![]() |
市场调查报告书
商品编码
1834131
糖尿病神经病变市场(按药物类别、给药途径、分销管道和最终用户划分)—全球预测,2025-2032 年Diabetic Neuropathy Market by Drug Class, Route Of Administration, Distribution Channel, End User - Global Forecast 2025-2032 |
||||||
※ 本网页内容可能与最新版本有所差异。详细情况请与我们联繫。
预计到 2032 年糖尿病神经病变市场将成长至 61.9 亿美元,复合年增长率为 6.57%。
| 主要市场统计数据 | |
|---|---|
| 基准年2024年 | 37.2亿美元 |
| 预计2025年 | 39.6亿美元 |
| 预测年份:2032年 | 61.9亿美元 |
| 复合年增长率(%) | 6.57% |
糖尿病神经病变是一种复杂且进行性的临床综合征,由长期高血糖和代谢异常引起,导致感觉、运动和自主神经神经病变,严重影响患者的生活品质。临床上,它以多种方式表现出来,从疼痛性远端对称性多发性神经病变到局部或多发性神经病变和自主神经功能障碍,每种情况都需要不同的诊断和治疗方法。从病理生理学角度来看,越来越多的证据显示微血管病变、粒线体功能障碍、氧化压力和慢性发炎是神经损伤的共同机制,从而刺激了各种研究议程,包括症状治疗、缓解疾病策略和精准治疗。从病理学系统的角度来看,症状和併发症的异质性使基于指南的护理变得复杂,助长了多重用药,并强调了结合药物治疗、介入治疗、康復和自我护理的多学科管理框架的重要性。
因此,仍有大量未满足的需求,包括具有可接受的安全性的更有效的止痛药、针对神经修復和再生的治疗方法、可用于分层风险和监测进展的诊断方法,以及减少碎片化同时提高依从性的护理模式。此外,人口结构的变化和某些人群中糖尿病盛行率的上升凸显了整合基层医疗、专科服务和以地区为基础支持的可扩展解决方案的迫切性。因此,当代情况是由临床复杂性、不断发展的治疗方法和系统级压力的交叉所塑造的,要求相关人员在短期症状控制与维持功能和减少併发症的长期策略之间取得平衡。在此背景下,策略规划必须优先考虑以患者为中心的结果、证据生成和灵活的商业化途径,以将科学进步转化为医疗服务的有意义的改进。
在科学进步、政策转变和患者期望不断变化等因素的推动下,糖尿病神经病变的治疗和护理服务领域正在经历一系列变革。在科学方面,对钠通道和神经发炎路径等分子标靶的重新关注,推动了旨在超越传统止痛药物的基于机制的干预措施的开发项目。同时,改进的标靶给药系统(例如外用贴片和经皮平台)正受到寻求有效缓解疼痛且全身副作用较少的临床医生的青睐,尤其是在患有多种疾病的老年人中。同时,数位疗法、远端监控和远端医疗模式正在改变症状追踪和多学科护理协调的方式,从而实现更积极的剂量滴定和依从性支持。
从商业性和监管角度来看,付款方越来越需要真实世界证据和基于价值的数据来支持报销,这促使製造商将观察性研究和实用性试验设计整合到后期开发中。采购和供应链策略也正在转向韧性和地域多元化,这反映了近期全球动盪中汲取的经验教训。医疗保健提供者的教育和更新的指南正在强化患者分层和阶梯式护理方法,为根据耐受性和反应性在抗惊厥药、SNRI、外用药和其他治疗类别之间切换创建清晰的路径。这些新兴市场的发展代表着从一刀切的症状治疗转向以患者为中心的生态系统,该生态系统将新型药理学与更好的药物传输、证据生成和价值展示相结合。
美国2025年实施的关税变化的累积影响正在波及整个供应链、筹资策略以及与糖尿病神经病变治疗及相关医疗设备相关的成本结构。依赖进口活性药物原料药和特殊辅料的製造商正面临重新评估其采购和生产足迹的压力,这加速了关于近岸外包、双重采购和增加库存缓衝的讨论。这些商业反应也影响着与付款人的价格协商以及与医院系统和大型药品福利管理机构的签约行为,因此需要製定更严格的成本抵销和价值展示策略。
