The current status of serum insulin measurements and the need for standardization.

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Curt Rohlfing, Gregory Petroski, Maya Hatten-Beck, Steven Hanson, Andrew N Hoofnagle, Randie R Little, Kuanysh Kabytaev
{"title":"The current status of serum insulin measurements and the need for standardization.","authors":"Curt Rohlfing, Gregory Petroski, Maya Hatten-Beck, Steven Hanson, Andrew N Hoofnagle, Randie R Little, Kuanysh Kabytaev","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2025-0552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Insulin assays are used to assess insulin resistance and to aid in the diagnosis of conditions such as insulinoma and various forms of hypoglycemia. However, discrepancies among commercial assays limit their clinical and research utility. This study evaluates the current comparability of the most widely used insulin assays.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty serum samples, including those from healthy individuals and patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, were analyzed by nine manufacturers using 12 commercial immunoassays. Results from each assay were compared both to the isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) method and across the different immunoassays.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Intra-assay repeatability was excellent (ICCs>0.99), but substantial inter-assay variability was observed. Differences relative to LC-MS ranged from -298.2 to +302.6 pmol/L. Several assays overestimated insulin concentrations at low levels and underestimated them at higher levels. Only one assay method showed full agreement with the IDMS method.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite all methods claiming traceability to the WHO 66/304 standard, significant variability persists among insulin assays. These findings highlight the urgent need for insulin assay standardization using commutable certified reference materials.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12452087/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-0552","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Insulin assays are used to assess insulin resistance and to aid in the diagnosis of conditions such as insulinoma and various forms of hypoglycemia. However, discrepancies among commercial assays limit their clinical and research utility. This study evaluates the current comparability of the most widely used insulin assays.

Methods: Forty serum samples, including those from healthy individuals and patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, were analyzed by nine manufacturers using 12 commercial immunoassays. Results from each assay were compared both to the isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) method and across the different immunoassays.

Results: Intra-assay repeatability was excellent (ICCs>0.99), but substantial inter-assay variability was observed. Differences relative to LC-MS ranged from -298.2 to +302.6 pmol/L. Several assays overestimated insulin concentrations at low levels and underestimated them at higher levels. Only one assay method showed full agreement with the IDMS method.

Conclusions: Despite all methods claiming traceability to the WHO 66/304 standard, significant variability persists among insulin assays. These findings highlight the urgent need for insulin assay standardization using commutable certified reference materials.

血清胰岛素测量的现状及标准化的需要。
目的:胰岛素测定用于评估胰岛素抵抗,并帮助诊断胰岛素瘤和各种形式的低血糖症。然而,商业分析之间的差异限制了它们的临床和研究效用。本研究评估了目前最广泛使用的胰岛素检测方法的可比性。方法:采用12种商业免疫分析法,对9家厂商的40份血清样本进行分析,其中包括健康个体和1型或2型糖尿病患者。将每次测定的结果与同位素稀释质谱法(IDMS)和不同的免疫测定法进行比较。结果:测定内重复性极好(ICCs>0.99),但测定间存在较大差异。相对于LC-MS的差异范围为-298.2至+302.6 pmol/L。一些试验在低水平时高估了胰岛素浓度,在高水平时低估了胰岛素浓度。只有一种分析方法与IDMS方法完全一致。结论:尽管所有方法都声称可追溯至WHO 66/304标准,但胰岛素测定法存在显著差异。这些发现强调了使用可交换认证标准物质进行胰岛素测定标准化的迫切需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
16.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) publishes articles on novel teaching and training methods applicable to laboratory medicine. CCLM welcomes contributions on the progress in fundamental and applied research and cutting-edge clinical laboratory medicine. It is one of the leading journals in the field, with an impact factor over 3. CCLM is issued monthly, and it is published in print and electronically. CCLM is the official journal of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and publishes regularly EFLM recommendations and news. CCLM is the official journal of the National Societies from Austria (ÖGLMKC); Belgium (RBSLM); Germany (DGKL); Hungary (MLDT); Ireland (ACBI); Italy (SIBioC); Portugal (SPML); and Slovenia (SZKK); and it is affiliated to AACB (Australia) and SFBC (France). Topics: - clinical biochemistry - clinical genomics and molecular biology - clinical haematology and coagulation - clinical immunology and autoimmunity - clinical microbiology - drug monitoring and analysis - evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers - disease-oriented topics (cardiovascular disease, cancer diagnostics, diabetes) - new reagents, instrumentation and technologies - new methodologies - reference materials and methods - reference values and decision limits - quality and safety in laboratory medicine - translational laboratory medicine - clinical metrology Follow @cclm_degruyter on Twitter!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信