Asger Bjørnkær, Laura M. Gaist, Jakob V. Holbech, David Gaist, Martin Wirenfeldt, Søren H. Sindrup, Thomas Krøigård
{"title":"小纤维和混合纤维神经病的角膜共焦显微镜与大型前瞻性队列中的皮肤活检和冷检测的比较。","authors":"Asger Bjørnkær, Laura M. Gaist, Jakob V. Holbech, David Gaist, Martin Wirenfeldt, Søren H. Sindrup, Thomas Krøigård","doi":"10.1111/jns.12595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\n \n <p>The diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is supported by reduced intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD). The noninvasive method corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) has the potential to be a practical alternative. We aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of CCM compared with IENFD and cold detection thresholds (CDT) in SFN and mixed fiber neuropathy (MFN).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>CCM was performed in an unselected prospective cohort of patients with a clinical suspicion of polyneuropathy. Predefined criteria were used to classify SFN and MFN. Neuropathy scores, including the Utah early neuropathy scale (UENS), were used to describe severity. Patients with established other diagnoses were used for diagnostic specificity calculations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Data were taken from 680 patients, of which 244 had SFN or MFN. There was no significant difference in sensitivities [95%CI] of CCM (0.44 [0.38–0.51]), IEFND (0.43 [0.36–0.49]), and CDT (0.34 [0.29–0.41]). CCM specificity (0.75 [0.69–0.81]) was lower (<i>p</i> = .044) than for IENFD (0.99 [0.96–1.00]) but not than for CDT (0.81 [0.75–0.86]). The AUCs of the ROC curves of 0.63, 0.63 and 0.74 respectively, was lower for corneal nerve fiber density (<i>p</i> = .0012) and corneal nerve fiber length (<i>p</i> = .0015) compared with IENFD. While UENS correlated significantly with IENFD (<i>p</i> = .0016; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .041) and CDT (<i>p</i> = .0002; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .056), it did not correlate with CCM measures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Interpretation</h3>\n \n <p>The diagnostic utility of CCM in SNF and MFN is limited by the low specificity compared with skin biopsy. Further, CCM is less suitable than skin biopsy and CDT as a marker for neuropathy severity.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17451,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System","volume":"28 4","pages":"664-676"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jns.12595","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Corneal confocal microscopy in small and mixed fiber neuropathy—Comparison with skin biopsy and cold detection in a large prospective cohort\",\"authors\":\"Asger Bjørnkær, Laura M. Gaist, Jakob V. Holbech, David Gaist, Martin Wirenfeldt, Søren H. Sindrup, Thomas Krøigård\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jns.12595\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>The diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is supported by reduced intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD). The noninvasive method corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) has the potential to be a practical alternative. We aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of CCM compared with IENFD and cold detection thresholds (CDT) in SFN and mixed fiber neuropathy (MFN).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>CCM was performed in an unselected prospective cohort of patients with a clinical suspicion of polyneuropathy. Predefined criteria were used to classify SFN and MFN. Neuropathy scores, including the Utah early neuropathy scale (UENS), were used to describe severity. Patients with established other diagnoses were used for diagnostic specificity calculations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Data were taken from 680 patients, of which 244 had SFN or MFN. There was no significant difference in sensitivities [95%CI] of CCM (0.44 [0.38–0.51]), IEFND (0.43 [0.36–0.49]), and CDT (0.34 [0.29–0.41]). CCM specificity (0.75 [0.69–0.81]) was lower (<i>p</i> = .044) than for IENFD (0.99 [0.96–1.00]) but not than for CDT (0.81 [0.75–0.86]). The AUCs of the ROC curves of 0.63, 0.63 and 0.74 respectively, was lower for corneal nerve fiber density (<i>p</i> = .0012) and corneal nerve fiber length (<i>p</i> = .0015) compared with IENFD. While UENS correlated significantly with IENFD (<i>p</i> = .0016; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .041) and CDT (<i>p</i> = .0002; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .056), it did not correlate with CCM measures.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Interpretation</h3>\\n \\n <p>The diagnostic utility of CCM in SNF and MFN is limited by the low specificity compared with skin biopsy. Further, CCM is less suitable than skin biopsy and CDT as a marker for neuropathy severity.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System\",\"volume\":\"28 4\",\"pages\":\"664-676\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jns.12595\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jns.12595\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jns.12595","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Corneal confocal microscopy in small and mixed fiber neuropathy—Comparison with skin biopsy and cold detection in a large prospective cohort
Background and Aims
The diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is supported by reduced intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD). The noninvasive method corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) has the potential to be a practical alternative. We aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of CCM compared with IENFD and cold detection thresholds (CDT) in SFN and mixed fiber neuropathy (MFN).
Methods
CCM was performed in an unselected prospective cohort of patients with a clinical suspicion of polyneuropathy. Predefined criteria were used to classify SFN and MFN. Neuropathy scores, including the Utah early neuropathy scale (UENS), were used to describe severity. Patients with established other diagnoses were used for diagnostic specificity calculations.
Results
Data were taken from 680 patients, of which 244 had SFN or MFN. There was no significant difference in sensitivities [95%CI] of CCM (0.44 [0.38–0.51]), IEFND (0.43 [0.36–0.49]), and CDT (0.34 [0.29–0.41]). CCM specificity (0.75 [0.69–0.81]) was lower (p = .044) than for IENFD (0.99 [0.96–1.00]) but not than for CDT (0.81 [0.75–0.86]). The AUCs of the ROC curves of 0.63, 0.63 and 0.74 respectively, was lower for corneal nerve fiber density (p = .0012) and corneal nerve fiber length (p = .0015) compared with IENFD. While UENS correlated significantly with IENFD (p = .0016; R2 = .041) and CDT (p = .0002; R2 = .056), it did not correlate with CCM measures.
Interpretation
The diagnostic utility of CCM in SNF and MFN is limited by the low specificity compared with skin biopsy. Further, CCM is less suitable than skin biopsy and CDT as a marker for neuropathy severity.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System is the official journal of the Peripheral Nerve Society. Founded in 1996, it is the scientific journal of choice for clinicians, clinical scientists and basic neuroscientists interested in all aspects of biology and clinical research of peripheral nervous system disorders.
The Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes high quality articles on cell and molecular biology, genomics, neuropathic pain, clinical research, trials, and unique case reports on inherited and acquired peripheral neuropathies.
Original articles are organized according to the topic in one of four specific areas: Mechanisms of Disease, Genetics, Clinical Research, and Clinical Trials.
The journal also publishes regular review papers on hot topics and Special Issues on basic, clinical, or assembled research in the field of peripheral nervous system disorders. Authors interested in contributing a review-type article or a Special Issue should contact the Editorial Office to discuss the scope of the proposed article with the Editor-in-Chief.