4.7 Article

Impact of C-Peptide Preservation on Metabolic and Clinical Outcomes in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial

Journal

DIABETES
Volume 63, Issue 2, Pages 739-748

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db13-0881

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Division of Diabetes Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  2. National Eye Institute
  3. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
  4. Genetic Clinical Research Centers Program
  5. Clinical Translational Science Center Program, Bethesda, MD

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial established that a stimulated C-peptide concentration 0.2 nmol/L at study entry among subjects with up to a 5-year diabetes duration is associated with favorable metabolic and clinical outcomes over the subsequent 7 years of follow-up. Herein we further examine the association of both fasting and stimulated C-peptide numerical values with outcomes. In the intensive treatment group, for a 50% higher stimulated C-peptide on entry, such as from 0.10 to 0.15 nmol/L, HbA(1c) decreased by 0.07% (0.8 mmol/mol; P = 0.0003), insulin dose decreased by 0.0276 units/kg/day (P < 0.0001), hypoglycemia risk decreased by 8.2% (P < 0.0001), and the risk of sustained retinopathy was reduced by 25% (P = 0.0010), all in unadjusted analyses. Other than HbA(1c), these effects remained significant after adjusting for the HbA(1c) on entry. While C-peptide was not significantly associated with the incidence of nephropathy, it was strongly associated with the albumin excretion rate. The fasting C-peptide had weaker associations with outcomes. As C-peptide decreased to nonmeasurable concentrations, the outcomes changed in a nearly linear manner, with no threshold or breakpoint. While preservation of stimulated C-peptide at 0.2 nmol/L has clinically beneficial outcomes, so also does an increase in the concentration of C-peptide across the range of values.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available