除了直接的成本影响外,关税还促使企业重新评估产品系列和配方决策。企业正在优先考虑差异化的供应模式,利用国内製造能力和一体化供应网路来降低成本波动。法规环境也不断演变,监管机构加强了对关键成分来源的审查,并强化了生产变更的合规途径。临床上,某些药物供应可能出现延迟或中断,凸显了处方中的治疗方法重迭问题,以及临床实践指南在指导药物替代且不损害患者安全方面发挥的作用。
最后,关税主导的格局增强了製药公司、契约製造和专业药房之间伙伴关係的奖励,以确保医疗服务的连续性。相关人员也增加对药物经济模型和健康结果研究的投资,以证明减少下游併发症的治疗方法具有更广泛的系统价值,从而提升其在报销和采购谈判中的地位。综上所述,这些动态显示贸易政策如何透过研发、供应和临床可近性产生连锁反应,塑造整个糖尿病神经病变链的策略选择。
对患者亚群和商业管道的详细研究揭示了不同药物类别、给药途径、分销模式和护理环境之间的差异化机会和限制。按药物类别划分,Tapentadol和Gabapentin等鸦片类药物Pregabalin受到安全问题和加强指南建议的限制,限制了它们的长期使用。度洛西汀和文拉法辛等 SNRI 为患有共病情绪障碍的患者提供了一种替代选择。同时,三环抗忧郁药物,如阿米替林和去甲替林,虽然显示出疗效,但受到抗胆碱能作用和老年患者耐受性问题的阻碍。辣椒素和Lidocaine等外用製剂已成为局部疼痛管理的重要选择,具有良好的安全性,支持其在全身性治疗风险较高的患者群体中使用。
给药途径模式强调口服疗法在初始治疗中的主导地位,而局部和经皮疗法因标靶控制症状和减少全身暴露而日益受到青睐。肠外给药仍仅限于特定适应症和住院患者,但製剂和缓释性设计的进步可能扩大选择性使用。分销管道正透过远端医疗和电子处方向线上药局和居家医疗转变,而医院和零售药局则继续支持急慢性照护配药工作流程。终端使用者动态表明,诊所和医院对于诊断和治疗启动仍然很重要,而居家医疗环境和远端监控对于长期管理、依从性干预和復健服务变得越来越重要。总而言之,这些细分洞察凸显了製定产品策略的必要性,这些策略应将临床差异化与营运现实(例如途径选择、通路协作以及分散式护理环境的兴起)相结合。
美洲、欧洲、中东和非洲以及亚太地区的区域动态对治疗药物的可及性、监管途径和商业化策略产生了巨大影响。在美洲,先进的临床基础设施和主导的方案支持差异化治疗方法的快速应用,但农村和服务欠缺地区存在可及性差异,这促使人们关注远端医疗、远端监控和枢纽辐射式分销模式。该地区也高度重视真实世界证据和基于价值的合同,这会影响产品上市顺序和上市后证据规划。
欧洲、中东和非洲地区(EMEA)的医疗保健系统和报销环境各不相同,因此製造商必须采取适应性强的市场准入策略。西方市场通常需要高水准的比较有效性和卫生经济学数据,而中东和非洲各国的采购惯例和供应链可靠性差异庞大。监管协调和集中采购机制可以促进区域准入,但製造商必须应对不同的价格控制和处方集评估方法。
在亚太地区,快速创新中心和大量学名药生产的双重动力正在塑造需求和供应。受糖尿病盛行率上升和基层医疗能力不断提升的推动,该地区的新兴市场拥有巨大的成长潜力,但基础设施差距和监管复杂性阻碍了持续获得药物。同时,亚太地区的製造地为本地生产、伙伴关係和成本优化提供了策略机会,这些机会可用于支援全球分销策略。协调所有地区的临床证据产生、供应弹性和相关人员,对于将治疗方法进展转化为改善不同患者群体的疗效至关重要。
参与公司(包括品牌药製造商、学名药製造商、专科药房、医疗设备公司和数位医疗供应商)的关键企业策略揭示了围绕差异化、韧性和证据生成的共同主题。创新製药公司优先考虑基于机制的研发管线、下一代製剂和生命週期管理,并透过配方改进和新适应症来维持临床相关性。学名药製造商专注于规模化、成本优化以及在支持替代政策的地区快速进入市场,而专科组合药物和利基製剂公司则致力于满足患者对定制剂量或替代给药方法的需求。
