Comparison of II human insulin assays: implications for clinical investigation and research
Comparison of II human insulin assays: implications for clinical investigation and research
Background: the American Diabetes Association task force on standardization of insulin assays in 1996 showed wide variation in assay bias. Newer assays are specific for insulin, with several now available on automated immunoassay analyzers.
Methods: in 2004, we compared 11 commercially available insulin assays by analyzing 150 serum samples (99 fasting/51 postprandial) from study participants with various degrees of glucose intolerance (exclusions being type 1 diabetes, insulin treatment, or presence of insulin antibodies). All assays were calibrated against International Reference Preparation 66/304. One assay was not specific for insulin and another was an RIA; 10 assays used enzyme/chemiluminescent labels. Bland-Altman difference plots were modified to use the mean insulin from all assays on the x-axis as a common comparator.
Results: as in the 1996 study, insulin values from the different assays varied by a factor of 2, with the non-specific assay ranking in the middle of the distribution. Spearman rank correlation coefficients, for ranking samples vs the mean, were 0.983-0.997. Both offsets and concentration-dependent differences were seen in the modified difference plots. Imprecision (mean CV) for automated assays (3%) was not significantly different from manual assays (5%). Similar values were obtained when one automated assay was run in laboratories in both the UK and the US. Results of 1 assay showed lower insulin concentrations in heparinized plasma than in serum.
Conclusions: assay performance must be considered before comparing insulin results. The 2-fold variation in insulin results may be related to specificity, manufacturers' calibration procedures or conversion factors.
922-932
Manley, Susan E.
46bacfff-cf40-4894-86d8-4aa07e302e70
Stratton, Irene M.
772f25b9-23c0-4240-a3f6-1e76b03b172f
Clark, Penelope M.
a923a901-43f3-4835-8c06-ab85e6ee1408
Luzio, Stephen D.
256a34ad-9e73-40df-93b3-e50bf5f6699e
1 May 2007
Manley, Susan E.
46bacfff-cf40-4894-86d8-4aa07e302e70
Stratton, Irene M.
772f25b9-23c0-4240-a3f6-1e76b03b172f
Clark, Penelope M.
a923a901-43f3-4835-8c06-ab85e6ee1408
Luzio, Stephen D.
256a34ad-9e73-40df-93b3-e50bf5f6699e
Manley, Susan E., Stratton, Irene M., Clark, Penelope M. and Luzio, Stephen D.
(2007)
Comparison of II human insulin assays: implications for clinical investigation and research.
Clinical Chemistry, 53 (5), .
(doi:10.1373/clinchem.2006.077784).
Abstract
Background: the American Diabetes Association task force on standardization of insulin assays in 1996 showed wide variation in assay bias. Newer assays are specific for insulin, with several now available on automated immunoassay analyzers.
Methods: in 2004, we compared 11 commercially available insulin assays by analyzing 150 serum samples (99 fasting/51 postprandial) from study participants with various degrees of glucose intolerance (exclusions being type 1 diabetes, insulin treatment, or presence of insulin antibodies). All assays were calibrated against International Reference Preparation 66/304. One assay was not specific for insulin and another was an RIA; 10 assays used enzyme/chemiluminescent labels. Bland-Altman difference plots were modified to use the mean insulin from all assays on the x-axis as a common comparator.
Results: as in the 1996 study, insulin values from the different assays varied by a factor of 2, with the non-specific assay ranking in the middle of the distribution. Spearman rank correlation coefficients, for ranking samples vs the mean, were 0.983-0.997. Both offsets and concentration-dependent differences were seen in the modified difference plots. Imprecision (mean CV) for automated assays (3%) was not significantly different from manual assays (5%). Similar values were obtained when one automated assay was run in laboratories in both the UK and the US. Results of 1 assay showed lower insulin concentrations in heparinized plasma than in serum.
Conclusions: assay performance must be considered before comparing insulin results. The 2-fold variation in insulin results may be related to specificity, manufacturers' calibration procedures or conversion factors.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 1 May 2007
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 487040
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/487040
ISSN: 0009-9147
PURE UUID: bcfa8f11-7b6d-4d4b-a82c-483f0c5a5d0d
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 09 Feb 2024 17:50
Last modified: 06 Jun 2024 02:10
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Susan E. Manley
Author:
Irene M. Stratton
Author:
Penelope M. Clark
Author:
Stephen D. Luzio
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics