Roy Freeman

Diabetic neuropathies: Update on definitions, diagnostic criteria, estimation of severity, and treatments

Preceding the joint meeting of the 19th annual Diabetic Neuropathy Study Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (NEURODIAB) and the 8th International Symposium on Diabetic Neuropathy in Toronto, Canada, 13–18 October 2009, expert panels were convened to provide updates on classification, definitions, diagnostic criteria, and treatments of diabetic peripheral neuropathies (DPNs), autonomic neuropathy, painful DPNs, and structural alterations in DPNs.

Consensus statement on the definition of orthostatic hypotension, neurally mediated syncope and the postural tachycardia syndrome

Roy Freeman • Wouter Wieling • Felicia B. Axelrod • David G. Benditt • Eduardo Benarroch • Italo Biaggioni • William P. Cheshire • Thomas Chelimsky • Pietro Cortelli • Christopher H. Gibbons • David S. Goldstein • Roger Hainsworth • Max J. Hilz • Giris Jacob • Horacio Kaufmann • Jens Jordan • Lewis A. Lipsitz • Benjamin D. Levine • Phillip A. Low • Christopher Mathias • Satish R. Raj • David Robertson • Paola Sandroni • Irwin Schatz • Ron Schondorff • Julian M. Stewart • J. Gert van Dijk

Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in diabetes: clinical impact, assessment, diagnosis, and management

The Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) Subcommittee of the Toronto Consensus Panel on Diabetic Neuropathy worked to update CAN guidelines, with regard to epidemiology, clinical impact, diagnosis, usefulness of CAN testing, and management. CAN is the impairment of cardiovascular autonomic control in the setting of diabetes after exclusion of other causes. The prevalence of confirmed CAN is around 20%, and increases up to 65% with age and diabetes duration. Established risk factors for CAN are glycaemic control in type 1 and a combination of hypertension, dyslipidaemia, obesity, and glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes. CAN is a risk marker of mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, and possibly a progression promoter of diabetic nephropathy. Criteria for CAN diagnosis and staging are: (1) one abnormal cardiovagal test result identifies possible or early CAN; (2) at least two abnormal cardiovagal test results are required for definite or confirmed CAN; and (3) the presence of orthostatic hypotension in addition to abnormal heart rate test results identifies severe or advanced CAN. Progressive stages of CAN are associated with increasingly worse prognosis. CAN assessment is relevant in clinical practice for (1) diagnosis of CAN clinical forms, (2) detection and tailored treatment of CAN clinical correlates (e.g. tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, non‐dipping, QT interval prolongation), (3) risk stratification for diabetic complications and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and (4) modulation of targets of diabetes therapy. Evidence on the cost‐effectiveness of CAN testing is lacking. Apart from the preventive role of intensive glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes, recommendations cannot be made for most therapeutic approaches to CAN. Copyright

Does the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Involve the Autonomic Nervous System

PURPOSE To investigate the role of the autonomic nervous system in the symptoms of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and delineate the pathogenesis of the orthostatic Intolerance and predisposition to neurally mediated syncope reported in this patient group. PATIENTS AND METHODS Twenty-three CFS patients and controls performed a battery of autonomic function tests. The CFS patients completed questionnaires pertaining to autonomic and CFS symptoms, their level of physical activity, and premorbid and coexisting psychiatric disorders. The relationship between autonomic test results, cardiovascular deconditioning, and psychiatric disorders was examined with multivariate statistics and the evidence that autonomic changes seen in CFS might be secondary to a postviral, idiopathic autonomic neuropathy was explored. RESULTS The CFS subjects had a significant increase in baseline (P < 0.01) and maximum heart rate (HR) on standing and tilting (both P < 0.0001). Tests of parasympathetic nervous system function (the expiratory inspiratory ratio, P < 0.005; maximum minus minimum HR difference, P < 0.05), were significantly less in the CFS group as were measures of sympathetic nervous system function (systolic blood pressure decrease with tilting, P < 0.01; diastolic blood pressure decrease with tilting, P < 0.05; and the systolic blood pressure decrease during phase II of a Valsalva maneuver, P < 0.05). Twenty-five percent of CFS subjects had a positive tilt table test. The physical activity index was a significant predictor of autonomic test results (resting, sitting, standing, and tilted HR, P < 0.05 to P < 0.009); and the blood pressure decrease in phase II of the Valvalsa maneuver, P < 0.05) whereas premorbid and coexistent psychiatric conditions were not. The onset of autonomic symptoms occurred within 4 weeks of a viral infection in 46% of patients-a temporal pattern that is consistent with a postviral, idiopathic autonomic neuropathy. CONCLUSION Patients with CFS show alterations in measures of sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system function. These results, which provide the physiological basis for the orthostatic intolerance and other symptoms of autonomic function in this patient group, may be explained by cardiovascular deconditioning, a postviral idiopathic autonomic neuropathy, or both.

Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension

n engl j med 358;6 www.nejm.org february 7, 2008 615 A 65-year-old man reports a 6-month history of dizziness, light-headedness, weakness, and fatigue while upright. He takes no medication and has no personal or family history of neurologic disease. On physical examination, his supine blood pressure is 160/100 mm Hg, with a heart rate of 72 beats per minute; on standing, his blood pressure falls to 70/40 mm Hg, with no change in heart rate. The results of the remainder of the examination, including neurologic examination, are normal. How should he be evaluated and treated?

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Pregabalin Treatment for Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Findings from seven randomized, controlled trials across a range of doses

OBJECTIVE—To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pregabalin across the effective dosing range, to determine differences in the efficacy of three times daily (TID) versus twice daily (BID) dosage schedules, and to use time-to-event analysis to determine the time to onset of a sustained therapeutic effect using data from seven trials of pregabalin in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Data were pooled across seven double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials using pregabalin to treat painful DPN with dosages of 150, 300, and 600 mg/day administered TID or BID. Only one trial included all three of these dosages, and TID dosing was used in four. All studies shared fundamental selection criteria, and treatment durations ranged from 5 to 13 weeks. RESULTS—Pooled analysis showed that pregabalin significantly reduced pain and pain-related sleep interference associated with DPN (150, 300, and 600 mg/day administered TID vs. placebo, all P ≤ 0.007). Only the 600 mg/day dosage showed efficacy when administered BID (P ≤ 0.001). Pain and sleep interference reductions associated with pregabalin appear to be positively correlated with dosage; the greatest effect was observed in patients treated with 600 mg/day. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the median time to onset of a sustained (≥30% at end point) 1-point improvement was 4 days in patients treated with pregabalin at 600 mg/day, 5 days in patients treated with pregabalin at 300 mg/day, 13 days in patients treated with pregabalin at 150 mg/day, and 60 days in patients receiving placebo. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were dizziness, somnolence, and peripheral edema. CONCLUSIONS—Treatment with pregabalin across its effective dosing range is associated with significant, dose-related improvement in pain in patients with DPN.

Delayed orthostatic hypotension A frequent cause of orthostatic intolerance

Objective: To investigate the prevalence, symptoms, and neurophysiologic features of delayed orthostatic hypotension (OH). Methods: Blood pressures (BP) were measured at 1-minute intervals on 230 patients during 60° head-up tilt for 45 minutes and standing for 5 minutes. OH was defined as a sustained fall in BP (≥20 mm Hg systolic or ≥10 mm Hg diastolic) and delayed OH as a sustained BP fall occurring beyond 3 minutes of standing or upright tilt table testing. Beat-to-beat BP, tests of cardiovagal function, and sympathetic-adrenergic function were performed. Results: Of patients with OH, only 46% had OH within 3 minutes of head up tilt; 15% had OH between 3 and 10 minutes; and 39% had OH only after 10 minutes of tilt table testing. The magnitude and the temporal distribution of the BP fall did not differ between those with and without symptoms of orthostatic intolerance. Patients with OH beyond 10 minutes tended to be younger (p < 0.05), have smaller BP falls during phase II of the Valsalva maneuver (p < 0.01), and have greater phase IV overshoot (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Delayed orthostatic hypotension occurred in 54% of our tested population and was associated with milder abnormalities of sympathetic adrenergic function, suggesting this disorder may be a mild or early form of sympathetic adrenergic failure.

Consensus statement on the definition of orthostatic hypotension, neurally mediated syncope and the postural tachycardia syndrome.

