Acute painful diabetic neuropathy: an uncommon, remittent type of acute distal small fibre neuropathy.

INTRODUCTION: Acute painful diabetic neuropathy (APDN) is a distinctive diabetic polyneuropathy and consists of two subtypes: treatment-induced neuropathy (TIN) and diabetic neuropathic cachexia (DNC). The characteristics of APDN are (1.) the small-fibre involvement, (2.) occurrence paradoxically after short-term achievement of good glycaemia control, (3.) intense pain sensation and (4.) eventual recovery. In the face of current recommendations to achieve quickly glycaemic targets, it appears necessary to recognise and understand this neuropathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Over 2009 to 2012, we reported four cases of APDN. Four patients (three males and one female) were identified and had a mean age at onset of TIN of 47.7 years (±6.99 years). Mean baseline HbA1c was 14.2% (±1.42) and 7.0% (±3.60) after treatment. Mean estimated time to correct HbA1c was 4.5 months (±3.82 months). Three patients presented with a mean time to symptom resolution of 12.7 months (±1.15 months). One patient had an initial normal electroneuromyogram (ENMG) despite the presence of neuropathic symptoms, and a second abnormal ENMG showing axonal and myelin neuropathy. One patient had a peroneal nerve biopsy showing loss of large myelinated fibres as well as unmyelinated fibres, and signs of microangiopathy. CONCLUSIONS: According to the current recommendations of promptly achieving glycaemic targets, it appears necessary to recognise and understand this neuropathy. Based on our observations and data from the literature we propose an algorithmic approach for differential diagnosis and therapeutic management of APDN patients.

Spectrum of digoxin-induced ocular toxicity: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Digoxin intoxication results in predominantly digestive, cardiac and neurological symptoms. This case is outstanding in that the intoxication occurred in a nonagenarian and induced severe, extensively documented visual symptoms as well as dysphagia and proprioceptive illusions. Moreover, it went undiagnosed for a whole month despite close medical follow-up, illustrating the difficulty in recognizing drug-induced effects in a polymorbid patient. CASE PRESENTATION: Digoxin 0.25 mg qd for atrial fibrillation was prescribed to a 91-year-old woman with an estimated creatinine clearance of 18 ml/min. Over the following 2-3 weeks she developed nausea, vomiting and dysphagia, snowy and blurry vision, photopsia, dyschromatopsia, aggravated pre-existing formed visual hallucinations and proprioceptive illusions. She saw her family doctor twice and visited the eye clinic once until, 1 month after starting digoxin, she was admitted to the emergency room. Intoxication was confirmed by a serum digoxin level of 5.7 ng/ml (reference range 0.8-2 ng/ml). After stopping digoxin, general symptoms resolved in a few days, but visual complaints persisted. Examination by the ophthalmologist revealed decreased visual acuity in both eyes, 4/10 in the right eye (OD) and 5/10 in the left eye (OS), decreased color vision as demonstrated by a score of 1/13 in both eyes (OU) on Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates, OS cataract, and dry age-related macular degeneration (ARMD). Computerized static perimetry showed non-specific diffuse alterations suggestive of either bilateral retinopathy or optic neuropathy. Full-field electroretinography (ERG) disclosed moderate diffuse rod and cone dysfunction and multifocal ERG revealed central loss of function OU. Visual symptoms progressively improved over the next 2 months, but multifocal ERG did not. The patient was finally discharged home after a 5 week hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This case is a reminder of a complication of digoxin treatment to be considered by any treating physician. If digoxin is prescribed in a vulnerable patient, close monitoring is mandatory. In general, when facing a new health problem in a polymorbid patient, it is crucial to elicit a complete history, with all recent drug changes and detailed complaints, and to include a drug adverse reaction in the differential diagnosis.