BACKGROUND: C-peptide is a marker of insulin secretion in diabetic patients. We assessed within- and between-laboratory imprecision of C-peptide assays and determined whether serum calibrators with values assigned by mass spectrometry could be used to harmonize C-peptide results. METHODS: We sent 40 different serum samples to 15 laboratories, which used 9 different routine C-peptide assay methods. We also sent matched plasma samples to another laboratory for C-peptide analysis with a reference mass spectrometry method. Each laboratory analyzed 8 of these samples in duplicate on each of 4 days to evaluate within- and between-day imprecision. The same 8 samples were also used to normalize the results for the remaining samples to the mass spectrometry reference method. RESULTS: Within- and between-run CVs ranged from <2% to >10% and from <2% to >18%, respectively. Normalizing the results with serum samples significantly improved the comparability among laboratories and methods. After normalization, the differences among laboratories in mean response were no longer statistically significant (P = 0.24), with least-squares means of 0.93-1.02. CONCLUSIONS: C-peptide results generated by different methods and laboratories do not always agree, especially at higher C-peptide concentrations. Within-laboratory imprecision also varied, with some methods giving much more consistent results than others. These data show that calibrating C-peptide measurement to a reference method can increase comparability between laboratories.
BACKGROUND:C-peptide is a marker of insulin secretion in diabeticpatients. We assessed within- and between-laboratory imprecision of C-peptide assays and determined whether serum calibrators with values assigned by mass spectrometry could be used to harmonize C-peptide results. METHODS: We sent 40 different serum samples to 15 laboratories, which used 9 different routine C-peptide assay methods. We also sent matched plasma samples to another laboratory for C-peptide analysis with a reference mass spectrometry method. Each laboratory analyzed 8 of these samples in duplicate on each of 4 days to evaluate within- and between-day imprecision. The same 8 samples were also used to normalize the results for the remaining samples to the mass spectrometry reference method. RESULTS: Within- and between-run CVs ranged from <2% to >10% and from <2% to >18%, respectively. Normalizing the results with serum samples significantly improved the comparability among laboratories and methods. After normalization, the differences among laboratories in mean response were no longer statistically significant (P = 0.24), with least-squares means of 0.93-1.02. CONCLUSIONS:C-peptide results generated by different methods and laboratories do not always agree, especially at higher C-peptide concentrations. Within-laboratory imprecision also varied, with some methods giving much more consistent results than others. These data show that calibrating C-peptide measurement to a reference method can increase comparability between laboratories.
Authors: David B Sacks; Mark Arnold; George L Bakris; David E Bruns; Andrea Rita Horvath; M Sue Kirkman; Ake Lernmark; Boyd E Metzger; David M Nathan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jay M Sosenko; Jay S Skyler; Craig A Beam; David Boulware; Jeffrey L Mahon; Jeffrey P Krischer; Carla J Greenbaum; Lisa E Rafkin; Della Matheson; Kevan C Herold; Jerry P Palmer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Maria J Redondo; Andrea K Steck; Jay Sosenko; Mark Anderson; Peter Antinozzi; Aaron Michels; John M Wentworth; Mark A Atkinson; Alberto Pugliese; Susan Geyer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jing Ma; Haojie Li; Ed Giovannucci; Lorelei Mucci; Weiliang Qiu; Paul L Nguyen; J Michael Gaziano; Michael Pollak; Meir J Stampfer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-10-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Maria J Redondo; Jay Sosenko; Ingrid Libman; Jennifer J F McVean; Mustafa Tosur; Mark A Atkinson; Dorothy Becker; Susan Geyer Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Emily K Sims; Zunaira Chaudhry; Renecia Watkins; Farooq Syed; Janice Blum; Fangqian Ouyang; Susan M Perkins; Raghavendra G Mirmira; Jay Sosenko; Linda A DiMeglio; Carmella Evans-Molina Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 19.112