Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Urine C-peptide Creatinine Ratio for the Correct Identification of the Type of Diabetes: A Systematic Review
Authors: Pappachan Joseph M ,   Department of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Preston, UK,   Faculty of Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK,   Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, Sunil Bhuvana ,   Division of Pediatric Endocrinology & Diabetes, Mary Bridge Children's Hospital, Tacoma, WA, USA, Fernandez Cornelius J ,   Department of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Pilgrim Hospital, Boston, UK, Lahart Ian M ,   Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing, University of Wolverhampton, Walsall, UK, Ashraf Ambika P ,   Division of Pediatric Endocrinology & Diabetes, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL USA
Published: July 2022

Objective: To examine the accuracy of urine c-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR) for identifying the type of diabetes in appropriate clinical settings. Design: Systematic review of test accuracy studies on patients with different forms of diabetes. Data sources: Medline, Embase and Cochrane library databases from 1 January 2000 to 15 November 2020. Eligibility criteria: Studies reporting the use of UCPCR for diagnosing patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and monogenic forms of diabetes (categorized as maturity-onset diabetes of the young [MODY]). Study selection and data synthesis: Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, with input from a third reviewer to reach consensus when there was a dispute. Meta-analysis was performed with the studies reporting complete data to derive the pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and narrative synthesis only for those with incomplete data. Results: Nine studies with 4,488 patients were included in the qualitative synthesis, while only four of these (915 patients) had complete data and were included in the quantitative synthesis. All the studies had moderate risk of bias and applicability concerns. Meta-analysis of three studies (n=130) revealed sensitivity, specificity and DOR of 84.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.1–93.2%), 91.6% (82.8–96.1%) and 59.9 (32.8–106.0), respectively, for diagnosing T1DM using a UCPCR cut-off of <0.2 nmol/mmol. For participants with T2DM (three studies; n=739), UCPCR >0.2 nmol/mmol was associated with sensitivity, specificity and DOR of 92.8% (84.2–96.9%), 81.6% (61.3–92.5%) and 56.9 (31.3–103.5), respectively. For patients with MODY in the appropriate clinical setting, a UCPCR cut-off of >0.2 nmol/mmol showed sensitivity, specificity and DOR of 85.2% (73.1–92.4%), 98.0% (92.4–99.5%) and 281.8 (57.5–1,379.7), respectively. Conclusions: Based on studies with moderate risk of bias and applicability concerns, UCPCR confers moderate to high sensitivity, specificity, and DOR for correctly identifying T1DM, T2DM and monogenic diabetes in appropriate clinical settings. Large multinational studies with multi-ethnic participation among different age groups are necessary before this test can be routinely used in clinical practice. Study registration: Protocol was registered as PROSPERO CRD42017060633.