除了这些製造环节,医疗设备和经皮平台开发商也经常与製药赞助商合作,共同开发旨在改善局部给药和耐受性的组合药物方案。数位医疗供应商和远端监控提供者也已成为策略合作伙伴,提供依从性支援、症状追踪工具和分散式检测能力,以增强临床证据包。这些公司正越来越多地参与策略联盟、授权协议和收购,以获取新技术、扩大地域覆盖范围并加快上市时间。为了取得成功,各公司正在开发早期整合药物经济学规划,投资于上市后监测和註册,并根据处方谈判的实际情况和在不同付款方环境中的价值展示,定製商业模式。
糖尿病神经病变价值链的领导者应采取多管齐下的策略,以解决临床差异化、供应弹性、支付方参与和以患者为中心的医疗服务。首先,优先开发和商业化针对性剂型,例如外用药和经皮製剂,这些剂型对老年人和併发症患者俱有明显的安全优势,同时探索基于神经发炎和离子通道生物学进展的新型机制候选药物。其次,透过多样化关键投入来源、尽可能投资本地製造能力以及正式製定紧急时应对计画以在贸易和物流中断时保持医疗服务的连续性来降低供应商。第三,建立强而有力的真实世界证据策略,将实用临床试验与註册数据和患者报告的结果相结合,以验证对支付方和医疗保健系统的价值提案。
此外,他们将透过调整定价和合约方式,使其与已证实的疗效保持一致,并在适当情况下试行基于价值的合约模式,从而强化其商业模式。他们将投资于临床医生和患者的教育,以提升处方的合理性和依从性,并利用数位平台实现远端监控和支援。最后,他们将与设备开发商、专业药房和数位治疗提供者建立策略联盟,提供兼顾症状控制和功能恢復的全面护理解决方案。透过严谨的计划管理和早期相关人员,执行这些优先事项,行业领导者可以改善患者治疗效果,同时建立永续的竞争优势。
本执行摘要所依据的研究采用了混合方法,旨在将定性见解与定量资料来源进行三角检验。主要研究包括对多学科临床医生、处方人员、专业药剂师和供应链高管进行结构化访谈,以了解处方行为、获取限制和采购优先顺序的现场观点。次要分析结合了同行评审文献、临床试验註册库、监管指南文件、专利申请和药物安全检测报告,以检验机制和安全性声明,并绘製不断变化的治疗格局。此外,还进行了卫生系统方案审查和指南评估,以了解护理标准的差异并确定临床关键节点。
资料合成采用主题编码和比较分析,以协调相关人员观点的差异,并进行敏感度检验,以考虑区域异质性和近期政策变化。在可能的情况下,采用纵向趋势分析来解释采用趋势和处方集动态。调查方法的局限性包括不同司法管辖区公开数据的差异性、监管行动与其营运影响之间的时间滞后,以及供应链政策的快速变化。为了克服这些局限性,我们与多位临床和供应链专家讨论了调查结果,以确认其相关性、有效性以及与决策环境的适用性。
总而言之,糖尿病神经病变领域正处于曲折点,其特征是机制理解更加深入,治疗模式更加多样化,以及对现实世界价值展示的期望日益提升。临床实践正转向更个人化的治疗途径,利用局部和标靶治疗来最大程度地降低系统性风险,而新型药理学方法则致力于解决潜在的神经生物学问题,而不仅仅是治疗症状。同时,政策和贸易发展凸显了供应弹性和适应性商业化策略的策略重要性,这些策略能够在不影响患者取得药物的情况下吸收衝击。
展望未来,成功整合可靠证据产生、灵活供应网络和以患者为中心的交付模式的相关人员将最有能力将科学创新转化为有意义的健康效益。製造商、付款人、医疗保健提供者和技术合作伙伴之间的协作对于协调激励措施、协调结果指标以及扩大改善症状控制和长期功能的解决方案至关重要。奖励,将临床严谨性与切合实际的营运规划相结合的平衡方法将使我们能够在应对糖尿病神经病变带来的复杂挑战方面取得永续的进展。
The Diabetic Neuropathy Market is projected to grow by USD 6.19 billion at a CAGR of 6.57% by 2032.
| KEY MARKET STATISTICS | |
|---|---|
| Base Year [2024] | USD 3.72 billion |
| Estimated Year [2025] | USD 3.96 billion |
| Forecast Year [2032] | USD 6.19 billion |
| CAGR (%) | 6.57% |
Diabetic neuropathy represents a complex and progressive set of clinical syndromes arising from long-term hyperglycemia and metabolic dysregulation, producing sensory, motor, and autonomic deficits that substantially impair patient quality of life. Clinically, presentations range from painful distal symmetric polyneuropathy to focal or multifocal neuropathies and autonomic dysfunction, each demanding distinct diagnostic vigilance and therapeutic approaches. Pathophysiologically, accumulating evidence implicates microvascular compromise, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and chronic inflammation as convergent mechanisms driving nerve injury, which in turn has stimulated a diverse research agenda spanning symptomatic relief, disease-modifying strategies, and precision approaches. From a health systems perspective, the heterogeneity of presentations and comorbidities complicates guideline-based care, contributes to polypharmacy, and elevates the importance of multidisciplinary management frameworks that combine pharmacologic, interventional, rehabilitative, and self-care modalities.
Consequently, unmet needs remain substantial: more effective analgesics with acceptable safety profiles; therapies addressing nerve repair and regeneration; accessible diagnostics to stratify risk and monitor progression; and models of care that reduce fragmentation while improving adherence. Furthermore, demographic shifts and rising prevalence of diabetes in certain populations underscore the urgency of scalable solutions that integrate primary care, specialty services, and community-based support. The contemporary landscape is therefore shaped by an intersection of clinical complexity, evolving therapeutic options, and system-level pressures, requiring stakeholders to balance short-term symptom control with long-term strategies to preserve function and reduce complications. In this context, strategic planning must prioritize patient-centered outcomes, evidence generation, and agile commercialization pathways to translate scientific advances into meaningful improvements in care delivery.
The therapeutic and delivery landscape for diabetic neuropathy has undergone a series of transformative shifts driven by scientific advances, policy changes, and evolving patient expectations. On the scientific front, renewed focus on molecular targets such as sodium channels and neuroinflammatory pathways has catalyzed development programs that move beyond traditional analgesics toward mechanism-based interventions. Simultaneously, reformulated and targeted delivery systems, including topical patches and transdermal platforms, have gained prominence as clinicians seek effective analgesia with fewer systemic adverse effects, particularly for older adults with multimorbidity. In parallel, digital therapeutics, remote monitoring, and telehealth-enabled models are changing how symptoms are tracked and how multidisciplinary care is coordinated, enabling more proactive titration and adherence support.
From a commercial and regulatory perspective, payers are increasingly demanding real-world evidence and value-based data to support reimbursement, prompting manufacturers to integrate observational studies and pragmatic trial designs into late-stage development. Procurement and supply chain strategies have also shifted toward resilience and regional diversification, reflecting lessons from recent global disruptions. Provider education and guideline updates have reinforced patient stratification and stepped-care approaches, creating clearer pathways for switching between anticonvulsants, SNRIs, topical agents, and other classes based on tolerability and response. Together, these developments signify a market transitioning from one-size-fits-all symptomatic care toward a more nuanced, patient-centered ecosystem that aligns novel pharmacology with smarter delivery, evidence generation, and value demonstration.
The cumulative impact of tariff changes instituted in 2025 within the United States has reverberated across supply chains, procurement strategies, and cost structures relevant to diabetic neuropathy therapies and associated medical devices. Manufacturers that rely on imported active pharmaceutical ingredients and specialized excipients have faced pressure to reassess sourcing and production footprints, accelerating conversations about nearshoring, dual sourcing, and increased inventory buffers. These operational responses have in turn influenced pricing negotiations with payers and contracting behavior with hospital systems and large pharmacy benefit managers, necessitating more rigorous cost-offset and value demonstration strategies.
In addition to direct cost implications, tariffs have prompted a reevaluation of product portfolios and formulation decisions. Companies have prioritized differentiated delivery formats that can mitigate cost volatility by leveraging domestic manufacturing capabilities or consolidated supply networks. The regulatory environment has adapted as well, with agencies intensifying scrutiny on the provenance of critical components and reinforcing compliance pathways for manufacturing changes. Clinically, potential delays or discontinuities in the availability of certain agents have underscored the importance of therapeutic redundancy in formularies and the role of clinical practice guidelines in guiding substitution without compromising patient safety.
