-
Bone Jun 2021Peripheral neuropathy occurs in two thirds of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). It can lead to severe pathological changes in the feet, and it increases the risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Peripheral neuropathy occurs in two thirds of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). It can lead to severe pathological changes in the feet, and it increases the risk of fracture more than any other diabetic complication. The objective of this review is to analyze available literature on the effect of peripheral neuropathy on BMD of the foot, spine, or hip. We hypothesize that the presence of diabetic neuropathy leads to lower BMD in adults with diabetes.
METHODS
Original studies investigating the effects of diabetic neuropathy on bone density were searched for inclusion in this systematic review. Studies were eligible if they met the following criteria: 1) participants included adults with either Type 1 DM or Type 2 DM; 2) Method used for the diagnosis of neuropathy described in the manuscript 3) DXA scan, ultrasound, or CT scan was used to measure proximal femur, spine, or foot bone mineral density were reported, and 4) bone parameters were analyzed based on the presence and absence of neuropathy.
RESULTS
Among the 5 studies that met eligibility criteria, 4 did not find a significant effect of neuropathy on BMD. One study showed a significant negative impact of neuropathy on calcaneal BMD in patients with type 1 diabetes. The meta-analysis did not show a significant effect of peripheral neuropathy on BMDs of proximal femur, spine, and calcaneus in diabetic adults.
CONCLUSION
Our study shows no evidence that peripheral neuropathy affects bone density or bone turnover in DM. However, this conclusion should be taken with caution since only a very limited number of studies were available for inclusion in the analysis and included both type 1 and type 2 DM patients. Improved measures of peripheral neuropathy and more advanced imaging technologies are needed to better assess the effect of diabetes on bone health.
Topics: Absorptiometry, Photon; Adult; Bone Density; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Neuropathies; Humans
PubMed: 33757900
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2021.115932 -
PloS One 2021The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in Latin America and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE and LILACS databases of published observational studies in LAC up to December 2020. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed using random-effects models using Stata Program 15.1. Heterogeneity was evaluated through sensitivity, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses. Evidence certainty was performed with the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies from eight countries were included. The estimated prevalence of DPN was 46.5% (95%CI: 38.0-55.0) with a significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98.2%; p<0.01). Only two studies reported incidence, and the pooled effect size was 13.7% (95%CI: 10.6-17.2). We found an increasing trend of cumulative DPN prevalence over time. The main sources of heterogeneity associated with higher prevalence were diagnosis criteria, higher A1c (%), and inadequate sample size. We judge the included evidence as very low certainty.
CONCLUSION
The overall prevalence of DPN is high in LAC with significant heterogeneity between and within countries that could be explained by population type and methodological aspects. Significant gaps (e.g., under-representation of most countries, lack of incidence studies, and heterogenous case definition) were identified. Standardized and population-based studies of DPN in LAC are needed.
Topics: Caribbean Region; Diabetic Neuropathies; Humans; Incidence; Latin America; Prevalence
PubMed: 33984049
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251642 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2007Carpal tunnel syndrome is a neuropathy caused by compression of the median nerve within the carpal tunnel. However, the severity of symptoms and signs does not often... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Carpal tunnel syndrome is a neuropathy caused by compression of the median nerve within the carpal tunnel. However, the severity of symptoms and signs does not often correlate well with the extent of nerve damage.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, non-drug treatments, surgical treatments, and postoperative treatments for carpal tunnel syndrome? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 54 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture; diuretics; carpal tunnel release surgery (open, and endoscopic); internal neurolysis; local and systemic corticosteroids; massage therapy; nerve and tendon gliding exercises; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; pyridoxine; therapeutic ultrasound; and wrist splints.
Topics: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Neurosurgical Procedures; Safety; United States
PubMed: 19454094
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2021Peripheral neuropathy can be caused by diabetes mellitus and HIV infection, and often leaves patients with treatment-resistant neuropathic pain. To better treat this...