Roy Freeman • Wouter Wieling • Felicia B. Axelrod • David G. Benditt • Eduardo Benarroch • Italo Biaggioni • William P. Cheshire • Thomas Chelimsky • Pietro Cortelli • Christopher H. Gibbons • David S. Goldstein • Roger Hainsworth • Max J. Hilz • Giris Jacob • Horacio Kaufmann • Jens Jordan • Lewis A. Lipsitz • Benjamin D. Levine • Phillip A. Low • Christopher Mathias • Satish R. Raj • David Robertson • Paola Sandroni • Irwin Schatz • Ron Schondorff • Julian M. Stewart • J. Gert van Dijk

Value of quantitative sensory testing in neurological and pain disorders: NeuPSIG consensus

Summary Standards for conducting quantitative sensory testing (QST), which is a psychophysical method used to quantify somatosensory function in response to controlled stimuli in healthy subjects and patients, is discussed, and recommendations on the basis of current status of QST are presented. ABSTRACT Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a psychophysical method used to quantify somatosensory function in response to controlled stimuli in healthy subjects and patients. Although QST shares similarities with the quantitative assessment of hearing or vision, which is extensively used in clinical practice and research, it has not gained a large acceptance among clinicians for many reasons, and in significant part because of the lack of information about standards for performing QST, its potential utility, and interpretation of results. A consensus meeting was convened by the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain (NeuPSIG) to formulate recommendations for conducting QST in clinical practice and research. Research studies have confirmed the utility of QST for the assessment and monitoring of somatosensory deficits, particularly in diabetic and small fiber neuropathies; the assessment of evoked pains (mechanical and thermal allodynia or hyperalgesia); and the diagnosis of sensory neuropathies. Promising applications include the assessment of evoked pains in large‐scale clinical trials and the study of conditioned pain modulation. In clinical practice, we recommend the use QST for screening for small and large fiber neuropathies; monitoring of somatosensory deficits; and monitoring of evoked pains, allodynia, and hyperalgesia. QST is not recommended as a stand‐alone test for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain. For the conduct of QST in healthy subjects and in patients, we recommend use of predefined standardized stimuli and instructions, validated algorithms of testing, and reference values corrected for anatomical site, age, and gender. Interpretation of results should always take into account the clinical context, and patients with language and cognitive difficulties, anxiety, or litigation should not be considered eligible for QST. When appropriate standards, as discussed here, are applied, QST can provide important and unique information about the functional status of somatosensory system, which would be complementary to already existing clinical methods.

Transfer Function Analysis of Cerebral Autoregulation Dynamics in Autonomic Failure Patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Autonomic nervous system diseases affect systemic blood pressure regulation. Patients with autonomic nervous system diseases have consistently larger drops in blood pressure associated with standing than the normal population. Autonomic dysfunction and/or these changes in blood pressure may affect dynamic cerebral autoregulation. METHODS Heart rate, mean blood flow velocity (MBFV) of the middle cerebral artery via transcranial Doppler ultrasound, mean arterial blood pressure adjusted to brain level (MABPbrain) via Finapres, and end tidal CO2 were measured continuously during graded tilt (after 5 minutes in supine position as baseline, -10 degrees, +10 degrees, +30 degrees, +60 degrees, -10 degrees, and supine recovery) in autonomic failure patients and their age- and sex-matched control subjects. The dynamic response of MBFV to spontaneous variations in MABPbrain was investigated by cross-spectral analysis. The transfer gain and phase relationships between MBFV and MABPbrain were determined from the final 256 beats of each 5-minute-tilt segment. The transfer gain was normalized to mean MABPbrain and MBFV and then converted to decibels (dB). RESULTS MBFV variation (0.03 to 0.14 Hz) preceded MABPbrain by similar phase angles in patients and control subjects and in all tilt conditions (patients: 31 +/- 5 degrees; control subjects: 30 +/- 5 degrees; mean +/- SEM). Patients had a higher supine gain than control subjects (P < .05). Both patients and control subjects showed a significant decrease in gain with tilt and by 60 degrees the patients were not different from the control subjects (supine to 60 degrees: patients = 5.23 +/- 0.77 to -1.65 +/- 0.89 dB; control subjects = 1.74 +/- 0.82 to -1.80 +/- 0.62 dB). CONCLUSIONS These data indicate an altered, yet present, autoregulatory response with autonomic failure.