Mononeuropathy
Cranial (3, 6, 7)
Truncal (thoracic)
Peripheral nerve entrapment: CTS, ulnar, peroneal
Lumbosacral plexoradiculoneuropathy (“femoral neuropathy”)
Polyneuropathy
Sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DN)
Autonomic neuropathy
Diabetic cachexia
“Small fiber neuropathy”
The symptoms of DN are numbness, paresthesia (tingling), sensitivity to touch, pain, unsteadiness, and weakness. These symptoms are common to other polyneuropathies, but sensory symptoms are features of early DN. Painful symptoms occur commonly and include lancinating (electric shock-like, shooting), burning, freezing, cramping, and squeezing pain as typical descriptors. These symptoms affect the feet first, starting in the toes and soles of the feet, and then migrate proximally as the neuropathy progresses. The symptoms can be intermittent or persistent and are often most troublesome in the evenings when the patient is resting, or at night producing sleep disturbances. The only symptom of DN may be pain, or pain may accompany other symptoms of neuropathy. The painful symptoms range from mild to intolerable and can be accompanied by other features such as insomnia, impaired quality of life, inability to work, and low productivity in the home and at work [2]. The symptoms are most often chronic, lasting longer than 3 months and in many cases lasting for years. In treating patients, it is important to consider comorbidities that may be present (e.g.: depression) and tailor the treatment for the specific patient profile [4].
The physical examination may be normal despite the presence of characteristic painful symptoms indicating peripheral nerve injury. Other patients have sensory loss of the primary modalities of pinprick, temperature, light touch, vibration, and position sense, observed distally in the toes initially, and then more proximally in the lower limbs as the severity of neuropathy and degree of fiber loss increases. Finally, sensory loss will be evident in the upper limbs and also along the anterior chest as nerves of shorter length become affected. Early loss of pinprick, cold sensation, light touch, and vibration is often observed, but loss of position sense is a finding of late DN. Atrophy of small foot muscles, weakness, and loss of reflexes are similarly late signs. These physical findings are typical of both painful and painless DN.
These are common presentations of PDN. Some authorities have formulated scales to encompass the symptoms, such as the DN4 or Douleur neuropathique en 4 questions [5, 6]. These scales present simple tools for screening for the presence of PDN and may be useful. Bouhassira compared five simple screening tools for neuropathic pain [5] and found universal symptom descriptors across the scales for the presence of neuropathic pain, namely: burning pain, electric shock-like pain and pain evoked by touch, and tingling and numbness. In PDN, the symptoms of pain such as burning, electric shock-like, and aching coldness in the lower limbs occurring mainly at rest and at night, associated with tingling or numbness support the diagnosis [7]. Different scales that score the severity of pain have been developed including the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) [8] and the Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) [9]. The NPQ provides a general assessment of neuropathic pain and aids in the discrimination of neuropathic from non-neuropathic pain states. This is a 12-item scale with 74.7% sensitivity and 77.6% specificity. A brief version consisting of three items can also indicate the presence of neuropathic pain [10]. The three items are tingling pain, numbness, and increased pain due to touch. The development of these scales is aimed at improving our ability to diagnose NP and can be used for the diagnosis of DPN. The severity of pain can be followed using the NPQ or the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), a self-administered pain symptom questionnaire [11]. This pain questionnaire was developed initially to monitor the effects of therapy on neuropathic pain [12].
Despite this universal consensus, symptoms that are suggestive of neuropathic pain can be present in non-neuropathic pain disorders as shown in Table 3.2, so they are not specific and cannot be assumed to indicate the presence of DN when present [13]. Simple screening for the presence of DN can be accomplished by the use of the monofilament examination [14], although a normal test does not exclude a diagnosis of neuropathy. Other summary tools for DN include the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score that provides an assessment of severity, but not detailed information on painful symptoms [15].
Symptom | Neuropathic pain | Non-neuropathic pain | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Burning | 68.3 | 30.4 | <0.001 |
Squeezing | 48.8 | 37.7 | 0.171 |
Cold | 25.6 | 10.1 | 0.015 |
Electric shock | 64.6 | 17.4 | <0.001 |
Lancinating | 75.6 | 65.2 | 0.162 |
Tingling | 59.8 | 15.9 | <0.001 |
Pins and needles | 65.9 | 17.4 | <0.001 |
Numbness | 65.9 | 30.4 | <0.001 |
Role of Confirmatory Tests for Neuropathy: Monofilament, NCS, VPT, QST, LDI, CCM (Table 3.3)
Table 3.3
Objective tests for PDN
Test | Neuropathy | PDN |
---|---|---|
Nerve conduction studies | + | +/− |
Vibration perception thresholds | + | +/− |
Quantitative thermal thresholds | +/− | +/− |
Laser Doppler flare | ? | ? |
Cornal confocal microscopy | ? | ? |
IENFD | +/− | + |
Some authorities take the position that the symptoms of neuropathic pain, with or without abnormal signs on physical examination, in a patient with diabetes are sufficient to formulate the diagnosis of PDN. This position may lead to inaccuracies and less precision than optimal as the symptoms of burning, electric shocks, tingling, pins and needles, and numbness are not specific for PDN, and can be observed in other types of neuropathy so that a differential diagnosis for PDN should be considered. Further, although symptoms are suggestive of neuropathic pain, they can be observed in non-neuropathic pain states [13].
Most practitioners favor obtaining an objective test result to confirm the diagnosis of PDN. The absence of any objective measures raises the probability that the population under consideration is not homogeneous and that other diagnoses are being overlooked. The objective tests for DN include large fiber tests of nerve conduction studies (NCS), and vibration perception thresholds (VPT), but these can be normal in PDN if small fibers are primarily affected early in the course of the disorder. For small fiber neuropathy, different objective tests that assess small fibers, such as quantitative thermal thresholds (QTT), axon-reflex-mediated cutaneous flare response area (LDI flare), and others, are used.
Although the large fiber tests may be normal in PDN, if they are abnormal, then an objective measure confirms the presence of peripheral nerve disease. The most objective and specific measure are NCS as they measure directly peripheral nerve abnormality, whereas VPT measure the entire somatosensory pathway and can be abnormal in myelopathy as well as peripheral neuropathy. Despite that NCS measure large fiber function, the strongest correlations of “small fiber symptoms” (such as pain) can be found with NCS parameters rather than presumptive small fiber tests, perhaps due to the reliability of the NCS compared with that for small fiber tests [16]. VPT may be used more often than NCS in the clinic due to wider availability of VPT devices, their ease of use, and lack of need for referral to specialized testing centers [17].
The small nerve fiber tests that may be useful to indicate the presence of peripheral nerve dysfunction include QTT and LDI flare. QTT have been used in clinical trials for 25 years [18–20], but they are not widely available in the diabetes clinic yet due to issues with reliability, expense of obtaining suitable equipment, and time considered necessary to obtain QTT [16]. The main drawback is the reliability issue that shows differences in QTT as high as 100% on repeat testing, not infrequently [20]. Despite these considerations, if PDN is suspected on clinical grounds and QTT are abnormal, then there is supportive evidence that small nerve fibers are not functioning properly. Unfortunately, no good relationship between QTT and painful symptoms can be found, so the implications of abnormal QTT are uncertain [16]. LDI flare is mainly an investigative measure of small cutaneous nerve fibers and its role in the identification of PDN is uncertain at this time [21–23].
The most reliable small fiber test currently is considered to be the intra-epidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) at the ankle [24], although there is disagreement on how strongly IENFD testing is recommended for diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy [25]. If a skin punch biopsy shows reduced IENFD, then a diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy is established even in the absence of abnormality on clinical examination or other objective tests (NCS, VPT, QTT). This relatively recent method [26] for the examination of peripheral nerves is invasive, although minimally, not available in most clinics, and expensive. Further, as more is being learned about the limits of IENFD, different ways of assessing intra-epidermal nerve fibers beyond fiber density are being suggested. For example, ratio of IENFD at thigh to ankle may reveal a relative reduction distally in the presence of a value of IENFD at the ankle within the normal range [27, 28]. Structural characteristics of the nerve fibers (abnormal dilatations) may suggest abnormality even if IENFD is normal [27, 29]. The changing landscape of intra-epidermal nerve fiber assessment indicates that this pathological method of small fiber testing is still being explored and that any particular assessment cannot be recommended universally for the diagnosis currently. Also, detailed morphological assessments of skin fibers are not as available as routine IENFD and are limited to research laboratories. For routine clinical diagnoses of PDN, the use of IENFD is not recommended highly.