Practical Classification Guidelines for Diabetes in patients treated with insulin: a cross-sectional study of the accuracy of diabetes diagnosis
- PMID: 27080317
- PMCID: PMC4838443
- DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X684961
Practical Classification Guidelines for Diabetes in patients treated with insulin: a cross-sectional study of the accuracy of diabetes diagnosis
Abstract
Background: Differentiating between type 1 and type 2 diabetes is fundamental to ensuring appropriate management of patients, but can be challenging, especially when treating with insulin. The 2010 UK Practical Classification Guidelines for Diabetes were developed to help make the differentiation.
Aim: To assess diagnostic accuracy of the UK guidelines against 'gold standard' definitions of type 1 and type 2 diabetes based on measured C-peptide levels.
Design and setting: In total, 601 adults with insulin-treated diabetes and diabetes duration ≥5 years were recruited in Devon, Northamptonshire, and Leicestershire.
Method: Baseline information and home urine sample were collected. Urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR) measures endogenous insulin production. Gold standard type 1 diabetes was defined as continuous insulin treatment within 3 years of diagnosis and absolute insulin deficiency (UCPCR<0.2 nmol/mmol ≥5 years post-diagnosis); all others classed as having type 2 diabetes. Diagnostic performance of the clinical criteria was assessed and other criteria explored using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
Results: UK guidelines correctly classified 86% of participants. Most misclassifications occurred in patients classed as having type 1 diabetes who had significant endogenous insulin levels (57 out of 601; 9%); most in those diagnosed ≥35 years and treated with insulin from diagnosis, where 37 out of 66 (56%) were misclassified. Time to insulin and age at diagnosis performed best in predicting long-term endogenous insulin production (ROC AUC = 0.904 and 0.871); BMI was a less strong predictor of diabetes type (AUC = 0.824).
Conclusion: Current UK guidelines provide a pragmatic clinical approach to classification reflecting long-term endogenous insulin production; caution is needed in older patients commencing insulin from diagnosis, where misclassification rates are increased.
Keywords: C-peptide; diabetes mellitus; general practice; insulin-treated diabetes; type 1/type 2 classification; type 1/type 2 diagnosis.
© British Journal of General Practice 2016.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio is a practical outpatient tool for identifying hepatocyte nuclear factor 1-{alpha}/hepatocyte nuclear factor 4-{alpha} maturity-onset diabetes of the young from long-duration type 1 diabetes.Diabetes Care. 2011 Feb;34(2):286-91. doi: 10.2337/dc10-1293. Diabetes Care. 2011. PMID: 21270186 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Clinical Implications of Urinary C-Peptide Creatinine Ratio in Patients with Different Types of Diabetes.J Diabetes Res. 2019 Aug 7;2019:1747684. doi: 10.1155/2019/1747684. eCollection 2019. J Diabetes Res. 2019. PMID: 31485449 Free PMC article.
-
Urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio to differentiate type 2 diabetes mellitus from type 1 in pediatric patients.Eur J Pediatr. 2020 Jul;179(7):1115-1120. doi: 10.1007/s00431-020-03606-7. Epub 2020 Feb 13. Eur J Pediatr. 2020. PMID: 32052124 Clinical Trial.
-
Can clinical features be used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes? A systematic review of the literature.BMJ Open. 2015 Nov 2;5(11):e009088. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009088. BMJ Open. 2015. PMID: 26525723 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The clinical utility of C-peptide measurement in the care of patients with diabetes.Diabet Med. 2013 Jul;30(7):803-17. doi: 10.1111/dme.12159. Diabet Med. 2013. PMID: 23413806 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Development and validation of multivariable clinical diagnostic models to identify type 1 diabetes requiring rapid insulin therapy in adults aged 18-50 years.BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 26;9(9):e031586. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031586. BMJ Open. 2019. PMID: 31558459 Free PMC article.
-
Reclassification of type 2 diabetes to type 1 diabetes in Asturias (Spain) between 2011 and 2020.Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2023 May 3;15(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s13098-023-01069-y. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2023. PMID: 37138364 Free PMC article.
-
Systematic Review of Polygenic Risk Scores for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Mar 2;21(5):1703. doi: 10.3390/ijms21051703. Int J Mol Sci. 2020. PMID: 32131491 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical features of childhood diabetes mellitus focusing on latent autoimmune diabetes.Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Dec;21(4):212-218. doi: 10.6065/apem.2016.21.4.212. Epub 2016 Dec 31. Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2016. PMID: 28164074 Free PMC article.
-
2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.Diabetes Care. 2024 Jan 1;47(Suppl 1):S20-S42. doi: 10.2337/dc24-S002. Diabetes Care. 2024. PMID: 38078589 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Diabetes in adults. 2011. NICE quality standard [QS6]. http://nice.org.uk/qs6 (accessed 1 Feb 2016).
-
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . Diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes in children, young people and adults. London: NICE; 2004.
-
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . Type 2 diabetes: the management of type 2 diabetes. London: NICE; 2009.
-
- Royal College of General Practitioners. NHS Diabetes Coding, classification and diagnosis of diabetes A review of the coding, classification and diagnosis of diabetes in primary care in England with recommendations for improvement. 2011. http://www.sdrn.org.uk/sites/sdrn.org.uk/files/nhs%20diagnosis%20classif... (accessed 14 Mar 2016).
-
- Farmer A, Fox R. Diagnosis, classification, and treatment of diabetes. BMJ. 2011;342:d3319. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical