The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Comparison of II human insulin assays: implications for clinical investigation and research

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.

0009-9147
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
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), 922-932. (doi:10.1373/clinchem.2006.077784).

Record type: Article

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
ORCID for Irene M. Stratton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1172-7865

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 09 Feb 2024 17:50
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 04:01

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Susan E. Manley
Author: Irene M. Stratton ORCID iD
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

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×