AIMS: Serum C-peptide measurement can assist clinical management of diabetes, but practicalities of collection limit widespread use. Urine C-peptide creatinine ratio may be a non-invasive practical alternative. The stability of C-peptide in urine allows outpatient or community testing. We aimed to assess how urine C-peptide creatinine ratio compared with serum C-peptide measurement during a mixed-meal tolerance test in individuals with late-onset, insulin-treated diabetes. METHODS: We correlated the gold standard of a stimulated serum C-peptide in a mixed-meal tolerance test with fasting and stimulated (mixed-meal tolerance test, standard home meal and largest home meal) urine C-peptide creatinine ratio in 51 subjects with insulin-treated diabetes (diagnosis after age 30 years, median age 66 years, median age at diagnosis 54, 42 with Type 2 diabetes, estimated glomerular filtration rate > 60 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2) ). RESULTS: Ninety-minute mixed-meal tolerance test serum C-peptide is correlated with mixed-meal tolerance test-stimulated urine C-peptide creatinine ratio (r = 0.82), urine C-peptide creatinine ratio after a standard breakfast at home (r = 0.73) and urine C-peptide creatinine ratio after largest home meal (r = 0.71). A stimulated (largest home meal) urine C-peptide creatinine ratio cut-off of 0.3 nmol/mmol had a 100% sensitivity and 96% specificity (area under receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.99) in identifying subjects without clinically significant endogenous insulin secretion (mixed-meal tolerance test-stimulated C-peptide < 0.2 nmol/l). In detecting a proposed serum C-peptide threshold for insulin requirement (stimulated serum C-peptide < 0.6 nmol/l), a stimulated (largest home meal) urine C-peptide creatinine ratio cut-off of 0.6 nmol/mmol had a sensitivity and specificity of 92%. CONCLUSION: In patients with insulin-treated diabetes diagnosed after age 30 years, urine C-peptide creatinine ratio is well correlated with serum C-peptide and may provide a practical alternative measure to detect insulin deficiency for use in routine clinical practice.
AIMS: Serum C-peptide measurement can assist clinical management of diabetes, but practicalities of collection limit widespread use. Urine C-peptidecreatinine ratio may be a non-invasive practical alternative. The stability of C-peptide in urine allows outpatient or community testing. We aimed to assess how urine C-peptidecreatinine ratio compared with serum C-peptide measurement during a mixed-meal tolerance test in individuals with late-onset, insulin-treated diabetes. METHODS: We correlated the gold standard of a stimulated serum C-peptide in a mixed-meal tolerance test with fasting and stimulated (mixed-meal tolerance test, standard home meal and largest home meal) urine C-peptidecreatinine ratio in 51 subjects with insulin-treated diabetes (diagnosis after age 30 years, median age 66 years, median age at diagnosis 54, 42 with Type 2 diabetes, estimated glomerular filtration rate > 60 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2) ). RESULTS: Ninety-minute mixed-meal tolerance test serum C-peptide is correlated with mixed-meal tolerance test-stimulated urine C-peptidecreatinine ratio (r = 0.82), urine C-peptidecreatinine ratio after a standard breakfast at home (r = 0.73) and urine C-peptidecreatinine ratio after largest home meal (r = 0.71). A stimulated (largest home meal) urine C-peptidecreatinine ratio cut-off of 0.3 nmol/mmol had a 100% sensitivity and 96% specificity (area under receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.99) in identifying subjects without clinically significant endogenous insulin secretion (mixed-meal tolerance test-stimulated C-peptide < 0.2 nmol/l). In detecting a proposed serum C-peptide threshold for insulin requirement (stimulated serum C-peptide < 0.6 nmol/l), a stimulated (largest home meal) urine C-peptidecreatinine ratio cut-off of 0.6 nmol/mmol had a sensitivity and specificity of 92%. CONCLUSION: In patients with insulin-treated diabetes diagnosed after age 30 years, urine C-peptidecreatinine ratio is well correlated with serum C-peptide and may provide a practical alternative measure to detect insulin deficiency for use in routine clinical practice.
Authors: Richard A Oram; Timothy J McDonald; Beverley M Shields; Michelle M Hudson; Maggie H Shepherd; Suzanne Hammersley; Ewan R Pearson; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Angus G Jones; Rachel Ej Besser; Beverley M Shields; Timothy J McDonald; Suzy V Hope; Bridget A Knight; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2012-06-08 Impact factor: 2.763
Authors: Richard A Oram; Andrew Rawlingson; Beverley M Shields; Coralie Bingham; Rachel E J Besser; Tim J McDonald; Bridget A Knight; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Richard A Oram; Angus G Jones; Rachel E J Besser; Bridget A Knight; Beverley M Shields; Richard J Brown; Andrew T Hattersley; Timothy J McDonald Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: John M Dennis; Beverley M Shields; Anita V Hill; Bridget A Knight; Timothy J McDonald; Lauren R Rodgers; Michael N Weedon; William E Henley; Naveed Sattar; Rury R Holman; Ewan R Pearson; Andrew T Hattersley; Angus G Jones Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Angus G Jones; Timothy J McDonald; Beverley M Shields; Anita V Hill; Christopher J Hyde; Bridget A Knight; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 19.112