Treatment-induced neuropathy of diabetes in an adolescent with rapid reduction in HbA1c and weight loss:Persistent neuropathic findings at follow-up after 1.5 years

Treatment‐induced neuropathy of diabetes (TIND) is a condition occurring within weeks after a rapid decline in blood glucose. This case report illustrates consequences in an adolescent with TIND. Gold standard methods diagnosing large fiber, small fiber, and autonomic neuropathy were abnormal at 1.5 years of follow‐up. Awareness of TIND is important

Assessment of Gastrointestinal Autonomic Dysfunction:Present and Future Perspectives

The autonomic nervous system delicately regulates the function of several target organs, including the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, nerve lesions or other nerve pathologies may cause autonomic dysfunction (AD). Some of the most common causes of AD are diabetes mellitus and α-synucleinopathies such as Parkinson’s disease. Widespread dysmotility throughout the gastrointestinal tract is a common finding in AD, but no commercially available method exists for direct verification of enteric dysfunction. Thus, assessing segmental enteric physiological function is recommended to aid diagnostics and guide treatment. Several established assessment methods exist, but disadvantages such as lack of standardization, exposure to radiation, advanced data interpretation, or high cost, limit their utility. Emerging methods, including high-resolution colonic manometry, 3D-transit, advanced imaging methods, analysis of gut biopsies, and microbiota, may all assist in the evaluation of gastroenteropathy related to AD. This review provides an overview of established and emerging assessment methods of physiological function within the gut and assessment methods of autonomic neuropathy outside the gut, especially in regards to clinical performance, strengths, and limitations for each method

Standards for the diagnosis and management of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Results of a European Pain Federation task force

Background: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome is a painful and disabling post-traumatic primary pain disorder. Acute and chronic CRPS are major clinical challenges. In Europe progress is hampered by significant heterogeneity in clinical practice. We sought to establish standards for the diagnosis and management of CPRS. Methods: The European Pain Federation established a pan-European task force of experts in CRPS who followed a four-stage consensus challenge process to produce mandatory quality standards worded as grammatically imperative (must-do) statements. Results: We developed 17 standards in 8 areas of care. There are 2 standards in diagnosis, 1 in multi-disciplinary care, 1 on assessment, 3 for care pathways, 1 on information and education, 4 in pain management, 3 in physical rehabilitation, and 2 on distress management. The standards are presented, summarised, and their generation and consequences discussed. Also presented are domains of practice for which no agreement on a standard could be reached. Areas of research needed to improve the validity and uptake of these standards are discussed. Conclusion: The European Pain Federation task force present 17 standards of the diagnosis and management of CPRS for use in Europe. These are considered achievable for most countries, and aspirational for a minority of countries depending on their healthcare resource and structures.Significance: This position statement summarizes expert opinion on acceptable standards for CRPS care in Europe

Clinical autonomic nervous system laboratories in Europe: a joint survey of the European Academy of Neurology and the European Federation of Autonomic Societies

© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.Background and purpose: Disorders of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) are common conditions, but it is unclear whether access to ANS healthcare provision is homogeneous across European countries. The aim of this study was to identify neurology-driven or interdisciplinary clinical ANS laboratories in Europe, describe their characteristics and explore regional differences. Methods: We contacted the European national ANS and neurological societies, as well as members of our professional network, to identify clinical ANS laboratories in each country and invite them to answer a web-based survey. Results: We identified 84 laboratories in 22 countries and 46 (55%) answered the survey. All laboratories perform cardiovascular autonomic function tests, and 83% also perform sweat tests. Testing for catecholamines and autoantibodies are performed in 63% and 56% of laboratories, and epidermal nerve fiber density analysis in 63%. Each laboratory is staffed by a median of two consultants, one resident, one technician and one nurse. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of head-up tilt tests/laboratory/year is 105 (49-251). Reflex syncope and neurogenic orthostatic hypotension are the most frequently diagnosed cardiovascular ANS disorders. Thirty-five centers (76%) have an ANS outpatient clinic, with a median (IQR) of 200 (100-360) outpatient visits/year; 42 centers (91%) also offer inpatient care (median 20 [IQR 4-110] inpatient stays/year). Forty-one laboratories (89%) are involved in research activities. We observed a significant difference in the geographical distribution of ANS services among European regions: 11 out of 12 countries from North/West Europe have at least one ANS laboratory versus 11 out of 21 from South/East/Greater Europe (p = 0.021). Conclusions: This survey highlights disparities in the availability of healthcare services for people with ANS disorders across European countries, stressing the need for improved access to specialized care in South, East and Greater Europe.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

EFAS/EAN survey on the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on European clinical autonomic education and research

© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.Purpose: To understand the influence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on clinical autonomic education and research in Europe. Methods: We invited 84 European autonomic centers to complete an online survey, recorded the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic percentage of junior participants in the annual congresses of the European Federation of Autonomic Societies (EFAS) and European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic number of PubMed publications on neurological disorders. Results: Forty-six centers answered the survey (55%). Twenty-nine centers were involved in clinical autonomic education and experienced pandemic-related didactic interruptions for 9 (5; 9) months. Ninety percent (n = 26/29) of autonomic educational centers reported a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education quality, and 93% (n = 27/29) established e-learning models. Both the 2020 joint EAN-EFAS virtual congress and the 2021 (virtual) and 2022 (hybrid) EFAS and EAN congresses marked higher percentages of junior participants than in 2019. Forty-one respondents (89%) were autonomic researchers, and 29 of them reported pandemic-related trial interruptions for 5 (2; 9) months. Since the pandemic begin, almost half of the respondents had less time for scientific writing. Likewise, the number of PubMed publications on autonomic topics showed the smallest increase compared with other neurological fields in 2020-2021 and the highest drop in 2022. Autonomic research centers that amended their trial protocols for telemedicine (38%, n = 16/41) maintained higher clinical caseloads during the first pandemic year. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial negative impact on European clinical autonomic education and research. At the same time, it promoted digitalization, favoring more equitable access to autonomic education and improved trial design.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio