Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Suspended
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT04611048 |
Other study ID # |
PsiNorm |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Suspended |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
October 10, 2020 |
Est. completion date |
January 1, 2023 |
Study information
Verified date |
September 2021 |
Source |
Université Catholique de Louvain |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
The study aims to compare different methods to assess thermal detection ability in diabetic
patients, as a way to monitor and diagnose neurological complications of diabetes mellitus.
Description:
Diabetic polyneuropathy is a frequent complication of diabetes mellitus. The impairment of
peripheral nerve fibre function can be very variable, predominantly affecting large-diameter
fibres (subserving touch), small-diameter fibres (subserving thermonociception), or both.
Thermal detection threshold evaluation can be used to quantify the extent of function loss
(hypoesthesia) and, to a lesser extent, gain (hyperesthesia) in patients with
thermonociceptive impairments. They are important features of quantitative sensory testing
(QST) protocols (Rolke, Baron, et al., 2006; Rolke, Magerl, et al., 2006) and are pivotal to
the determination of sensory phenotypes (Baron et al., 2017; Raputova et al., 2017). Their
role is particularly important in the diagnostic workup of neuropathies affecting small
fibers (i.e., the subgroup of primary afferents responsible for thermonociception and
autonomic functions) such as painful diabetic neuropathies (Terkelsen et al., 2017; Tesfaye
et al., 2010).
Currently, clinical measurements of thermal detection thresholds are mainly performed using
the method of limits (Fruhstorfer, Lindblom, & Schmidt, 1976), in which a continuous heating
or cooling ramp (usually at a slow rate, 1°C/s in the case of the DFNS QST protocol (Rolke,
Magerl, et al., 2006)) is applied to the skin of the patient who is instructed to press a
button as soon as he/she feels a warm or cold sensation. The detection threshold is then
considered to be the temperature reached at the moment the patient pressed the button. The
method of limits has been known for a long time to be methodologically biased due to its
reliance on the reaction time (Yarnitsky & Ochoa, 1991), which lead to an overestimation of
the threshold value corresponding to the temperature change that occurred between detection
and it's signalling by a motor response. This is problematic as reaction times are under the
influence of decision and motor reaction response speeds which may be affected by factors
irrelevant to the assessment of sensory discrimination, such as cognitive or motor
impairments.
A methodologically sounder approach for threshold measurement is the method of levels or
constant stimuli (Kingdom & Prins, 2010). A number of preselected stimulus intensities are
presented a number of times in random order and the subject is asked whether he/she felt each
stimulus. Unlike the method of limits, this approach is not biased by decision speed and
motor function. Furthermore, this method enables the fitting of a psychometric function
(probability of detection as a function of stimulus intensity) to the results, therefore
moving thermal detection performance assessments from the outdated High Threshold Theory
framework to that of the currently leading Signal Detection Theory (Kingdom & Prins, 2010).
Whereas High Threshold Theory conceptualized detection as an ON/OFF process (below threshold,
no detection occurs, above threshold detection always occurs), Signal Detection Theory sees
detection as a probabilistic process (each stimulus intensity is associated with a
probability of detection). This theoretical framework implies to redefine the threshold as
the stimulus intensity for which detection probability equates 0.5. In addition to the
threshold, the psychometric function is also defined by its slope, i.e. the rate at which
detection probability changes around the value of the threshold. . Unfortunately, the method
of levels has some important drawbacks. First, it is time consuming as it requires collecting
responses to a large amount of stimuli (usually several hundreds) (Gescheider, 1997). Second,
the range of stimulus intensities must be approximately centered on the actual threshold
value and cover the transition range of detection probability.
To overcome these limitations, several adaptive procedures have been proposed. These
procedures actively adjust the intensity of the presented stimuli depending on the previous
responses of the subject (Kingdom & Prins, 2010). In the present study, we implemented for
the first time the Psi method (a Bayesian adaptive algorithm proposed by Kontsevich and Tyler
(1999)) to estimate the thresholds and slopes of the psychometric function for heat and cold
detection. This algorithm associates each potential values of slope and threshold with a
probability, updates this probability distribution based on the response recorded after each
stimulus presentation (detected/not detected), and selects the next stimulus intensity so
that the response to its presentation maximizes the entropy (i.e. the uncertainty around the
values of slope and threshold) reduction.
In this study, we will test healthy controls with the conventional method of limit and the
new psi method, in order to establish normative values for the new test.