4.3 Article

Low levels of C-peptide have clinical significance for established Type 1 diabetes

Journal

DIABETIC MEDICINE
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 1346-1353

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dme.12850

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Iacocca Foundation
  2. NIH BADRC [P30 DK057521]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To determine whether the low C-peptide levels (< 50 pmol/l) produced by the pancreas for decades after onset of Type 1 diabetes have clinical significance. Methods We evaluated fasting C-peptide levels, duration of disease and age of onset in a large cross-sectional series (n = 1272) of people with Type 1 diabetes. We then expanded the scope of the study to include the relationship between C-peptide and HbA(1c) control (n = 1273), as well as diabetic complications (n = 324) and presence of hypoglycaemia (n = 323). The full range of C-peptide levels was also compared with 1,5-Anhydroglucitol, a glucose responsive marker. Results C-peptide levels declined for decades after diagnosis, and the rate of decline was significantly related to age of onset (P < 0.0001), after adjusting for disease duration. C-peptide levels > 10 pmol/l were associated with protection from complications (e. g. nephropathy, neuropathy, foot ulcers and retinopathy; P = 0.03). Low C-peptide levels were associated with poor metabolic control measured by HbA(1c) (P < 0.0001). Severe hypoglycaemia was associated with the lowest C-peptide levels compared with mild (P = 0.049) or moderate (P = 0.04) hypoglycaemia. All levels of measurable C-peptide were responsive to acute fluctuations in blood glucose levels as assessed by 1,5-Anhydroglucitol (P < 0.0001). Conclusions Low C-peptide levels have clinical significance and appear helpful in characterizing groups at-risk for faster C-peptide decline, complications, poorer metabolic control and severe hypoglycaemia. Low C-peptide levels may be a biomarker for characterizing at-risk patients with Type 1 diabetes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available