Does the prevailing hypothesis that small-fiber dysfunction precedes large-fiber dysfunction apply to type 1 diabetic patients?

A Breiner, LE Lovblom, BA Perkins, V Bril - Diabetes care, 2014 - Am Diabetes Assoc
A Breiner, LE Lovblom, BA Perkins, V Bril
Diabetes care, 2014Am Diabetes Assoc
OBJECTIVE The prevailing hypothesis that early subclinical small-fiber injury precedes
large-fiber damage in diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP) is based on lower
intraepithelial nerve fiber density in type 2 prediabetic patients despite normal nerve
conduction studies (NCSs). We aimed to confirm the same hypothesis in type 1 diabetic
patients by examining whether: 1) subjects without DSP include a spectrum with both normal
and abnormal small-fiber measures and 2) subjects with DSP have concurrent evidence of …
OBJECTIVE
The prevailing hypothesis that early subclinical small-fiber injury precedes large-fiber damage in diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP) is based on lower intraepithelial nerve fiber density in type 2 prediabetic patients despite normal nerve conduction studies (NCSs). We aimed to confirm the same hypothesis in type 1 diabetic patients by examining whether: 1) subjects without DSP include a spectrum with both normal and abnormal small-fiber measures and 2) subjects with DSP have concurrent evidence of abnormal small-fiber measures.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
A healthy control population (n = 53) was used to generate threshold values for four small-fiber tests: cooling detection thresholds (CDTs), laser Doppler imaging of heat-evoked flare (LDIflare), heart rate variability (HRV), and corneal confocal microscopy. Based on NCS results, type 1 diabetic patients (n = 131) were dichotomized according to the presence or absence of DSP.
RESULTS
Threshold values derived from healthy control subjects were 26.5°C, 1.4 cm2, 13%, and 12.9 mm/mm2 for CDT, LDIflare, HRV, and corneal nerve fiber length, respectively. Among type 1 diabetic patients, 57 of 131 had evidence of DSP, and 74 of 133 did not. Using abnormality of any small-fiber test to define small-fiber dysfunction, 55 of 57 (96.5%) DSP patients and 39 of 74 (52.7%) control subjects without DSP had concurrent small-fiber damage. The severity of small-fiber abnormalities worsened with an increasing number of NCS abnormalities (ANOVA, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings in type 1 diabetes support the prevailing hypothesis that small-fiber dysfunction occurs early in DSP. However, further research is required to determine which combination of small-fiber tests is most suitable as a surrogate marker in clinical trials.
Am Diabetes Assoc