Comparability of C-Peptide Measurements – Current Status and Clinical Relevance

Abstract

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.

Key words

Diabetes, Prediabetes, Immunoassay, Standardization, Harmonization

Publication History

Received: 06 September 2022
Received: 11 November 2022

Accepted: 26 October 2022

Article published online:
11 January 2023

• References

• 1 Jones AG, Hattersley AT.. The clinical utility of C-peptide measurement in the care of patients with diabetes. Diabet Med 2013; 30: 803-817 DOI: 10.1111/dme.12159.
• 2 Palmer JP, Fleming GA, Greenbaum CJ. et al. C-peptide is the appropriate outcome measure for type 1 diabetes clinical trials to preserve beta-cell function: Report of an ADA workshop, 21-22 October 2001. Diabetes 2004; 53: 250-264
• 3 Arzamendi AE, Rajamani U, Jialal I.. Pseudoinsulinoma in a white man with autoimmune hypoglycemia due to anti-insulin antibodies: value of the free C-Peptide assay. Am J Clin Pathol 2014; 142: 689-693 DOI: 10.1309/AJCPX56JQBJHUBGJ.
• 4 Maddaloni E, Bolli GB, Frier BM. et al. C-peptide determination in the diagnosis of type of diabetes and its management: A clinical perspective. Diabetes Obes Metab 2022; 24: 1912-1926 DOI: 10.1111/dom.14785.
• 5 Ahlqvist E, Storm P, Karajamaki A. et al. Novel subgroups of adult-onset diabetes and their association with outcomes: A data-driven cluster analysis of six variables. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018; 6: 361-369 DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30051-2.
• 6 Wagner R, Heni M, Tabak AG. et al. Pathophysiology-based subphenotyping of individuals at elevated risk for type 2 diabetes. Nat Med 2021; 27: 49-57 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-020-1116-9.
• 7 Fritsche A, Heni M, Peter A. et al. Considering insulin secretory capacity as measured by a fasting C-peptide/glucose ratio in selecting glucose-lowering medications. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2022; 130: 200-204 DOI: 10.1055/a-1242-9809.
• 8 Herold KC, Bundy BN, Long SA. et al. An anti-CD3 antibody, teplizumab, in relatives at risk for type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 603-613 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1902226.
• 9 Jeyam A, Colhoun H, McGurnaghan S. et al. Clinical impact of residual C-peptide secretion in type 1 diabetes on glycemia and microvascular complications. Diabetes Care 2021; 44: 390-398 DOI: 10.2337/dc20-0567.
• 10 Lachin JM, McGee P, Palmer JP. et al. Impact of C-peptide preservation on metabolic and clinical outcomes in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes 2014; 63: 739-748 DOI: 10.2337/db13-0881.
• 11 Horber S, Achenbach P, Schleicher E. et al. Harmonization of immunoassays for biomarkers in diabetes mellitus. Biotechnol Adv 2020; 39: 107359 DOI: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.02.015.
• 12 International Organization for Standardization. In vitro diagnostic medical devices – Requirements for establishing metrological traceability of values assigned to calibrators, trueness control materials and human samples. In. ISO 17511:2020: International Organization for Standardization; 2020
• 13 Little RR, Wielgosz RI, Josephs R. et al. Implementing a reference measurement system for C-peptide: Successes and lessons learned. Clin Chem 2017; 63: 1447-1456 DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2016.269274.
• 14 Bristow AF, Das RE.. WHO international reference reagents for human proinsulin and human insulin C-peptide. J Biol Stand 1988; 16: 179-186
• 15 Kinumi T, Mizuno R, Takatsu A.. Quantification of serum C-peptide by isotope-dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry: Enhanced detection using chemical modification and immunoaffinity purification. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 2014; 953–954: 138-142 DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2014.02.019.
• 16 Stoyanov AV, Rogatsky E, Stein D. et al. Isotope dilution assay in peptide quantification: The challenge of microheterogeneity of internal standard. Proteomics Clin Appl 2013; 7: 825-828 DOI: 10.1002/prca.201200130.
• 17 Stoyanov AV, Rohlfing CL, Connolly S. et al. Use of cation exchange chromatography for human C-peptide isotope dilution - mass spectrometric assay. J Chromatogr A 2011; 1218: 9244-9249 DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.10.080.
• 18 Taylor SW, Clarke NJ, Chen Z. et al. A high-throughput mass spectrometry assay to simultaneously measure intact insulin and C-peptide. Clin Chim Acta 2016; 455: 202-208 DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2016.01.019.
• 19 Wiedmeyer HM, Polonsky KS, Myers GL. et al. International comparison of C-peptide measurements. Clin Chem 2007; 53: 784-787 DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2006.081570.
• 20 Zhou W, Deng Y, Zhao H. et al. Current status of serum insulin and C-peptide measurement in clinical laboratories: Experience from 94 laboratories in China. Ann Lab Med 2022; 42: 428-437 DOI: 10.3343/alm.2022.42.4.428.
• 21 Moore M, Dougall T, Ferguson J. et al. Preparation, calibration and evaluation of the First International Standard for human C-peptide. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017; 55: 1224-1233 DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2017-0029.
• 22 Kinumi T, Goto M, Eyama S. et al. Development of SI-traceable C-peptide certified reference material NMIJ CRM 6901-a using isotope-dilution mass spectrometry-based amino acid analyses. Anal Bioanal Chem 2012; 404: 13-21 DOI: 10.1007/s00216-012-6097-1.
• 23 The C-Peptide Standardization Commitee. 2021 C-Peptide Standardization Manufacturer Meeting Minutes. In http://cpeptide.org/assets/cpeptide2021.pdf
• 24 Hörber S, Kaiser P, Achenbach P. et al. Neue klassifikation des diabetes mellitus – Anforderungen an Labormessgrößen. Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel 2021; 16: 63-69