Peripheral neuropathy can be caused by diabetes mellitus and HIV infection, and often leaves patients with treatment-resistant neuropathic pain. To better treat this condition, we need greater understanding of the pathogenesis, as well as objective biomarkers to predict treatment response. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has a firm place as a biomarker for diseases of the central nervous system (CNS), but until recently has had little role for disease of the peripheral nervous system. To review the current state-of-the-art of peripheral nerve MRI in diabetic and HIV symmetrical polyneuropathy. We used systematic literature search methods to identify all studies currently published, using this as a basis for a narrative review to discuss major findings in the literature. We also assessed risk of bias, as well as technical aspects of MRI and statistical analysis. Protocol was pre-registered on NIHR PROSPERO database. MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE databases were searched from 1946 to 15th August 2020 for all studies investigating either diabetic or HIV neuropathy and MRI, focusing exclusively on studies investigating symmetrical polyneuropathy. The NIH quality assessment tool for observational and cross-sectional cohort studies was used for risk of bias assessment. The search resulted in 18 papers eligible for review, 18 for diabetic neuropathy and 0 for HIV neuropathy. Risk of bias assessment demonstrated that studies generally lacked explicit sample size justifications, and some may be underpowered. Whilst most studies made efforts to balance groups for confounding variables (age, gender, BMI, disease duration), there was lack of consistency between studies. Overall, the literature provides convincing evidence that DPN is associated with larger nerve cross sectional area, T2-weighted hyperintense and hypointense lesions, evidence of nerve oedema on Dixon imaging, decreased fractional anisotropy and increased apparent diffusion coefficient compared with controls. Analysis to date is largely restricted to the sciatic nerve or its branches. There is emerging evidence that various structural MR metrics may be useful as biomarkers in diabetic polyneuropathy, and areas for future direction are discussed. Expanding this technique to other forms of peripheral neuropathy, including HIV neuropathy, would be of value. (identifier: CRD 42020167322) https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=167322.
PubMed: 34621152
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.727311 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Jun 2017Vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy (VIPN) is a dose-limiting side effect of vincristine (VCR) treatment in children, leading to diminished quality of life. Much... (Review)
Review
Vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy (VIPN) is a dose-limiting side effect of vincristine (VCR) treatment in children, leading to diminished quality of life. Much remains unknown about the underlying mechanisms of VIPN. This review systematically summarizes the available literature concerning contributing factors of VIPN development in children. Studied factors include patient characteristics, VCR dose, administration method, pharmacokinetics, and genetic factors. Furthermore, this review reports on currently available tools to assess VIPN in children. In total, twenty-eight publications were included. Results indicate that Caucasian race, higher VCR dose, older age and low clearance negatively influence VIPN, although results regarding the latter two factors were rather conflicting. Moreover, genetic pathways influencing VIPN were identified. Furthermore, the studied tools to assess VIPN seriously impairs comparability across study results. Studying the factors and their interactions that seem to influence VIPN in children, should aid in personalized VCR treatment, thereby increasing VCR effectiveness while minimizing toxicity.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Child; Humans; Neoplasms; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Vincristine
PubMed: 28477739
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.04.004 -
BioMed Research International 2015A meta-analysis on combined therapy of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) with breviscapine and mecobalamin was performed to evaluate the efficacy of this therapy. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
A meta-analysis on combined therapy of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) with breviscapine and mecobalamin was performed to evaluate the efficacy of this therapy.
METHODS
Six English databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL) and four Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Journals Database, CBM, and Wanfang database) were searched for studies on the clinical trials in which DPN was treated with breviscapine and mecobalamin, and RevMan 5.1 package was employed for analyzing pooled trials and publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 17 articles including 1398 DPN patients were identified. Homogeneity was observed among different studies (P = 0.74). The efficacy of combined therapy with breviscapine and mecobalamin was significantly better than that in control group [P < 0.0001 (OR = 5.01, 95% CI: 3.70-6.78)].
CONCLUSION
Available findings suggest that the therapeutic efficacy of breviscapine combining mecobalamin is superior to mecobalamin alone, and this strategy is required to be popularized in clinical practice.
Topics: China; Diabetic Neuropathies; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Flavonoids; Humans; Male; Vitamin B 12
PubMed: 25866802
DOI: 10.1155/2015/680756 -
Pain Physician Jan 2021Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a most common devitalizing complication of diabetes mellitus, which is primarily characterized by sensory loss, paresthesia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a most common devitalizing complication of diabetes mellitus, which is primarily characterized by sensory loss, paresthesia, prickling, pain, or allodynia.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of the interventions used in the DPN pain management and rank their order.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
Randomized, controlled trials were identified through a comprehensive, systematic literature exploration, primarily utilizing the PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and Cochrane Library databases. The efficacy and safety outcomes consist of the proportion of patients reporting either 30% or 50% pain reduction and overall withdrawal or withdrawal due to adverse drug events, respectively. Effect estimates from Bayesian NMA were presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Heterogeneity and convergence were assessed by using I2 and deviation information criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated by using Pedro Scale.
