The Inferior Whorl For Detecting Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy Using Corneal Confocal Microscopy

Abstract

Purpose: In vivo corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) is increasingly used as a surrogate endpoint in studies of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN). However, it is not clear whether imaging the central cornea provides optimal diagnostic utility for DPN. Therefore, we compared nerve morphology in the central cornea and the inferior whorl, a more distal and densely innervated area located inferior and nasal to the central cornea.

Methods: A total of 53 subjects with type 1/type 2 diabetes and 15 age-matched control subjects underwent detailed assessment of neuropathic symptoms (NPS), deficits (neuropathy disability score [NDS]), quantitative sensory testing (vibration perception threshold [VPT], cold and warm threshold [CT/WT], and cold- and heat-induced pain [CIP/HIP]), and electrophysiology (sural and peroneal nerve conduction velocity [SSNCV/PMNCV], and sural and peroneal nerve amplitude [SSNA/PMNA]) to diagnose patients with (DPN+) and without (DPN-) neuropathy. Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) and length (CNFL) in the central cornea, and inferior whorl length (IWL) were quantified.

Results: Comparing control subjects to DPN- and DPN+ patients, there was a significant increase in NDS (0 vs. 2.6 ± 2.3 vs. 3.3 ± 2.7, P < 0.01), VPT (V; 5.4 ± 3.0 vs. 10.6 ± 10.3 vs. 17.7 ± 11.8, P < 0.01), WT (°C; 37.7 ± 3.5 vs. 39.1 ± 5.1 vs. 41.7 ± 4.7, P < 0.05), and a significant decrease in SSNCV (m/s; 50.2 ± 5.4 vs. 48.4 ± 5.0 vs. 39.5 ± 10.6, P < 0.05), CNFD (fibers/mm2; 37.8 ± 4.9 vs. 29.7 ± 7.7 vs. 27.1 ± 9.9, P < 0.01), CNFL (mm/mm2; 27.5 ± 3.6 vs. 24.4 ± 7.8 vs. 20.7 ± 7.1, P < 0.01), and IWL (mm/mm2; 35.1 ± 6.5 vs. 26.2 ± 10.5 vs. 23.6 ± 11.4, P < 0.05). For the diagnosis of DPN, CNFD, CNFL, and IWL achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75, 0.74, and 0.70, respectively, and a combination of IWL-CNFD achieved an AUC of 0.76.

Conclusions: The parameters of CNFD, CNFL, and IWL have a comparable ability to diagnose patients with DPN. However, IWL detects an abnormality even in patients without DPN. Combining IWL with CNFD may improve the diagnostic performance of CCM.

Figure 1

A montage of CCM images from the IW region demonstrating the highly complex pattern of nerves. The grid indicates the area of images captured for the estimation of IWL.

Figure 2

Central corneal and corresponding IW CCM images for a control subject (A, B) and a DPN− (B, C) and DPN+ (C, D) patient demonstrating nerve depletion affecting both areas and the IW particularly in DPN−.

Figure 3

Box plots for CNFD (A), CNFL (B), and IWL (C) in controls, DPN− and DPN+. The ROC curves demonstrating the efficacy of individual parameters (D) and various combinations (E) for detecting DSPN.

Figure 4

Bland-Altman plots with upper and lower limits of agreement (±1.96 × SD, blue dashed line) for intraobserver (A) and interobserver (B) agreement, and a correlation plot (C) for intraobserver (OB1, black circle) and interobserver (OB2, pink triangle) measurements.