SUDOSCAN: A Simple, Rapid, and Objective Method with Potential for Screening for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

Clinical methods of detecting diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) are not objective and reproducible. We therefore evaluated if SUDOSCAN, a new method developed to provide a quick, non-invasive and quantitative assessment of sudomotor function can reliably screen for DPN. 70 subjects (45 with type 1 diabetes and 25 healthy volunteers [HV]) underwent detailed assessments including clinical, neurophysiological and 5 standard cardiovascular reflex tests (CARTs). Using the American Academy of Neurology criteria subjects were classified into DPN and No-DPN groups. Based on CARTs subjects were also divided into CAN, subclinical-CAN and no-CAN. Sudomotor function was assessed with measurement of hand and foot Electrochemical Skin Conductance (ESC) and calculation of the CAN risk score. Foot ESC (μS) was significantly lower in subjects with DPN [n = 24; 53.5(25.1)] compared to the No-DPN [77.0(7.9)] and HV [77.1(14.3)] groups (ANCOVA p<0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of foot ESC for classifying DPN were 87.5% and 76.2%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.85. Subjects with CAN had significantly lower foot [55.0(28.2)] and hand [53.5(19.6)] ESC compared to No-CAN [foot ESC, 72.1(12.2); hand ESC 64.9(14.4)] and HV groups (ANCOVA p<0.001 and 0.001, respectively). ROC analysis of CAN risk score to correctly classify CAN revealed a sensitivity of 65.0% and specificity of 80.0%. AUC was 0.75. Both foot and hand ESC demonstrated strong correlation with individual parameters and composite scores of nerve conduction and CAN. SUDOSCAN, a non-invasive and quick test, could be used as an objective screening test for DPN in busy diabetic clinics, insuring adherence to current recommendation of annual assessments for all diabetic patients that remains unfulfilled

Clinical Examination for the Detection of Protective Sensation in the Feet of Diabetic Patients

OBJECTIVE: We compared the reproducibility and accuracy of conventional clinical examination of the diabetic foot to monofilament examination. We also sought to simplify the monofilament examination by reducing it to fewer touch points. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study at 10 centers in the United States, Canada, and Switzerland, general internists and residents performed a structured history and physical examination for neuropathy on the feet of diabetic patients. Independent examination by two observers included monofilament sensation, pinprick, vibration, position sense, and ankle reflexes. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 304 patients were examined by at least one practitioner, and 200 received duplicate examinations. Monofilament examination and ankle reflexes had the best reproducibility, with moderate agreement (κ=0.59); pinprick, position, and vibration sense had fair agreement (κ=0.28–0.36). No component of the history or physical examination, singly or in aggregate, was both sensitive and specific for identifying a patient with an abnormal monofilament examination. A simplified monofilament examination using only 4 sites per foot (total 8 sites) detected 90% of patients with an abnormal 16-site monofilament evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional clinical examination had low reproducibility and correlated poorly with monofilament examination for the identification of the at-risk patient. The Semmes-Weinstein monofilament examination, a reproducible, valid, and generalizable test of foot sensation, is recommended as the screening procedure of choice for examining diabetic feet