Three clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of the aldose reductase inhibitor sorbinil in improving or preventing diabetic neural function have either been completed or are currently in progress. In the first study from Seattle and Chicago, motor and sensory nerve conduction velocities (NCV) were evaluated in 39 insulin- and noninsulin-dependent, glycemic-stable diabetic patients in a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. During the 9 weeks of treatment with 250 mg/d of sorbinil, there was a faster nerve conduction velocity of all 3 nerves tested when compared with the placebo period: peroneal motor NCV (+0.70 ± 0.24 m/s; x ± SEM; P < 0.008), median motor NCV (+0.66 ± 0.27 m/s; P < 0.005), and median sensory NCV (+1.16 ± 0.50 m/s; P < 0.035). Conduction velocity for all 3 nerves declined significantly within 3 weeks following cessation of the drug. These effects of sorbinil were unrelated to glycemic control, which was constant during the study. Although the effects of sorbinil in improving nerve conduction velocity were small, the findings suggest that the polyol-pathway activity contributes to slowed nerve conduction velocity in diabetics. The second study is a seven-center, double-blind, randomized, 12-month trial of 210 to 280 diabetic patients with clinical signs, symptoms, and objective measurements of neuropathy. The trial has a common-core protocol with end-point evaluations of scored neural signs, symptoms, and neural measurements. Two unique neural tests were designed and validated for use in this trial: thermal and tactile perception thresholds of the fingers and toes. Thresholds were determined using a two-alternative, forced-choice procedure on the Opticon Tactile Tester and Thermal Sensitivity Tester. Data analysis showed that there was no significant difference as a result of gender, dominant v nondominant side, age, digit temperature, room temperature, presence of heavy callouses, or technologists. In validation studies, diabetics without clinical evidence (history and examination) of diabetic neuropathy were not significantly different from normals, but diabetics with clinical evidence of diabetic neuropathy had elevated finger and toe thermal and tactile perception thresholds (all P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the test results from normals from each of the seven centers. Thus, these tests were well suited for multicenter trials. Special protocols in each of the seven centers allowed for a broad spectrum of ancillary studies including the following: evaluation of autonomic nervous system integrity, white blood cell sorbitol and myo-inositol levels, impotence evaluation, single-fiber electromyography, sural nerve biopsy, and sensory evoked potentials. This trial is designed to address the question of whether sorbinil could improve diabetic neuropathy. Using the core protocol and the special studies for each center, a wide spectrum of neurologic end-points are evaluated in a bouble-blind fashion. The third protocol is a 12-center, double-blind, randomized, 212-year study of 600 to 720 diabetic patients with minimal or no diabetic complications. There is a common-core protocol with end-point measures of retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy. This trial is unique in that (1) the placebo data adds valuable information into the natural history of diabetic complications, and (2) there is a unique collaborative arrangement between the national Institutes of Health and a pharmaceutical company, representing a first of its kind. This trial is designed to address the question of whether sorbinil could prevent diabetic complications (the primary end-point is retinopathy; the secondary end-points are nephropathy and neuropathy). In summary, these three trials are landmark trials representing advances in the basic pathophysiology of diabetic neuropathy, resulting in the development of new clinical tools and establishing a precedence for collaboration in important clinical trials.