Aims We aimed to estimate the prevalence of Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) in youth with type 1 diabetes; identify key risk factors; identify the most useful tests for the diagnostic evaluation of DPN and CAN; identify key treatment options for DPN and CAN. Methods A systematic search was performed including studies published in the last 15 years. PICO framework was used in the selection process and evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. Results A total of 758 studies were identified and a final number of 49 studies were included in this systematic review. According to moderate-high level quality studies, the prevalence of probable DPN, ranged between 13.5 and 62%; subclinical DPN between 22 and 88%; confirmed DPN between 2.6 and 11%. The Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument was the tool with higher sensitivity and specificity for detecting DPN, which needs to be confirmed by nerve conduction velocity. The prevalence of CAN was 4-39%. Specific treatment options for DPN or CAN in patients younger than 25 years are not available. Key risk factors for DPN and CAN are hyperglycemia/HbA1c, age, diabetes duration, the presence of other microvascular complications, waist/height ratio, lipid profile and blood pressure. For CAN, additional risk factors were cigarette smoking, BMI and total daily insulin. Conclusions Prevalence of neuropathy in youth with type 1 diabetes varies depending on different screening methods and characteristics of the study populations. However, the assessed studies confirmed a relatively high prevalence of subclinical neuropathy, reiterating the importance of early identification of risk factors to prevent this complication.

A systematic review of the prevalence, risk factors and screening tools for autonomic and diabetic peripheral neuropathy in children, adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes

Franceschi, Roberto;Micheli, Francesca;Cauvin, Vittoria;Piona, Claudia;
2022-01-01

Abstract

Aims We aimed to estimate the prevalence of Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) in youth with type 1 diabetes; identify key risk factors; identify the most useful tests for the diagnostic evaluation of DPN and CAN; identify key treatment options for DPN and CAN. Methods A systematic search was performed including studies published in the last 15 years. PICO framework was used in the selection process and evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. Results A total of 758 studies were identified and a final number of 49 studies were included in this systematic review. According to moderate-high level quality studies, the prevalence of probable DPN, ranged between 13.5 and 62%; subclinical DPN between 22 and 88%; confirmed DPN between 2.6 and 11%. The Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument was the tool with higher sensitivity and specificity for detecting DPN, which needs to be confirmed by nerve conduction velocity. The prevalence of CAN was 4-39%. Specific treatment options for DPN or CAN in patients younger than 25 years are not available. Key risk factors for DPN and CAN are hyperglycemia/HbA1c, age, diabetes duration, the presence of other microvascular complications, waist/height ratio, lipid profile and blood pressure. For CAN, additional risk factors were cigarette smoking, BMI and total daily insulin. Conclusions Prevalence of neuropathy in youth with type 1 diabetes varies depending on different screening methods and characteristics of the study populations. However, the assessed studies confirmed a relatively high prevalence of subclinical neuropathy, reiterating the importance of early identification of risk factors to prevent this complication.
2022
Cardiac autonomic neuropathy
Diabetic peripheral neuropathy
Risk factors
Screening tools
Youths
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/1144139
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 13
  • Scopus 24
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 21
social impact