Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observational study shows insulin resistance linked to C-peptide and long-term outcomes in diabetes types.
Residual β-cell secretory function plays a central role in diabetes pathophysiology; however, long-term comparative data describing β-cell trajectories from diagnosis across diabetes phenotypes remain limited. In this prospective observational study, 393 adults with newly diagnosed diabetes underwent assessment of fasting and glucagon-stimulated C-peptide at diagnosis. The cohort included individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), encompassing both classical adult-onset autoimmune diabetes and latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA), as well as individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A subgroup of 89 participants underwent follow-up visit after a mean of seven years. Glucagon stimulation testing was not repeated at follow-up in patients with T1DM and LADA for clinical and safety reasons; therefore, longitudinal analyses in these groups are based on fasting C-peptide measurements. At diagnosis, fasting and glucagon-stimulated C-peptide concentrations differed markedly between phenotypes (median fasting C-peptide: 0.87 ng/mL in T1DM, 1.53 ng/mL in LADA, and 2.64 ng/mL in T2DM; stimulated C-peptide: 1.35, 1.86, and 4.60 ng/mL, respectively; all p < 0.001). During follow-up, patients with T1DM exhibited a pronounced decline in fasting C-peptide (from 0.95 to 0.10 ng/mL), whereas individuals with T2DM showed preserved or increased stimulated responses (from 4.37 to 5.46 ng/mL). Participants with LADA displayed intermediate baseline values and a gradual decline in fasting C-peptide (from 1.41 to 0.31 ng/mL). Higher baseline C-peptide concentrations were associated with more favourable long-term metabolic profiles, including lower insulin resistance and better glycaemic control. These findings demonstrate that the early dynamic assessment of β-cell reserve using the glucagon stimulation test complements fasting C-peptide by revealing biologically meaningful heterogeneity in disease trajectories, thereby refining phenotypic classification and prognostic stratification at the time of diabetes diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maciulewski et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: