Citations

✓ As a rule, normal human nerve does not contain glomus bodies. Nonetheless, rare examples of glomus tumors do arise in peripheral nerves of various sizes. Their pathobiological characteristics are poorly understood, but reported examples have been small and clinically benign. The authors identified in 1 patient each a glomus tumor and a glomangioma involving nerve. Clinical histories as well as imaging and surgical findings were reviewed. All available H & E–stained slides were examined in both cases. Immunohistochemical stains and electron microscopy, as appropriate, were also performed. The lesions were subtotally and completely resected, respectively. An uneventful postoperative recovery was noted in both patients. Glomus tumors and glomangiomas can involve major nerves on rare occasions. They seem to follow a favorable clinical course, and conservative resection can be of benefit.

OBJECTIVE—Assessing clinimetric performance of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) end points in single and multicenter trials. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Assessed were placebo-treated patients with DSPN in the Viatris and Eli Lilly trials and an epidemiologic cohort. RESULTS—Test reproducibility in clinical trial cohorts (rI ∼ 0.7–0.85) approached that in the epidemiologic cohort (rI ∼ 0.85–0.95). Associations between pairs of end points explained <10% of the variability of data (sometimes 15–35%), being higher in the epidemiologic cohort and the Viatris trial than in the Lilly trial. Most end points did not show monotonic worsening over 4 years. However, sural nerve amplitude and peroneal motor conduction velocity did. A nerve conduction score (Σ 5 NC nds [5 attributes of nerve conduction expressed as normal deviates]) did not show monotonic worsening in established DSPN. In the epidemiologic cohort followed for 9.5 years, monotonic worsening of small magnitude occurred for sural amplitude, vibration detection threshold, and especially for composite quantitative sensation. CONCLUSIONS—The main reason why it is difficult to demonstrate monotonic worsening of neuropathic end points appears to be a very slow worsening of DSPN, a placebo effect for symptoms and signs, and measurement noise. Demonstrating disease progression in controlled trials of DSPN is more likely when 1) patients with developing rather than established DSPN are selected, 2) type 1 diabetic patients are preferentially recruited, 3) patients are selected who cannot or will not achieve ideal glycemic control, 4) end points chosen are known to show monotonic worsening, and 5) a restricted number of centers and expert examiners (trained, certified, using standard approaches, and reference values and interactive surveillance of tests) are used.

OBJECTIVE—The objective of this study was to test whether monotone worsening of nerve function, attributable to diabetes, can be demonstrated before criteria for diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) have been met. Which nerve tests are best? RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—From a prevalence cohort of 504 individuals in the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy study (RDNS), we identified 238 individuals (group 1) who at first examination were without polyneuropathy (DSPN) by a sum score of the normal deviates (from percentiles) of five attributes of nerve conduction of the legs (i.e., their five nerve conduction normal deviate values were <97.5th percentile) and were followed longitudinally two or more times. Of these 238, 90 (group 2) were followed six or more times at yearly or biyearly intervals. We compared different nerve tests for the ones most sensitive and reliable in showing latent nerve dysfunction and monotone (the extent to which a variable measured repeatedly over time reveals a significant trend of worsening or improvement). RESULTS—In group 1 patients, the mean sum score of five attributes of nerve conduction (Σ 5 NC nds) at baseline was 1.08 and at the last examination (only patients with Σ 5 NC nds <97.5th percentile) was 3.63, markedly higher than that in healthy subjects (only of individuals with Σ 5 NC nds <97.5th percentile) (−0.12), indicating a subtle latent shift of nerve conduction tests toward abnormality. Serial evaluations of many individual and especially sum scores of nerve conduction tests in group 2 patients showed statistically significant worsening with time, even when nerve conduction tests were still well within normal limits. Neurologic signs also worsened but barely to significant levels; however, symptoms and quantitative sensation tests did not. Considering the composite score Σ 5 NC nds, 42 (of 90 group 2 patients) showed significant worsening, 22 were still without DSPN by nerve conduction test criteria, and some were even below the 50th percentile at the last evaluation. CONCLUSIONS—Subtle and latent functional worsening of nerve conduction can be demonstrated even before nerve conduction test criteria for DSPN have been met. For demonstrating monotone worsening, the order (from best to worst) of tests was: some composite scores of nerve conduction and individual attributes of nerve conduction. We did not show monotone worsening of symptoms or of quantitative sensation test results. In multivariate analysis of risk factors and their association with worsening Σ 5 NC nds, 24-h microalbuminuria (a marker of microvessel disease) was found to be a significant covariate, an indication that the asymptomatic alterations of nerve conduction are meaningful.

OBJECTIVE—The prevalence of autonomic symptoms and deficits in certain systems is known, but a comprehensive autonomic symptom profile in diabetes is not available. We aimed to estimate this using a laboratory evaluation of autonomic function and a validated self-report measure of autonomic symptoms in patients and matched control subjects from the population-based Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Participants included 231 patients with diabetes (type 1, n = 83; type 2, n = 148) and 245 healthy age-matched control subjects. We assessed symptoms using a validated self-report instrument (Autonomic Symptom Profile) and evaluated the severity and distribution of autonomic deficits (cardiovagal, sudomotor, adrenergic) with the objective, laboratory-based Composite Autonomic Severity Score (CASS). RESULTS—Autonomic symptoms were present more commonly in type 1 than in type 2 diabetes, with symptoms of orthostatic intolerance, secretomotor, urinary control, diarrhea, and sleep disturbance and pupillomotor, vasomotor, and erectile dysfunction significantly increased over healthy control subjects in type 2 diabetic patients. The prevalence of autonomic impairment was 54% in type 1 and 73% in type 2 diabetic patients. Severity of autonomic failure was mild overall (mean CASS 2.3; maximum 10), with orthostatic hypotension occurring in 8.4 and 7.4% of type 1 and 2 diabetic patients, respectively. Fourteen percent of patients had a CASS ≥5, indicating moderate to severe generalized autonomic failure. The correlation of symptoms with autonomic deficits (CASS) was better in type 1 than type 2 diabetic subjects and was weak overall. CONCLUSIONS—These findings indicate that autonomic symptoms and deficits are common in diabetes, but mild in severity, and that the correlation between symptom scores and deficits is overall weak in mild diabetic neuropathy, emphasizing the need to separately evaluate autonomic symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To test quantitative sensation testing (QST) patterns of hypoesthesia and hyperalgesia as indicators of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) and its severity RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used Computer-Assisted Sensory Examination IV; characterized the QST results of the foot of each patient in three diabetic cohorts (approximately 1,500 patients) as hyperesthetic (< or = 2.5th percentile), low-normal (2.5th-50th percentiles), high-normal (50th-97.5th percentiles), or hypoesthetic (> or = 97.5th percentile); and tested associations with symptoms, impairments, and test abnormalities. RESULTS: Overall neuropathic impairment was most severe in the pancreas-renal transplant and nerve growth factor cohorts, but it was much less severe in the population-based Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study (RDNS) cohort. The frequency distribution of sensory abnormalities mirrored this difference. When the QST spectra of diabetic cohorts were compared with those of the control subject cohort for vibration and cooling sensations, the only abnormality observed was hypoesthesia, which was expressed as an increased number of subjects with values at or above the 97.5th percentile or by an increased percentage of cases with high-normal values. Symptoms and impairments of DPN were significantly more frequent in the subjects with values at or above the 97.5th percentile than in the subjects whose values were between the 50th and 97.5th percentiles. For heat pain (HP) sensation thresholds (intermediate pain severity [HP:5], pain threshold [HP:0.5], and pain-stimulus response slope [HP:5-0.5]), an increased frequency of both hypoalgesia and hyperalgesia was observed (especially in the RDNS cohort). Steeper pain-stimulus response slopes were significantly associated with sensory symptoms, including severity of pain. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Decreased vibratory sensation (hypoesthesia) appears to be characteristic of mild DPN, whereas panmodality hypoesthesia is characteristic of severe DPN. 2) A shift of vibratory and cold detection thresholds (and also of attributes of nerve conduction and a measure of autonomic dysfunction) from low-normal (2.5th-50th percentiles) to high-normal (50th-97.5th percentiles) appears to precede overt expression of DPN and to thereby provide evidence of subclinical abnormality 3) Heat stimulus-induced hyperesthesia (low thresholds) occurs especially in mild DPN, and, because it correlates with DPN symptoms and impairments, it must be attributed to hyperalgesia rather than to supersensitivity Therefore, hypoalgesia or hyperalgesia may be an indicator of early DPN.