Abstract

Introduction Urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR) is used as a marker of endogenous insulin secretion. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of UCPCR for distinguishing between type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and non-T1DM (monogenic diabetes and T2DM) and predicting therapeutic choices in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients. Methods Twenty-three patients with genetically confirmed monogenic diabetes (median age 35.0 years (interquartile range 30.0-47.0), 13 (56.5%) men), 56 patients with T1DM (median age 46.0 years (interquartile range 26.5-59.5), 28 (50.0%) men), 136 patients with T2DM (median age 53.0 years (interquartile range 42.0-60.0), 87 (64.0%) men), and 59 healthy subjects (median age 36.0 years (30.0-42.0), 26 (44.1%) men) were included. UCPCR was collected in the morning. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to identify optimal UCPCR cut-off values to differentiate T1DM from non-T1DM. This UCPCR cut-off was used to divide T2DM patients into two groups, and the two groups were compared. Results The UCPCR was lower in patients with T1DM compared with T2DM, monogenic diabetes, and healthy subjects, while the UCPCR was similar in T2DM and monogenic diabetes. A UCPCR cut-off of ≥0.21 nmol/mmol distinguished between monogenic diabetes and T1DM (area under the curve [AUC], 0.949) with 87% sensitivity and 93% specificity. UCPCR ≥ 0.20 nmol/mmol had 82% sensitivity and 93% specificity for distinguishing between T2DM and T1DM, with an AUC of 0.932. UCPCR was not reliable for distinguishing between monogenic diabetes and T2DM (AUC, 0.605). Twenty-five of 136 (18.4%) T2DM patients had UCPCR ≤ 0.20 nmol/mmol. Compared with T2DM patients with a UCPCR > 0.20 nmol/mmol, T2DM patients with UCPCR ≤ 0.20 nmol/mmol had a lower serum C-peptide (fasting C-peptide, 0.39 nmol/L vs. 0.66 nmol/L, P < 0.001; postprandial C-peptide, 0.93 nmol/L vs. 1.55 nmol/L, P < 0.001), lower BMI (22.8 kg/m2 vs. 25.2 kg/m2, P = 0.006), and higher percentage of insulin or secretagogue therapy (92.0% vs. 59.5%, P = 0.002). Conclusions UCPCR is a practical and noninvasive marker that can distinguish between TIDM and T2DM or monogenic diabetes. UCPCR ≤ 0.20 nmol/mmol reflects severe impaired beta cell function and the need for insulin or secretagogue therapy in T2DM patients.

Highlights

  • Urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR) is used as a marker of endogenous insulin secretion

  • We aimed to assess whether UCPCR can distinguish between T1DM and monogenic diabetes, including hepatocyte nuclear factor 1-α maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY3), mitochondrial diabetes (MIDD), and T2DM, and to determine whether UCPCR is a useful tool for predicting therapeutic choices in T2DM patients in a Chinese population

  • Characteristics of patients with monogenic diabetes, T1DM, T2DM, or healthy subjects were compared using a chi-squared test for categorical data, and the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables for data that were not normally distributed (age at diagnosis, diabetes duration, FCP, postprandial C-peptide (PCP), TG, and UCPCR) were used

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR) is used as a marker of endogenous insulin secretion. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to identify optimal UCPCR cut-off values to differentiate T1DM from non-T1DM. This UCPCR cut-off was used to divide T2DM patients into two groups, and the two groups were compared. A UCPCR cut-off of ≥0.21 nmol/mmol distinguished between monogenic diabetes and T1DM (area under the curve [AUC], 0.949) with 87% sensitivity and 93% specificity. UCPCR ≥ 0 20 nmol/mmol had 82% sensitivity and 93% specificity for distinguishing between T2DM and T1DM, with an AUC of 0.932. UCPCR was not reliable for distinguishing between monogenic diabetes and T2DM (AUC, 0.605). UCPCR ≤ 0 20 nmol/mmol reflects severe impaired beta cell function and the need for insulin or secretagogue therapy in T2DM patients. MODY can be confused with T1DM because of the early onset age of diabetes and lack of obesity

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call