Diabetic peripheral neuropathy, is it an autoimmune disease?

BACKGROUND: Autoimmunity has been identified in a significant number of neuropathies, such as, proximal neuropathies, and autonomic neuropathies associated with diabetes mellitus. However, possible correlations between diabetic peripheral neuropathy and autoimmunity have not yet been fully investigated. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to investigate whether autoimmunity is associated with the pathogenesis of human diabetic peripheral neuropathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A case-control analysis included three groups: 30 patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, 30 diabetic control patients without neuropathy, and 30 healthy controls. Blood analysis was conducted to compare the percentages of positive antinuclear antibodies (ANA) between the three groups. Secondary analysis investigated the correlations between the presence of autoimmune antibodies and sample demographics and neurological manifestations. This research was considered as a pilot study encouraging further investigations to take place in the near future. RESULTS: Antinuclear antibodies were significantly present in the blood serum of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy in comparison to the control groups (p<0.001). The odds of positive values of ANA in the neuropathy group were 50 times higher when compared to control groups. Secondary analysis showed a significant correlation between the presence of ANA and the neurological manifestation of neuropathy (Neuropathy symptom score, Neuropathy disability score and Vibration Perception Threshold). CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated for the first time that human peripheral diabetic neuropathy may have an autoimmune aetiology. The new pathogenic factors may lead to the consideration of new management plans involving new therapeutic approaches and disease markers.

A Morbidity Screening Tool for identifying fatigue, pain, upper limb dysfunction and lymphedema after breast cancer treatment: a validity study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate validity of a newly developed Morbidity Screening Tool (MST) to screen for fatigue, pain, swelling (lymphedema) and arm function after breast cancer treatment. METHODS: A cross-sectional study included women attending reviews after completing treatment (surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy), without recurrence, who could read English. They completed the MST and comparator questionnaires: Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire (CPGQ), Lymphedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (LBCQ) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy questionnaire with subscales for fatigue (FACT F) and breast cancer (FACT B + 4). Bilateral combined shoulder ranges of motion were compared (upward reach; hand behind back) and percentage upper limb volume difference (%LVD =/>10% diagnosed as lymphedema) measured with the vertical perometer (400T). RESULTS: 613 of 617 participants completed questionnaires (mean age 62.3 years, SD 10.0; mean time since treatment 63.0 months, SD 46.6) and 417 completed objective testing. Morbidity prevalence was estimated as 35.8%, 21.9%, 19.8% and 34.4% for fatigue, impaired upper limb function, lymphedema and pain respectively. Comparing those self-reporting the presence or absence of each type of morbidity, statistically significant differences in comparator variables supported validity of the MST. Statistically significant correlations resulted between MST scores focussing on impact of morbidity, and comparator variables that reflect function and quality of life. CONCLUSION: Analysis supports the validity of all four short-forms of the MST as providing indications of both presence of morbidity and impacts on participants' lives. This may facilitate early and appropriate referral for intervention.

Comparison of breast cancer-related lymphedema (upper limb swelling) prevalence estimated using objective and subjective criteria and relationship with quality of life.

This study aimed to investigate lymphedema prevalence using three different measurement/diagnostic criterion combinations and explore the relationship between lymphedema and quality of life for each, to provide evaluation of rehabilitation. Cross-sectional data from 617 women attending review appointments after completing surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy included the Morbidity Screening Tool (MST; criterion: yes to lymphedema); Lymphedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (LBCQ; criterion: yes to heaviness and/or swelling); percentage limb volume difference (perometer: %LVD; criterion: 10%+ difference); and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy breast cancer-specific quality of life tool (FACT B+4). Perometry measurements were conducted in a clinic room. Between 341 and 577 participants provided sufficient data for each analysis, with mean age varying from 60 to 62 (SD 9.95-10.03) and median months after treatment from 49 to 51. Lymphedema prevalence varied from 26.2% for perometry %LVD to 20.5% for the MST and 23.9% for the LBCQ; differences were not significant. Limits of agreement analysis between %LVD and the subjective measures showed little consistency, while moderate consistency resulted between the subjective measures. Quality of life differed significantly for women with and without lymphedema only when subjective measurements were used. Results suggest that subjective and objective tools investigate different aspects of lymphedema.