c肽测量的可比性-现状和临床相关性。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1055/a-1998-6889
Sebastian Hörber, Matthias Orth, Andreas Fritsche, Andreas Peter
{"title":"c肽测量的可比性-现状和临床相关性。","authors":"Sebastian Hörber,&nbsp;Matthias Orth,&nbsp;Andreas Fritsche,&nbsp;Andreas Peter","doi":"10.1055/a-1998-6889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>C-peptide is an increasingly used and established marker for beta cell function by assessing endogenous insulin secretion. Accurate and comparable C-peptide measurements are needed in clinical practice and research studies. For example, to calculate HOMA-indices, the C-peptide/glucose ratio, and the classification of recently published novel subgroups of diabetes and prediabetes have used C-peptide measurements. Although the process for standardization of C-peptide measurements is advanced, its full implementation is still missing; therefore, the current status of the comparability of C-peptide measurements using different immunoassays is unclear. Here we compared five widely used C-peptide immunoassays on different analyzers (Abbott ALINITY i, DiaSorin Liaison XL, Roche Cobas e411, Siemens Healthineers ADVIA Centaur XPT, and Immulite 2000 XPi) using serum samples covering the clinically relevant C-peptide concentration range. Although all investigated immunoassays are traceable to the international reference reagent for C-peptide (NIBSC code: 84/510), results of C-peptide measurements showed significant differences between analyzers in the entire concentration range, especially with increasing C-peptide concentrations. The mean bias was largest (36.6%) between results of the immunoassays by Roche and Siemens Healthineers (ADVIA Centaur XPT), and both assays revealed large discrepancies compared to immunoassays by Abbott, DiaSorin, and Siemens Healthineers (Immulite 2000 XPi). In contrast, the three latter assays showed similar C-peptide results (mean bias: 2.3% to 4.2%). Consequently, C-peptide discrepancies might affect clinical diagnosis and the interpretation of study results. Therefore, there is an urgent need to implement and finalize the standardization process of C-peptide measurements to improve patient care and the comparability of research studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12241,"journal":{"name":"Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b3/5d/10-1055-a-1998-6889.PMC9998184.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparability of C-Peptide Measurements - Current Status and Clinical Relevance.\",\"authors\":\"Sebastian Hörber,&nbsp;Matthias Orth,&nbsp;Andreas Fritsche,&nbsp;Andreas Peter\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-1998-6889\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>C-peptide is an increasingly used and established marker for beta cell function by assessing endogenous insulin secretion. Accurate and comparable C-peptide measurements are needed in clinical practice and research studies. For example, to calculate HOMA-indices, the C-peptide/glucose ratio, and the classification of recently published novel subgroups of diabetes and prediabetes have used C-peptide measurements. Although the process for standardization of C-peptide measurements is advanced, its full implementation is still missing; therefore, the current status of the comparability of C-peptide measurements using different immunoassays is unclear. Here we compared five widely used C-peptide immunoassays on different analyzers (Abbott ALINITY i, DiaSorin Liaison XL, Roche Cobas e411, Siemens Healthineers ADVIA Centaur XPT, and Immulite 2000 XPi) using serum samples covering the clinically relevant C-peptide concentration range. Although all investigated immunoassays are traceable to the international reference reagent for C-peptide (NIBSC code: 84/510), results of C-peptide measurements showed significant differences between analyzers in the entire concentration range, especially with increasing C-peptide concentrations. The mean bias was largest (36.6%) between results of the immunoassays by Roche and Siemens Healthineers (ADVIA Centaur XPT), and both assays revealed large discrepancies compared to immunoassays by Abbott, DiaSorin, and Siemens Healthineers (Immulite 2000 XPi). In contrast, the three latter assays showed similar C-peptide results (mean bias: 2.3% to 4.2%). Consequently, C-peptide discrepancies might affect clinical diagnosis and the interpretation of study results. Therefore, there is an urgent need to implement and finalize the standardization process of C-peptide measurements to improve patient care and the comparability of research studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b3/5d/10-1055-a-1998-6889.PMC9998184.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1998-6889\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1998-6889","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

