Weintrob Naomi, Amitay Iris, Lilos Pearl, Shalitin Shlomit, Lazar Liora, Josefsberg Zeev
Institute for Endocrinology and Diabetes, National Center of Childhood Diabetes, Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel, Petah Tiqwa, Israel.
J Diabetes Complications. 2007 Jan-Feb;21(1):13-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2005.11.002.
While regular yearly screening for diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy is well established in patients with diabetes mellitus, there are no standardized diagnostic tests for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). In the present study, we compared the bedside neuropathy disability score (NDS) with quantitative sensory testing (QST) for screening for DPN in youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
One hundred sixty-six patients aged 10 to 34 years (median 21 years) were evaluated for DPN by the NDS and QST. Quantitative sensory testing was also done in 43 healthy, age-matched controls. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy grade by both methods was correlated with disease-related variables.
On QST, the diabetic group had significantly higher mean scores for vibration (P<.001) and warm sensation (P<.01) than controls, and lower scores for cold sensation (P<.05); however, there was a great degree of overlap. The NDS significantly correlated with the vibration threshold, but not with the warm and cold thresholds. The NDS significantly correlated with age at testing, diabetes duration, and long-term and current HbA1c levels (P<.001), and with the presence of microalbuminuria and diabetic retinopathy (P<.001). Analysis of the QST variables yielded significant correlations of vibration and warm sensation with age at testing (P<.001, P<.05, respectively) and of vibration with diabetes duration (P<.001) and retinopathy (P=.05); none of the quantitative tests correlated with glycemic control.
The stronger association of the NDS with glycemic control and other microvascular complications compared to the perception thresholds, and its shorter time of performance and lack of costly equipment, may make the NDS the preferred method for measuring DPN in this population.
虽然对糖尿病患者进行糖尿病视网膜病变和肾病的定期年度筛查已得到充分确立,但对于糖尿病周围神经病变(DPN)尚无标准化的诊断测试。在本研究中,我们比较了床边神经病变残疾评分(NDS)与定量感觉测试(QST)在1型糖尿病青年患者中筛查DPN的效果。
对166例年龄在10至34岁(中位数21岁)的患者进行NDS和QST评估以检测DPN。还对43名年龄匹配的健康对照者进行了定量感觉测试。两种方法得出的糖尿病周围神经病变分级均与疾病相关变量相关。
在QST中,糖尿病组的振动(P<0.001)和温觉(P<0.01)平均得分显著高于对照组,而冷觉得分较低(P<0.05);然而,存在很大程度的重叠。NDS与振动阈值显著相关,但与温觉和冷觉阈值无关。NDS与测试时的年龄、糖尿病病程、长期和当前糖化血红蛋白水平显著相关(P<0.001),并与微量白蛋白尿和糖尿病视网膜病变的存在显著相关(P<0.001)。对QST变量的分析得出,振动和温觉与测试时的年龄显著相关(分别为P<0.001,P<0.05),振动与糖尿病病程(P<0.001)和视网膜病变(P=0.05)显著相关;没有任何定量测试与血糖控制相关。
与感觉阈值相比,NDS与血糖控制及其他微血管并发症的关联更强,且其执行时间较短且无需昂贵设备,这可能使NDS成为该人群中测量DPN的首选方法。