Annals of Laboratory Medicine

Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine (대한진단검사의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical Utility and Cross-Reactivity of Insulin and C-Peptide Assays by the Lumipulse G1200 System

  • Oh, Jongwon (Department of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Jae Hyeon (Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Hyung-Doo (Department of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2017.11.16
  • Accepted : 2018.07.09
  • Published : 2018.11.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Measurement of insulin and C-peptide concentrations is important for deciding whether insulin treatment is required in diabetic patients. We aimed to investigate the analytical performance of insulin and C-peptide assays using the Lumipulse G1200 system (Fujirebio Inc., Tokyo, Japan). Methods: We examined the precision, linearity, and cross-reactivity of insulin and C-peptide using five insulin analogues and purified proinsulin. A method comparison was conducted between the Lumipulse G1200 and Roche E170 (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) systems in 200 diabetic patients on insulin treatment. Reference intervals for insulin and C-peptide concentrations were determined in 279 healthy individuals. Results: For insulin and C-peptide assays, within-laboratory precision (% CV) was 3.78-4.14 and 2.89-3.35%, respectively. The linearity of the insulin assay in the range of 0-2,778 pmol/L was $R^2=0.9997$, and that of the C-peptide assay in the range of 0-10 nmol/L was $R^2=0.9996$. The correlation coefficient (r) between the Roche E170 and Lumipulse G1200 results was 0.943 (P <0.001) for insulin and 0.996 (P <0.001) for C-peptide. The mean differences in insulin and C-peptide between Lumipulse G1200 and the Roche E170 were 19.4 pmol/L and 0.2 nmol/L, respectively. None of the insulin analogues or proinsulin showed significant cross-reactivity with the Lumipulse G1200. Reference intervals of insulin and C-peptide were 7.64-70.14 pmol/L and 0.17-0.85 nmol/L, respectively. Conclusions: Insulin and C-peptide tests on the Lumipulse G1200 show adequate analytical performance and are expected to be acceptable for use in clinical areas.