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic hyperglycemia relates to the occurrence of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN), but has not yet been shown to relate to its overall severity In addition, the degree and duration of hyperglycemia, which measure of chronic hyperglycemia is most predictive of defined levels of severity of DPN, and which other putative risk factors are involved remain unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a longitudinal study of 264 diabetic individuals in Rochester, MN, risk factors and other diabetic complications assessed at regular intervals during an average of approximately 7 years were tested for their association with a composite score of severity of DPN at the last examination. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, diabetic retinopathy severity level (at last examination), mean ln(24-h proteinuria x duration of diabetes), and mean GHb were the main covariates for severity of DPN (R2 = 0.33). Excluding markers of microvessel and macrovessel disease, the independent risk factors were mean In(GHb x duration of diabetes), GHb, and type of diabetes (R2 = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: We found that diabetic microvessel disease, chronic hyperglycemia exposure, and type of diabetes are associated with severity of DPN, and we believe these factors are implicated in its cause. Each of the five markers of microvessel disease was a strong covariate for severity of DPN. Mean GHb predicts severity of DPN better than duration of diabetes, and the latter predicts severity of DPN better than mean fasting plasma glucose. Knowing the severity of microvessel disease, the degree of chronic hyperglycemia exposure, and the type of diabetes provides useful information to evaluate whether a coexisting polyneuropathy and its severity is probably due to diabetes.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate both the concordance in the classification of diabetes by clinical and C-peptide criteria and, prospectively, the consistency of the classification by C-peptide. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Individuals with diabetes who were enlisted in the prospective epidemiological study of diabetic neuropathy (Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study [RDNS]) were classified clinically by National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) criteria to IDDM and NIDDM at entry to the study. In addition, C-peptide response to 1 mg glucagon was measured at entry for the classification to IDDM (basal C-peptide, < 0.17 pmol/ml; increment above basal, < 0.07 pmol/ml) and NIDDM (all other responses) and for concordance with the clinical classification made. The consistency of the C-peptide response was assessed every 2 years for up to 8 years. RESULTS Among 346 individuals with diabetes, 84 were classified as IDDM and 262 as NIDDM by clinical algorithm. COncordance with the C-peptide response occurred in 89% of the patients and remained consistent during 8 years of follow-up. Among the 37 patients with discordant clinical and C-peptide classification, those considered clinically to have NIDDM had a consistent IDDM C-peptide response during follow-up, and most of those considered to have IDDM clinically eventually showed an IDDM C-peptide response during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Clinical criteria for the classification of diabetes are highly correlated with the assessment of insulin secretory reserve. A small number of individuals considered to have NIDDM clinically or by C-peptide have or develop an IDDM peptide response.

Use of nerve conduction in assessing therapy in preventing or ameliorating neuropathy is desirable because abnormalities of nerve conduction are associated with severity of neuropathic symptoms and deficits. Assuming that a therapy is associated with a statistically significant improvement of nerve conduction, what degree of nerve conduction change is clinically meaningful? We suggest that in controlled clinical trials, a mean change of 2 points on the neurologic disability score is clinically detectable and meaningful. Based on our previously published crosssectional epidemiological data, this corresponds to a change of motor nerve conduction velocity of the average ulnar median and peroneal nerves of 2.9 m/s and peroneal nerve of 2.2 m/s. The corresponding changes of amplitude were 1.2 and 0.7 mV, respectively. Smaller degrees of nerve conduction change were found when only insulin-dependent patients were evaluated.