensitivity and 74% specificity for a CNFL threshold cutoff of 14.1 mm/mm(2) (area under ROC curve = 0.66, P = 0.041). Combining neuropathy measures did not improve predictive capability.CONCLUSIONSDPN can be predicted by various demographic, metabolic, and conventional neuropathy measures. The ability of CCM to predict DPN broadens the already impressive diagnostic capabilities of this novel ophthalmic marker.

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

4.7
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