Morris A. Fisher

Distal symmetric polyneuropathy: A definition for clinical research: Report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

The objective of this report was to develop a case definition of distal symmetric polyneuropathy to standardize and facilitate clinical research and epidemiologic studies. A formalized consensus process was employed to reach agreement after a systematic review and classification of evidence from the literature. The literature indicates that symptoms alone have relatively poor diagnostic accuracy in predicting the presence of polyneuropathy; signs are better predictors of polyneuropathy than symptoms; and single abnormalities on examination are less sensitive than multiple abnormalities in predicting the presence of polyneuropathy. The combination of neuropathic symptoms, signs, and electrodiagnostic findings provides the most accurate diagnosis of distal symmetric polyneuropathy. A set of case definitions was rank ordered by likelihood of disease. The highest likelihood of polyneuropathy (useful for clinical trials) occurs with a combination of multiple symptoms, multiple signs, and abnormal electrodiagnostic studies. A modest likelihood of polyneuropathy (useful for field or epidemiologic studies) occurs with a combination of multiple symptoms and multiple signs when the results of electrodiagnostic studies are not available. A lower likelihood of polyneuropathy occurs when electrodiagnostic studies and signs are discordant. For research purposes, the best approach to defining distal symmetric polyneuropathy is a set of case definitions rank ordered by estimated likelihood of disease. The inclusion of this formalized case definition in clinical and epidemiologic research studies will ensure greater consistency of case selection.

Practice Parameter: Evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: Role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy (an evidence-based review) Report of the American Academy of Neurology, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Background: Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy for the assessment of polyneuropathy. Methods: A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based upon the level of evidence. Results and Recommendations: 1) Autonomic testing should be considered in the evaluation of patients with polyneuropathy to document autonomic nervous system dysfunction (Level B). Such testing should be considered especially for the evaluation of suspected autonomic neuropathy (Level B) and distal small fiber sensory polyneuropathy (SFSN) (Level C). A battery of validated tests is recommended to achieve the highest diagnostic accuracy (Level B). 2) Nerve biopsy is generally accepted as useful in the evaluation of certain neuropathies as in patients with suspected amyloid neuropathy, mononeuropathy multiplex due to vasculitis, or with atypical forms of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). However, the literature is insufficient to provide a recommendation regarding when a nerve biopsy may be useful in the evaluation of DSP (Level U). 3) Skin biopsy is a validated technique for determining intraepidermal nerve fiber density and may be considered for the diagnosis of DSP, particularly SFSN (Level C). There is a need for additional prospective studies to define more exact guidelines for the evaluation of polyneuropathy. AAN = American Academy of Neurology; AANEM = American Academy of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine; AAPM&R = American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; ART = autonomic reflex testing; BRSI = baroreflex sensitivity index; CASS = composite autonomic scoring scale; CIDP = chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy; DSFN = distal small fiber neuropathy; DSP = distal symmetric polyneuropathy; EDx = electrodiagnosis; EFNS = European Federation of Neurological Societies; HRV = heart rate variability; IAN = idiopathic autonomic neuropathy; IENF = intraepidermal nerve fibers; MSNA = muscle sympathetic nerve activity; NCSs = nerve conduction studies; PGP 9.5 = protein-gene-product 9.5; PN = peripheral neuropathy; PRT = blood pressure recovery time; QAE = quantitative autonomic examination; QSART = quantitative sudomotor axon reflex test; QSS = Quality Standards Subcommittee; QST = quantitative sensory testing; SFSN = small fiber sensory polyneuropathy; TST = thermoregulatory sweat testing.

Practice parameter: the evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy (an evidence-based review). Report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence‐based guidelines regarding the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy and skin biopsy for the assessment of polyneuropathy.

Practice Parameter: Evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: Role of laboratory and genetic testing (an evidence-based review) Report of the American Academy of Neurology, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Background: Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of laboratory and genetic tests for the assessment of DSP. Methods: A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based upon the level of evidence. Results and Recommendations: 1) Screening laboratory tests may be considered for all patients with polyneuropathy (Level C). Those tests that provide the highest yield of abnormality are blood glucose, serum B12 with metabolites (methylmalonic acid with or without homocysteine), and serum protein immunofixation electrophoresis (Level C). If there is no definite evidence of diabetes mellitus by routine testing of blood glucose, testing for impaired glucose tolerance may be considered in distal symmetric sensory polyneuropathy (Level C). 2) Genetic testing should be conducted for the accurate diagnosis and classification of hereditary neuropathies (Level A). Genetic testing may be considered in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level C). Initial genetic testing should be guided by the clinical phenotype, inheritance pattern, and electrodiagnostic features and should focus on the most common abnormalities which are CMT1A duplication/HNPP deletion, Cx32 (GJB1), and MFN2 mutation screening. There is insufficient evidence to determine the usefulness of routine genetic testing in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who do not exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level U). AAN = American Academy of Neurology; AANEM = American Academy of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine; AAPM&R = American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; CMT = Charcot-Marie-Tooth; DSP = distal symmetric polyneuropathy; EDX = electrodiagnostic; GTT = glucose tolerance testing; IFE = immunofixation electrophoresis; QSS = Quality Standards Subcommittee; SPEP = serum protein electrophoresis.

