International comparison of C-peptide measurements.

BACKGROUND C-peptide measurement has been widely used as a marker of insulin secretion in patients with diabetes. We assessed the comparability of C-peptide results obtained with different methods and by different laboratories and determined whether C-peptide results could be harmonized by normalization with a WHO reference reagent or with plasma. METHODS We sent 16 different heparin plasma samples to 15 laboratories in 7 countries. The samples were analyzed with 10 different assay methods. A WHO C-peptide standard was also sent to each laboratory and used to determine the feasibility of normalizing results. To assess the impact of calibrator matrix on the comparability of results, we also used the mean results of all laboratories for 4 of the samples to normalize the remaining sample results. RESULTS Between-laboratory variability increased with increasing C-peptide concentrations. Normalization of results with WHO reference reagents did not improve comparability, but normalization with samples significantly improved comparability among laboratories and methods. The 95% confidence interval estimate for the SD for the lab/method effect (0.0-0.061) using sample-normalized values did not overlap with the 95% CI estimate with the raw data (0.090-0.225). CONCLUSIONS C-peptide results generated by different methods and different laboratories do not always agree, especially at higher concentrations of C-peptide. These data support the concept of using a single laboratory for multisite studies and support efforts to harmonize C-peptide measurements by use of calibrators prepared in the sample matrix.

[1]  J. Kaufman,et al.  Feasibility of standardization of serum C-peptide immunoassays with isotope-dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. , 2006, Clinical chemistry.

[2]  Eduard Rogatsky,et al.  Sensitive quantitative analysis of C-peptide in human plasma by 2-dimensional liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry isotope-dilution assay. , 2006, Clinical chemistry.

[3]  W Greg Miller,et al.  Why commutability matters. , 2006, Clinical chemistry.

[4]  T. Mandrup-Poulsen,et al.  [European Nicotinamide Diabetes Intervention Trial (ENDIT)--secondary publication. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intervention before the onset of type 1 diabetes]. , 2005, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[5]  J. Wahren,et al.  C-peptide improves autonomic nerve function in IDDM patients , 1996, Diabetologia.

[6]  J. Wahren.  C‐peptide makes a comeback , 2003, Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews.

[7]  M. Steffes,et al.  Beta-cell function and the development of diabetes-related complications in the diabetes control and complications trial. , 2003, Diabetes care.

[8]  R. Bender,et al.  A new classification plot for the C-peptide suppression test. , 2002, JOP : Journal of the pancreas.

[9]  S. Madsbad,et al.  Quantification of beta-cell function during IVGTT in Type II and non-diabetic subjects: assessment of insulin secretion by mathematical methods , 2001, Diabetologia.

[10]  C. Franzini,et al.  Current stage of standardization of measurements of specific polypeptides and proteins discussed in light of steps needed towards a comprehensive measurement system. , 1997, European journal of clinical chemistry and clinical biochemistry : journal of the Forum of European Clinical Chemistry Societies.

[11]  J. Zierath,et al.  C‐peptide revisited – new physiological effects and therapeutic implications , 1996, Journal of internal medicine.

[12]  R. E. Das,et al.  WHO international reference reagents for human proinsulin and human insulin C-peptide. , 1988, Journal of biological standardization.

[13]  Bruce H. Frank,et al.  Use of biosynthetic human C-peptide in the measurement of insulin secretion rates in normal volunteers and type I diabetic patients. , 1986, The Journal of clinical investigation.