Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Neuropad device as a screening tool for early diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Screening for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in resource-limited settings

BACKGROUND

Diabetic neuropathy is the most common microvascular complication of diabetes mellitus and a major risk factor for diabetes-related lower-extremity complications. Diffuse neuropathy is the most frequently encountered pattern of neurological dysfunction and presents clinically as distal symmetrical sensorimotor polyneuropathy. Due to the increasing public health significance of diabetes mellitus and its complications, screening for diabetic peripheral neuropathy is essential. Consequently, a review of the principles that guide screening practices, especially in resource-limited clinical settings, is urgently needed.

MAIN BODY

Numerous evidence-based assessments are used to detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy. In accordance with current guideline recommendations from the American Diabetes Association, International Diabetes Federation, International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, a screening algorithm for diabetic peripheral neuropathy based on multiphasic clinical assessment, stratification according to risk of developing diabetic foot syndrome, individualized treatment, and scheduled follow-up is suggested for use in resource-limited settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in resource-limited settings requires a practical and comprehensive approach in order to promptly identify affected individuals. The principles of screening for diabetic peripheral neuropathy are: multiphasic approach, risk stratification, individualized treatment, and scheduled follow-up. Regular screening for diabetes-related foot disease using simple clinical assessments may improve patient outcomes.

Peripheral Neuropathy in Diabetes Mellitus: Pathogenetic Mechanisms and Diagnostic Options

Diabetic neuropathy (DN) is one of the main microvascular complications of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Sometimes, this could already be present at the time of diagnosis for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), while it appears in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) almost 10 years after the onset of the disease. The impairment can involve both somatic fibers of the peripheral nervous system, with sensory-motor manifestations, as well as the autonomic system, with neurovegetative multiorgan manifestations through an impairment of sympathetic/parasympathetic conduction. It seems that, both indirectly and directly, the hyperglycemic state and oxygen delivery reduction through the vasa nervorum can determine inflammatory damage, which in turn is responsible for the alteration of the activity of the nerves. The symptoms and signs are therefore various, although symmetrical painful somatic neuropathy at the level of the lower limbs seems the most frequent manifestation. The pathophysiological aspects underlying the onset and progression of DN are not entirely clear. The purpose of this review is to shed light on the most recent discoveries in the pathophysiological and diagnostic fields concerning this complex and frequent complication of diabetes mellitus.

Concordance between sudomotor disorder and the clinical diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy, according to various clinical guidelines

AIM

To assess the concordance between variations in Neuropad® results and the those in different diagnostic criteria of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy, according to various clinical guidelines.

METHODS

A descriptive observational study was conducted of 111 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The criteria for inclusion in the study were that patients should be aged 18 years or more and have at least 10 years' history of diabetes mellitus.

RESULTS

73 (65.8%) were male and 38 (34.2%) were female. Their mean age was 57.92 ± 13.24 years (95% CI 55.45-60.38). Healthy Neuropad® findings were obtained for 35 right feet (31.5%) and 31 left feet (27.9%).

CONCLUSION

Neuropad® is an effective instrument for detecting macro and microvascular complications such as early-stage neuropathy, although its use should always be accompanied by a clinical examination of the foot.

Dryness of Foot Skin Assessed by the Visual Indicator Test and Risk of Diabetic Foot Ulceration: A Prospective Observational Study

Research Question: Previous cross-sectional studies have shown an association between sudomotor dysfunction and diabetic foot ulceration (DFU). The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to determine the role of dryness of foot skin and of established neurological modalities in the prediction of risk for foot ulceration in a cohort of individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM). Design: The study was conducted from 2012 to 2017. A total of 308 subjects with DM without history of DFU or critical limb ischemia completed the study. Diabetic neuropathy was assessed using the neuropathy symptom score (NSS) and neuropathy disability score (NDS). In a subset of participants, vibration perception threshold (VPT) was evaluated. Dryness of foot skin was assessed by the visual indicator plaster method (IPM). The diagnostic performance of the above neurological modalities for prediction of DFU was tested by receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. Results: During the 6-year follow-up, 55 patients (annual ulceration incidence 2.97%) developed DFU. Multivariate Cox-regression analysis after controlling for the effect of age, gender, and DM duration demonstrated that the risk (hazard ratio, 95% confidence intervals) of DFU increased significantly with either abnormal IPM (3.319, 1.460-7.545, p = 0.004) or high (≥6) NDS (2.782, 1.546-5.007, p = 0.001) or high (≥25 volts) VPT (2.587, 1.277-5.242, p = 0.008). ROC analysis showed that all neurological modalities could discriminate participants who developed DFU (p < 0.001). IPM testing showed high sensitivity (0.86) and low specificity (0.49), while high vs. low NDS and VPT showed low sensitivity (0.40 and 0.39, respectively) and high specificity (0.87 and 0.89, respectively) for identification of patients at risk for DFU. Conclusion: Dryness of foot skin assessed by the IPM predicts the development of DFU. IPM testing has high sensitivity, whereas high NDS and VPT have high specificity in identifying subjects at risk for DFU. The IPM can be included in the screening methods for identification of the foot at risk.