Practice Parameter: The Evaluation of Distal Symmetric Polyneuropathy: The Role ofLaboratory and Genetic Testing (An Evidence-Based Review): Report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence‐based guidelines regarding the role of laboratory and genetic tests for the assessment of DSP.

Evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy (an evidence-based review).

Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence‐based guidelines regarding the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy for the assessment of polyneuropathy. A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four‐tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based on the level of evidence. (1) Autonomic testing may be considered in the evaluation of patients with polyneuropathy to document autonomic nervous system dysfunction (Level B). Such testing should be considered especially for the evaluation of suspected autonomic neuropathy (Level B) and distal small fiber sensory polyneuropathy (SFSN) (Level C). A battery of validated tests is recommended to achieve the highest diagnostic accuracy (Level B). (2) Nerve biopsy is generally accepted as useful in the evaluation of certain neuropathies as in patients with suspected amyloid neuropathy, mononeuropathy multiplex due to vasculitis, or with atypical forms of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). However, the literature is insufficient to provide a recommendation regarding when a nerve biopsy may be useful in the evaluation of DSP (Level U). (3) Skin biopsy is a validated technique for determining intraepidermal nerve fiber (IENF) density and may be considered for the diagnosis of DSP, particularly SFSN (Level C). There is a need for additional prospective studies to define more exact guidelines for the evaluation of polyneuropathy. Muscle Nerve 39: 106–115, 2009

Evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: The role of laboratory and genetic testing (an evidence‐based review)

Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence‐based guidelines regarding the role of laboratory and genetic tests for the assessment of DSP. A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four‐tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based on the level of evidence. (1) Screening laboratory tests may be considered for all patients with polyneuropathy (Level C). Those tests that provide the highest yield of abnormality are blood glucose, serum B12 with metabolites (methylmalonic acid with or without homocysteine), and serum protein immunofixation electrophoresis (Level C). If there is no definite evidence of diabetes mellitus by routine testing of blood glucose, testing for impaired glucose tolerance may be considered in distal symmetric sensory polyneuropathy (Level C). (2) Genetic testing is established as useful for the accurate diagnosis and classification of hereditary neuropathies (Level A). Genetic testing may be considered in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level C). Initial genetic testing should be guided by the clinical phenotype, inheritance pattern, and electrodiagnostic (EDX) features and should focus on the most common abnormalities, which are CMT1A duplication/HNPP deletion, Cx32 (GJB1), and MFN2 mutation screening. There is insufficient evidence to determine the usefulness of routine genetic testing in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who do not exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level U). Muscle Nerve 39: 116–125, 2009

Conduction velocity versus amplitude analysis: Evidence for demyelination in diabetic neuropathy

Motor conduction velocities (CVs) were correlated with distal compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitudes for tibial, peroneal, and median nerves in patients with biopsy‐proven chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), diabetic neuropathy, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Only in the diabetic patients did CV significantly correlate with CMAP amplitude. The data show that diabetic neuropathy produces conduction velocity slowing that cannot be explained by axon loss alone, and that differentiation between diabetic neuropathy and CIDP in an individual nerve is difficult.

Comparison of automated and manual F-wave latency measurements

OBJECTIVE F-waves are well-established clinical neurophysiological studies. F-wave analysis is now cumbersome limiting the usefulness of F-waves. This study evaluates the accuracy and reliability of an automated analysis method for F-wave latencies. METHODS F-waves following 20 supramaximal stimuli recorded from the extensor digitorum brevis muscle of 80 limbs (55 subjects) were analyzed. F-wave latencies were determined using a computer program developed by NEUROMetrix (Waltham, MA). These results were compared in a blinded fashion with manual measurements of the same datasets by a clinical neurophysiologist with established expertise in F-waves. The manual measurements were repeated once. RESULTS The yield rate of automated median F-wave latencies was 100% with a correlation coefficient (CC) of 0.996 when compared with manual assignment results. For individual F-wave latency measurements, comparable values were 90% and 0.977, respectively. The repeated manual measurements revealed a yield rate and CC for median latencies of 100% and 0.998, respectively, with comparable values for individual latency measurements of 95% and 0.992. CONCLUSIONS These results indicate the feasibility of a reliable computerized automated analysis of F-wave latencies. SIGNIFICANCE A reliable automated analysis of F-waves should add meaningfully to the value of these responses in clinical neurophysiology.

Phrenic nerve palsies and persistent respiratory acidosis in a patient with diabetes mellitus

Phrenic neuropathies in peripheral neuropathies are increasingly recognized. This report describes a diabetic patient who, following a myocardial infarction, developed persistent respiratory acidosis. Subsequent evaluation revealed bilateral phrenic nerve palsies with diaphragmatic paresis. This study emphasizes the need to consider phrenic nerve injury as a cause for persistent respiratory problems even where the patient’s medical condition might suggest other causes.