Keywords

References

  1. Guariguata L, Whiting DR, Hambleton I, Beagley J, Linnenkamp U, Shaw JE. Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2013 and projections for 2035. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2014;103:137-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2013.11.002
  2. Kim SY. It's still not too late to make a change: current status of glycemic control in Korea. Diabetes Metab J 2014;38:194-6. https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2014.38.3.194
  3. Song SO, Song YD, Nam JY, Park KH, Yoon J-H, Son K-M, et al. Epidemiology of type 1 diabetes mellitus in Korea through an investigation of the national registration project of type 1 diabetes for the reimbursement of glucometer strips with additional analyses using claims data. Diabet Metab J 2016;40:35-45. https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2016.40.1.35
  4. American Diabetes Association. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2016;39(S1):S13-22. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-S005
  5. Jones AG and Hattersley AT. The clinical utility of C-peptide measurement in the care of patients with diabetes. Diabet Med 2013;30:803-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.12159
  6. Oram RA, Patel K, Hill A, Shields B, McDonald TJ, Jones A, et al. A type 1 diabetes genetic risk score can aid discrimination between type 1 and type 2 diabetes in young adults. Diabetes Care 2016;39:337-44. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc15-1111
  7. Clark PM. Assays for insulin, proinsulin(s) and C-peptide. Ann Clin Biochem 1999;36(Pt 5):541-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/000456329903600501
  8. Marcovina S, Bowsher RR, Miller WG, Staten M, Myers G, Caudill SP, et al. Standardization of insulin immunoassays: report of the American Diabetes Association Workgroup. Clin Chem 2007;53:711-6. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2006.082214
  9. Jones AG, Besser RE, Shields BM, McDonald TJ, Hope SV, Knight BA, et al. Assessment of endogenous insulin secretion in insulin treated diabetes predicts postprandial glucose and treatment response to prandial insulin. BMC Endocr Disord 2012;12:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6823-12-6
  10. Dayaldasani A, Rodriguez Espinosa M, Ocon Sanchez P, Perez Valero V. Cross-reactivity of insulin analogues with three insulin assays. Ann Clin Biochem 2015;52:312-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563214551613
  11. Heald A, Bhattacharya B, Cooper H, Ullah A, McCulloch A, Smellie S, et al. Most commercial insulin assays fail to detect recombinant insulin analogues. Ann Clin Biochem 2006;43:306-8. https://doi.org/10.1258/000456306777695690
  12. Sapin R. Insulin assays: previously known and new analytical features. Clin Lab 2003;49:113-21.
  13. Nakahara Y, Kiya A, Uchida T, Uno J, Maeda A. Comparative study of three blood insulin measuring reagents with different measurement principles. Okayama J Med Technol 2015;51:1-6.
  14. Nalbantoglu Elmas O, Demir K, Soylu N, Celik N, Ozkan B. Importance of insulin immunoassays in the diagnosis of factitious hypoglycemia. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 2014;6:258-61. https://doi.org/10.4274/jcrpe.1492
  15. CLSI. Evaluation of precision of quantitative measurement procedures; approved guideline. 3rd ed. CLSI EP05-A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2014.
  16. CLSI. Evaluation of the linearity of quantitative measurement procedures: A statistical approach; approved guideline. CLSI EP06-A. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2003.
  17. CLSI. Method comparison and bias estimation using patient samples; approved guideline. 2nd ed. (Interim Revision). CLSI EP09-A2-IR. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2013.
  18. CLSI. Defining, establishing, and verifying reference intervals in the clinical laboratory; approved guideline. 3rd ed. CLSI C28-A3c. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2010.
  19. Bland JM and Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
  20. Ozturk O. Using biological variation data for reference change values in clinical laboratories. Biochem Anal Biochem 2012;1:e106.
  21. Ochocinska A, Snitko R, Czekuc-Kryskiewicz E, Kepka A, Szalecki M, Janas RM. Evaluation of the immunoradiometric and electrochemiluminescence method for the measurement of serum insulin in children. J Immunoassay Immunochem 2016;37:243-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15321819.2015.1126601
  22. Loh TP, Sutanto S, Khoo CM. Comparison of three routine insulin immunoassays: implications for assessment of insulin sensitivity and response. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:e72-e5.
  23. Chevenne D, Trivin F, Porquet D. Insulin assays and reference values. Diabetes Metab 1999;25:459-76.
  24. Owen WE and Roberts WL. Cross-reactivity of three recombinant insulin analogs with five commercial insulin immunoassays. Clin Chem 2004; 50:257-9. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2003.026625
  25. Parfitt C, Church D, Armston A, Couchman L, Evans C, Wark G, et al. Commercial insulin immunoassays fail to detect commonly prescribed insulin analogues. Clin Biochem 2015;48:1354-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.07.017
  26. Hirsch IB. Insulin analogues. N Engl J Med 2005;352:174-83. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra040832
  27. Vajo Z and Duckworth WC. Genetically engineered insulin analogs: diabetes in the new millenium. Pharmacol Rev 2000;52:1-9.
  28. Kim S, Yun YM, Hur M, Moon HW. Unusually elevated serum insulin level in a diabetic patient during recombinant insulin therapy. Lab Med Online 2013;3:56-9. https://doi.org/10.3343/lmo.2013.3.1.56
  29. Kim S, Yun YM, Hur M, Moon HW, Kim JQ. The effects of anti-insulin antibodies and cross-reactivity with human recombinant insulin analogues in the E170 insulin immunometric assay. Korean J Lab Med 2011;31:22-9. https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2011.31.1.22
  30. Sapin R, Le Galudec V, Gasser F, Pinget M, Grucker D. Elecsys insulin assay: free insulin determination and the absence of cross-reactivity with insulin lispro. Clin Chem 2001;47:602-5.
  31. Moriyama M, Hayashi N, Ohyabu C, Mukai M, Kawano S, Kumagai S. Performance evaluation and cross-reactivity from insulin analogs with the ARCHITECT insulin assay. Clin Chem 2006;52:1423-6. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2005.065995
  32. Glenn C and Armston A. Cross-reactivity of 12 recombinant insulin preparations in the Beckman Unicel DxI 800 insulin assay. Ann Clin Biochem 2010;47:264-6. https://doi.org/10.1258/acb.2010.010002
  33. Kalathil S, Napier C, Pattman SJ, Wark G, Abouglila K, James RA. Variable characteristics with insulin assays. Pract Diabetes 2013;30:118-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/pdi.1757
  34. Vieira JG, Tachibana TT, Ferrer CM, Reis AF. Cross-reactivity of new insulin analogs in insulin assays. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol 2007;51: 504-5. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27302007000300022
  35. Agin A, Jeandidier N, Gasser F, Grucker D, Sapin R. Glargine blood biotransformation: in vitro appraisal with human insulin immunoassay. Diabetes Metab 2007;33:205-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabet.2006.12.002
  36. Song D and Davidson J. Cross-reactivity of Actrapid and three insulin analogues in the Abbott IMx insulin immunoassay. Ann Clin Biochem 2007;44:197-8. https://doi.org/10.1258/000456307780118109
  37. Neal JM and Han W. Insulin immunoassays in the detection of insulin analogues in factitious hypoglycemia. Endocr Pract 2008;14:1006-10. https://doi.org/10.4158/EP.14.8.1006
  38. Palmer JP, Fleming GA, Greenbaum CJ, Herold KC, Jansa LD, Kolb H, et al. C-peptide is the appropriate outcome measure for type 1 diabetes clinical trials to preserve beta-cell function: report of an ADA workshop, 21-22 October 2001. Diabetes 2004;53:250-64. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.53.1.250

Cited by

  1. Comparison of four matrixes for diluting insulin in routine clinical measurements vol.34, pp.9, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23396