RESULTS
A total of 3,246 potentially relevant trials were identified and screened, finally 43 trials consisting of 7,877 randomized patients met the inclusion criteria. Statistically significant treatment difference for 50% pain reduction was reported for duloxetine vs. placebo (OR: 2.50; CrI: 1.62-3.91), mirogabalin vs. placebo (OR: 3.25; CrI: 1.16-9.35), pregabalin vs. placebo (OR: 2.33; CrI: 1.69-3.27), duloxetine vs. carbamazepine (OR: 3.37; CrI: 1.07-10.90), mirogabalin vs. carbamazepine (OR: 4.39; CrI: 1.01-19.63), mirogabalin vs. lamotrigine (OR: 4.05: CrI: 1.07-15.77), pregabalin vs. lamotrigine (OR: 2.90, CrI: 1.19-7.22) and pregabalin vs. nortriptyline (OR: 4.10, CrI: 1.13-5.28). Nortriptyline reported the highest possibility of achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction. Sodium valproate and benztropine reported the highest probability of total withdrawals and withdrawals due to adverse drug events, respectively.
LIMITATION
The different follow-up time of the included studies can result in the variation of intended results.
CONCLUSION
Nortriptyline reported the advantage relative to other drugs in achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction from the baseline. Gabapentin reported a significance of 50% pain reduction relative to placebo.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Diabetic Neuropathies; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33400429
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Therapeutics Apr 2017A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, aiming to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of the capsaicin 179-mg (8% weight for weight) cutaneous patch... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Capsaicin 8% Patch Versus Oral Neuropathic Pain Medications for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, aiming to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of the capsaicin 179-mg (8% weight for weight) cutaneous patch (capsaicin 8% patch) compared with oral, centrally acting agents (ie, pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, amitriptyline) in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN).
METHODS
A systematic search of EMBASE/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials. Data from eligible studies according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, and analyses were based on aggregate-level data. Efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients with ≥30% and ≥50% reductions in pain, and tolerability outcomes were somnolence, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, headache, fatigue, insomnia, and rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Data were analyzed by using a Bayesian NMA. Fixed and random effects models were estimated. Relative treatment effect was presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Sources of heterogeneity were assessed.
FINDINGS
The NMA included 25 randomized controlled trials. For ≥30% pain reduction, the capsaicin 8% patch was significantly more effective than placebo (OR, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.19-4.03]), exhibited a numerical advantage compared with pregabalin (OR, 1.83 [95% CI, 0.91-3.34]) and gabapentin (OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 0.74-3.23]), and had similar efficacy compared with duloxetine (OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.5-1.79]). The evidence available was not sufficient to assess the relative efficacy of amitriptyline. In the NMA for tolerability, the capsaicin 8% patch was only included for headache because the incidence was 0% for the other outcomes. Oral, centrally acting agents had a significantly elevated risk compared with placebo for somnolence (pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, and amitriptyline), dizziness (pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, and amitriptyline), nausea (duloxetine), diarrhea (duloxetine), fatigue (duloxetine), and discontinuation because of AEs (pregabalin, gabapentin, and duloxetine). Compared with pregabalin and gabapentin, duloxetine had a significantly lower risk of dizziness but a significantly higher risk of nausea.
IMPLICATIONS
This NMA suggests that the efficacy observed with the capsaicin 8% patch is similar to that observed with oral agents (ie, pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin) in patients with PDPN. The oral agents were associated with a significantly elevated risk of somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, and discontinuation because of AEs compared with placebo. The capsaicin 8% patch was as effective as oral centrally acting agents in these patients with PDPN but offers systemic tolerability benefits.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Capsaicin; Diabetic Neuropathies; Humans; Neuralgia; Transdermal Patch
PubMed: 28365034
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.02.010 -
BMJ Open Oct 2021Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most important risk factors of diabetic foot ulcers, and early screening and treatment of DPN are crucial. The Ipswich... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most important risk factors of diabetic foot ulcers, and early screening and treatment of DPN are crucial. The Ipswich Touch Test (IPTT) is a new method for screening for DPN and, compared with traditional methods, is more simple to operate and requires no equipment. However, the screening accuracy of IPTT in patients with DPN has not been well characterised. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to characterise the sensitivity and specificity of IPTT compared with traditional methods and to understand the potential screening value of IPTT.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to 16 April 2020.
METHODS
Stata V.15.1 software was used for analysis, and the screening value of IPTT in DPN was described using 10 g monofilament (10g-MF), neuropathy disability scores (NDS), Pin prick, 128 Hz tuning fork, and ankle reflex as reference standards. Sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy of IPTT for screening DPN were pooled based on a quality effects model. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (42020168420).
RESULTS
Of the 441 records retrieved, 7 studies were evaluated for the screening value of IPTT. Five studies with 10g-MF as the reference standard were included in the meta-analysis, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 (95%CI 0.69-0.84) and 0.96(95%CI 0.93-0.98), respectively, and the area under curve was 0.897. Compared with vibration perception threshold, IPTT showed a sensitivity between 0.76 and 1, and a specificity between 0.90 and 0.97. Compared with NDS, IPTT showed a sensitivity between 0.53 and 1, and a specificity between 0.90 and 0.97. Compared with Pin prick, IPTT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.8 and 0.88, respectively. Compared with 128 Hz tuning fork, IPTT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.4 and 0.27, respectively. Compared with ankle reflex, IPTT had a sensitivity of 0.2 and a specificity of 0.97.
CONCLUSIONS
IPTT shows a high degree of agreement with other commonly used screening tools for DPN screening. It can be used clinically, especially in remote areas and in primary medical institutions, and by self-monitoring patients. More high-quality studies are needed to assess and promote more effective screening practices.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
Registration Number is CRD (42020168420).
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Foot; Diabetic Neuropathies; Humans; Touch; Touch Perception; Vibration
PubMed: 34607858
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046966 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with no objective loss of sensation. It may cause prolonged periods of disability. Treatment options for MMN are few. People with MMN do not usually respond to steroids or plasma exchange. Uncontrolled studies have suggested a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005, with an amendment in 2007. We updated the review to incorporate new evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin in people with MMN.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 20 April 2021: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, and checked the reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of any dose of IVIg and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) in people with definite or probable MMN for inclusion in the review. Eligible studies had to have measured at least one of the following outcomes: disability, muscle strength, or electrophysiological conduction block. We used studies that reported the frequency of adverse effects to assess safety.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed the literature searches to identify potentially relevant trials, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
Six cross-over RCTs including a total of 90 participants were suitable for inclusion in the review. Five RCTs compared IVIg to placebo, and one compared IVIg to SCIg. Four of the trials comparing IVIg versus placebo involved IVIg-naive participants (induction treatment). In the other two trials, participants were known IVIg responders receiving maintencance IVIg at baseline and were then randomised to maintenance treatment with IVIg or placebo in one trial, and IVIg or SCIg in the other. Risk of bias was variable in the included studies, with three studies at high risk of bias in at least one risk of bias domain. IVIg versus placebo (induction treatment): three RCTs including IVIg-naive participants reported a disability measure. Disability improved in seven out of 18 (39%) participants after IVIg treatment and in two out of 18 (11%) participants after placebo (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 10.12; 3 RCTs, 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants with an improvement in disability at 12 months was not reported. Strength improved in 21 out of 27 (78%) IVIg-naive participants treated with IVIg and one out of 27 (4%) participants who received placebo (RR 11.00, 95% CI 2.86 to 42.25; 3 RCTs, 27 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg treatment may increase the proportion of people with resolution of at least one conduction block; however, the results were also consistent with no effect (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 51.70; 4 RCTs, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg versus placebo (maintenance treatment): a trial that included participants on maintenance IVIg treatment reported an increase in disability in 17 out of 42 (40%) people switching to placebo and seven out of 42 (17%) remaining on IVIg (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.24; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a decrease in grip strength in 20 out of 42 (48%) participants after a switch to placebo treatment compared to four out of 42 (10%) remaining on IVIg (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.54; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, IVIg versus placebo (induction or maintenance): four trials comparing IVIg and placebo reported adverse events, of which data from two studies could be meta-analysed. Transient side effects were reported in 71% of IVIg-treated participants versus 4.8% of placebo-treated participants in these studies. The pooled RR for the development of side effects was 10.33 (95% CI 2.15 to 49.77; 2 RCTs, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was only one serious side effect (pulmonary embolism) during IVIg treatment. IVIg versus SCIg (maintenance treatment): the trial that compared continuation of IVIg maintenance versus SCIg maintenance did not measure disability. The evidence was very uncertain for muscle strength (standardised mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the number of people with side effects attributable to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence from three small RCTs shows that IVIg may improve muscle strength in people with MMN, and low-certainty evidence indicates that it may improve disability; the estimate of the magnitude of improvement of disability has wide CIs and needs further studies to secure its significance. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, it is probable that most IVIg responders deteriorate in disability and muscle strength after IVIg withdrawal. SCIg might be an alternative treatment to IVIg, but the evidence is very uncertain. More research is needed to identify people in whom IVIg withdrawal is possible and to confirm efficacy of SCIg as an alternative maintenance treatment.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Plasma Exchange; Polyneuropathies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35015296
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004429.pub3