c肽是一种越来越常用的标志物,通过评估内源性胰岛素分泌来确定β细胞功能。在临床实践和研究中需要准确和可比的c肽测量。例如,为了计算homa指数,c肽/葡萄糖比率,以及最近发表的糖尿病和前驱糖尿病新亚群的分类,都使用了c肽测量。虽然c肽测量的标准化过程是先进的,但它的全面实施仍然缺失;因此,目前使用不同免疫测定法测量c肽的可比性尚不清楚。在这里,我们比较了五种广泛使用的c肽免疫测定方法,使用不同的分析仪(雅培ALINITY i, DiaSorin Liaison XL,罗氏Cobas e411,西门子Healthineers ADVIA Centaur XPT和Immulite 2000 XPi),使用覆盖临床相关c肽浓度范围的血清样本。尽管所有研究的免疫测定方法都可溯源到国际c肽标准试剂(NIBSC代码:84/510),但c肽测量结果在整个浓度范围内在分析仪之间存在显著差异,特别是随着c肽浓度的增加。Roche和Siemens Healthineers (ADVIA Centaur XPT)的免疫测定结果之间的平均偏差最大(36.6%),与Abbott、DiaSorin和Siemens Healthineers (Immulite 2000 XPi)的免疫测定结果相比,这两种测定结果都显示出很大的差异。相比之下,后三项检测显示相似的c肽结果(平均偏差:2.3%至4.2%)。因此,c肽差异可能会影响临床诊断和研究结果的解释。因此,迫切需要实施和完成c肽测量的标准化过程,以改善患者护理和研究的可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparability of C-Peptide Measurements - Current Status and Clinical Relevance.

C-peptide is an increasingly used and established marker for beta cell function by assessing endogenous insulin secretion. Accurate and comparable C-peptide measurements are needed in clinical practice and research studies. For example, to calculate HOMA-indices, the C-peptide/glucose ratio, and the classification of recently published novel subgroups of diabetes and prediabetes have used C-peptide measurements. Although the process for standardization of C-peptide measurements is advanced, its full implementation is still missing; therefore, the current status of the comparability of C-peptide measurements using different immunoassays is unclear. Here we compared five widely used C-peptide immunoassays on different analyzers (Abbott ALINITY i, DiaSorin Liaison XL, Roche Cobas e411, Siemens Healthineers ADVIA Centaur XPT, and Immulite 2000 XPi) using serum samples covering the clinically relevant C-peptide concentration range. Although all investigated immunoassays are traceable to the international reference reagent for C-peptide (NIBSC code: 84/510), results of C-peptide measurements showed significant differences between analyzers in the entire concentration range, especially with increasing C-peptide concentrations. The mean bias was largest (36.6%) between results of the immunoassays by Roche and Siemens Healthineers (ADVIA Centaur XPT), and both assays revealed large discrepancies compared to immunoassays by Abbott, DiaSorin, and Siemens Healthineers (Immulite 2000 XPi). In contrast, the three latter assays showed similar C-peptide results (mean bias: 2.3% to 4.2%). Consequently, C-peptide discrepancies might affect clinical diagnosis and the interpretation of study results. Therefore, there is an urgent need to implement and finalize the standardization process of C-peptide measurements to improve patient care and the comparability of research studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
72
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Publishing outstanding articles from all fields of endocrinology and diabetology, from molecular biology to clinical research, this journal is a brilliant resource. Since being published in English in 1983, the popularity of this journal has grown steadily, reflecting the importance of this publication within its field. Original contributions and short communications appear in each issue along with reviews addressing current topics. In addition, supplementary issues are published each year presenting abstracts or proceedings of national and international scientific meetings. The journal was initially published in German and is still the oldest endocrinological periodical in the German-language market!
期刊最新文献
Association Between Liver Fibrosis Score and Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study of Hospitalized Patients Glycoprotein Non-Metastatic Protein B (GPNMB): The Missing Link Between Lysosomes and Obesity Insulin Glargine is More Suitable Than Exenatide in Preventing Muscle Loss in Non-Obese Type 2 Diabetic Patients with NAFLD. Aerobic Training Increases Hippocampal Volume and Protects Cognitive Function for Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Normal Cognition. Stratifying High-Risk Thyroid Nodules Using a Novel Deep Learning System.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1