Finally, the tariff-driven landscape has strengthened incentives for partnerships between pharmaceutical firms, contract manufacturers, and specialty pharmacies to ensure continuity of care. Stakeholders have also increased investment in pharmacoeconomic models and health outcomes research to demonstrate the broader system value of therapies that reduce downstream complications, thereby improving their positioning during reimbursement and procurement discussions. Collectively, these dynamics illustrate how trade policy can cascade through development, supply, and clinical access, shaping strategic choices across the diabetic neuropathy value chain.
A granular examination of patient subgroups and commercial channels reveals differentiated opportunities and constraints across drug classes, routes of administration, distribution models, and care settings. Within drug classes, anticonvulsants such as gabapentin and pregabalin continue to occupy a central role for neuropathic pain management due to established prescribing familiarity, while the opioid segment, including tapentadol and tramadol, remains constrained by safety concerns and tighter guideline recommendations that limit long-term use. SNRIs exemplified by duloxetine and venlafaxine offer alternatives for patients with comorbid mood disorders, whereas tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and nortriptyline present efficacy but are tempered by anticholinergic effects and tolerability issues in older patients. Topical agents like capsaicin and lidocaine have emerged as important options for localized pain with favorable safety profiles, supporting their use in populations at greater risk from systemic therapies.
Route-of-administration patterns underscore the predominance of oral therapies for initial management, with topical and transdermal options increasingly favored for targeted symptom control and reduced systemic exposure. Parenteral administration remains limited to specific indications and inpatient contexts, though evolving formulations and sustained-release designs may expand its selective use. Distribution channels reflect a growing migration toward online pharmacies and home delivery, enabled by telemedicine and electronic prescribing, while hospital and retail pharmacies continue to anchor acute and chronic dispensing workflows. End-user dynamics reveal that clinics and hospitals remain crucial for diagnosis and initiation of therapy, whereas home care settings and remote monitoring increasingly support long-term management, adherence interventions, and rehabilitation services. Taken together, these segmentation insights highlight the necessity for product strategies that align clinical differentiation with the operational realities of route selection, channel partnerships, and the rising prominence of decentralized care environments.
Regional dynamics exert a powerful influence on therapeutic access, regulatory pathways, and commercialization strategies across the Americas, Europe Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific. In the Americas, advanced clinical infrastructure and payer-driven formularies shape rapid adoption of differentiated therapies, but access disparities persist across rural and underserved communities, motivating greater emphasis on telehealth, remote monitoring, and hub-and-spoke distribution models. The region also places significant emphasis on real-world evidence and value-based contracting, which affects launch sequencing and post-launch evidence plans.
Within Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, heterogeneity across health systems and reimbursement environments requires adaptable market-entry approaches. Western European markets often demand high levels of comparative effectiveness and health economic data, while countries across the Middle East and Africa vary widely in procurement practices and supply chain reliability. Regulatory harmonization efforts and collaborative purchasing mechanisms can facilitate regional access, yet manufacturers must navigate diverse pricing controls and formulary evaluation methodologies.
In the Asia-Pacific region, a dual dynamic of rapid innovation hubs and large-volume generic manufacturing shapes both demand and supply. Emerging markets in this region present significant growth potential driven by increasing diabetes prevalence and expanding primary care capabilities, even as infrastructure gaps and regulatory complexity can complicate consistent access. At the same time, the Asia-Pacific manufacturing base offers strategic opportunities for localized production, partnerships, and cost optimization that can be leveraged to support global distribution strategies. Across all regions, aligning clinical evidence generation, supply resilience, and stakeholder engagement is essential to translate therapeutic advances into improved outcomes for diverse patient populations.
Key corporate strategies among participants spanning originator pharmaceutical firms, generic manufacturers, specialty compounding pharmacies, medical device makers, and digital health vendors reveal convergent themes around differentiation, resilience, and evidence generation. Innovative pharmaceutical companies are prioritizing mechanism-based pipelines, next-generation formulations, and lifecycle management through reformulations and new indications to maintain clinical relevance. Generic manufacturers focus on production scale, cost optimization, and rapid market entry in jurisdictions with accelerated substitution policies, while specialty compounding and niche formulators cater to patients requiring customized dosing or alternative delivery methods.
Alongside these manufacturing segments, medical device and transdermal platform developers are collaborating more frequently with pharmaceutical sponsors to co-develop combination products that improve local delivery and tolerability. Digital health vendors and remote monitoring providers have also become strategic partners, offering adherence support, symptom-tracking tools, and decentralized trial capabilities that augment clinical evidence packages. Collectively, companies are increasingly engaging in strategic alliances, licensing deals, and targeted acquisitions to access novel technologies, expand geographic reach, and accelerate time-to-market. To succeed, firms are integrating pharmacoeconomic planning early in development, investing in post-marketing surveillance and registries, and tailoring commercial models to the realities of formulary negotiation and value demonstration across diverse payer landscapes.
Leaders in the diabetic neuropathy value chain should adopt a multi-axis strategy that addresses clinical differentiation, supply resilience, payer engagement, and patient-centered delivery. First, prioritize development and commercialization of targeted delivery formats-such as topical and transdermal systems-that offer clear safety advantages for elderly and comorbid populations, while simultaneously exploring novel mechanism-based candidates born from advances in neuroinflammation and ion channel biology. Second, de-risk supply by diversifying sources for critical inputs, investing in regional manufacturing capacity where feasible, and formalizing contingency plans that maintain continuity of care during trade or logistical disruptions. Third, build robust real-world evidence strategies that pair pragmatic trials with registry data and patient-reported outcomes to substantiate value propositions for payers and health systems.
Furthermore, strengthen commercial models by aligning pricing and contracting approaches with demonstrated outcomes, and by piloting value-based agreements where appropriate. Invest in clinician and patient education to enhance appropriate prescribing and adherence, leveraging digital platforms to enable remote monitoring and support. Finally, form strategic alliances with device developers, specialty pharmacies, and digital therapeutics providers to deliver integrated care solutions that address both symptom control and functional recovery. By executing on these priorities with disciplined project management and early stakeholder engagement, industry leaders can improve patient outcomes while building sustainable competitive advantage.
The research underpinning this executive summary employed a mixed-methods approach designed to triangulate qualitative insights and quantitative data sources. Primary research comprised structured interviews with clinicians across specialties, formulary decision-makers, specialty pharmacists, and supply-chain executives to capture frontline perspectives on prescribing behavior, access constraints, and procurement priorities. Secondary analysis incorporated peer-reviewed literature, clinical trial registries, regulatory guidance documents, patent filings, and pharmacovigilance reports to validate mechanistic and safety claims and to map the evolving therapeutic landscape. In addition, health system protocol reviews and guideline assessments were conducted to understand standard-of-care variations and to identify points of clinical divergence.
Data synthesis utilized thematic coding and comparative analysis to reconcile differing stakeholder viewpoints, while sensitivity checks were applied to account for regional heterogeneity and recent policy changes. Where possible, longitudinal trend analysis informed interpretations of adoption curves and formulary dynamics. Limitations of the methodology include variability in publicly available data across jurisdictions, the lag between regulatory actions and their operational impact, and the rapidly changing nature of supply chain policies. To mitigate these constraints, findings were reviewed with multiple clinical experts and supply-chain specialists to ensure relevance, plausibility, and applicability to decision-making contexts.
In conclusion, the diabetic neuropathy landscape is at an inflection point characterized by deeper mechanistic understanding, diversification of therapeutic formats, and heightened expectations for real-world value demonstration. Clinical practice is shifting toward more individualized care pathways that leverage topical and targeted therapies to minimize systemic risk, while novel pharmacologic approaches seek to address underlying neurobiology rather than solely treating symptoms. At the same time, policy and trade developments have underscored the strategic importance of supply resilience and adaptive commercialization strategies that can absorb shocks without eroding patient access.
Looking ahead, stakeholders that successfully integrate robust evidence generation, flexible supply networks, and patient-centric delivery models will be best positioned to translate scientific innovations into meaningful health gains. Collaboration across manufacturers, payers, providers, and technology partners will be essential to harmonize incentives, align on outcome metrics, and scale solutions that improve both symptom control and long-term function. Ultimately, a balanced approach that couples clinical rigor with pragmatic operational planning will enable sustainable progress against the complex challenges posed by diabetic neuropathy.