Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Endocrinol.

Sec. Clinical Diabetes

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1687920

Urinary C-peptide Creatinine Ratio as a Non-invasive Diagnostic Tool for Differentiating Type 1 from Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Adult Emirati Population: A Prospective Validation Study

Provisionally accepted
Fayez  AlshamsiFayez Alshamsi1Adnan  AghaAdnan Agha1*Afrin  PathanAfrin Pathan1JAVED  YASIN PATHANJAVED YASIN PATHAN1CHARU  SHARMACHARU SHARMA1Hussain  Abdalla Khalil Mirza AlshemsiHussain Abdalla Khalil Mirza Alshemsi1Abdelrahman  Sulaiman Mirak AlblooshiAbdelrahman Sulaiman Mirak Alblooshi1Mohamed  Abdulkareem Ali  Alhamar AlAwadhiMohamed Abdulkareem Ali Alhamar AlAwadhi1Ahmad  Abdulrazak Kasim AlaliAhmad Abdulrazak Kasim Alali1Maitha  Ali Rashed AlkuwaitiMaitha Ali Rashed Alkuwaiti1Bachar  AfandiBachar Afandi2Juma  M AlkaabiJuma M Alkaabi1
  • 1United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates
  • 2Tawam Hospital, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Aims: The precise differentiation between Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can be challenging in clinical practice, particularly in adults. We aimed to validate the diagnostic accuracy and performance of urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR) for distinguishing T1DM from T2DM in the Emirati population. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study included 79 patients with diabetes (19 T1DM, 60 T2DM) from Tawam Hospital Diabetes Center, UAE. Post-prandial urine samples were collected for UCPCR measurement using chemiluminescent immunoassay. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis determined optimal cut-offs. Multivariable logistic regression and cost-comparison analyses were performed. Results: Mean UCPCR was significantly lower in T1DM compared to T2DM (0.29 ± 0.64 vs 1.44 ± 1.82 nmol/mmol, p<0.001). ROC analysis revealed that a UCPCR cut-off of <0.25 nmol/mmol achieved 100% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity for T1DM diagnosis (AUC 0.991, 95% CI: 0.978-1.000). In patients with diabetes duration <5 years, UCPCR maintained excellent discrimination (AUC 0.988, sensitivity 100%, specificity 91.7%). However, specificity declined in patients with a diabetes duration of >10 years (82.4%), with 15% of these longstanding T2DM patients exhibiting UCPCR values <0.25 nmol/mmol, reflecting progressive beta-cell decline. Multivariable regression identified UCPCR (OR 0.001; 95% CI: 0.000–0.012; p<0.001) as the strongest independent predictor of T1DM. Cost-comparison analysis demonstrated > 90% cost reduction compared with serum C-peptide or autoantibody panels. Conclusions: UCPCR <0.25 nmol/mmol accurately identifies T1DM in the Emirati population. This cost-effective, non-invasive test could improve clinical practice through enhanced diagnostic accuracy and reduced healthcare costs.

Keywords: Urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio, type 1 diabetes mellitus, type 2 diabetes mellitus, Diagnostic accuracy, Beta-cell function, biomarker, Cost-Effectiveness

Received: 18 Aug 2025; Accepted: 01 Oct 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Alshamsi, Agha, Pathan, YASIN PATHAN, SHARMA, Alshemsi, Alblooshi, AlAwadhi, Alali, Alkuwaiti, Afandi and Alkaabi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Adnan Agha, adnanagha@uaeu.ac.ae

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.