Measurement comparability of insulin assays using conventional immunoassay kits

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Associated Data

The data used to support the findings of this study are included in the manuscript and the Supporting Information of this article.

Abstract

Background

The standardization of measurement aims to achieve comparability of results regardless of the analytical methods and the laboratory where analyses are carried out. In this paper, a comparison of results from several immunoassay‐based insulin analysis kits is described, and the steps necessary to improve comparability are discussed.

Methods

Four manual enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits produced by Mercodia, Alpco, Epitope Diagnostics, and Abcam, and three automated chemiluminescent (CLIA) insulin assay kits (Siemens Centaur XP, Unicel Dxl800, Cobas e801) were compared by analyzing human serum samples and certified reference materials for human insulin.

Results

The seven evaluated assay kits showed substantial discrepancies in the results, with relative standard deviation ranges between 1.7% and 23.2%. We find that the traceability chains and the unit conversion factors are not yet harmonized, and current reference materials for insulin are not applicable for immunoassay‐based method validation due to the use of different matrices.

Conclusions

The findings suggest the need to fine tune insulin analysis methods, measurement traceability, and any conversion factor used in post‐analysis steps in accordance with the necessity for standardization.

Results between several immunoassay‐based insulin assays are discussed in the manner of measurement comparability. The incomparability in the results could be harmonized and finally standardized by establishing measurement reference system. We described the current situation and suggestions to improve results comparability based on the immunoassay‐based insulin assays.

1. INTRODUCTION

Immunoassays are analytical methods that achieve the detection and quantification of analytes, particularly peptides and proteins in biological samples, through the formation of a stable complex between the analyte and a specific antibody. They represent very selective and sensitive techniques that have found application in several areas such as clinical chemistry, bioanalysis, pharmaceutical analysis, toxicological analysis, and environmental analysis. 1 , 2 , 3 Owing to their capacity for high throughput and significantly reduced average analytical times, through the simultaneous analysis of numerous samples with ultimate detection sensitivity, immunoassays are the preferred platform for most protein studies, particularly clinical diagnostics and drug development where specificity is critical. 4 , 5 , 6 Among various immunoassays, the most commonly employed in routine clinical settings are the enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) methods for their cost‐effectiveness and high throughput. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 In fact, the overall immunoassay technique has been subdivided into numerous specific methods, so that rapid commercialization has occurred through kits unique to each manufacturer. Currently, there is a wide range of commercial kits available for immunoassay‐based protein analysis.

One of the most commonly analyzed proteins is insulin, a representative peptide hormone that regulates the absorption of glucose in the body and is also the main anabolic hormone. Defects in the production of insulin lead to several different types of diseases, with the most common condition being diabetes mellitus categorized by chronic hyperglycemia. The concentration of insulin may improve the classification and management of diabetes mellitus and assess β‐cell secretion and insulin resistance. Therefore, reliable quantification of insulin is critical for clinical purposes such as the diagnosis and treatment of related diseases, as well as for research and manufacture; accordingly, more accurate and sensitive detection of insulin is required. 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 Analytical methods for insulin can be generally divided into three categories by analytical principle, namely immunoassays, chromatography, and electrochemical biosensors. While each method has pros and cons in insulin analysis according to its applications, the immunoassay‐based methods are the most commonly adopted in routine clinical testing for their strength in high throughput, detection sensitivity, and selectivity with reliable cost, although improvement is still needed in terms of the results comparability between analytical procedures, and specificity of recombinant insulin analogues. 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12

The purpose of this work was to investigate several different kits in terms of measurement comparability in insulin immunoassay‐based quantification. Not only for bioanalytical applications but also in clinical settings, regardless of when, where, and how the testing is conducted, it is critical to have comparable insulin results between different assays, as discrepancies have been shown to lead to re‐testing, unverified results, and even misdiagnosis with unnecessary resource abuse. 4 , 5 Insulin has quite a long history of standardization trials, with successful achievements in several big pilot studies organized by the American Diabetes Association and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry. 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 The implementation of measurement traceability through a reference system provides one of the most important tools that supports the standardization process in laboratory medicine. 14 We focused on currently available and widely adopted kits in both research and hospital settings, and found several points of discussion related to result comparability in insulin analysis. The packaged calibrators were compared with LC–MS. Available certified reference materials (CRMs) for human insulin were also investigated in order to validate the kits. The points discussed in this study are major factors to improve results comparability in protein analysis not only for between immunoassays, but also for between measurement procedures of different principles, and the results underpin our knowledge about establishment of results comparability.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Chemicals

Four ELISA kits for human insulin (10‐1113‐01, Mercodia; 80‐INSHU‐E01.1, Alpco; KT‐886, Epitope Diagnostics; ab200011, Abcam) were purchased from the respective manufacturers. Three CLIA kits were equipped with fully automated analyzers (Siemens Centaur XP, Siemens Healthineers; Unicel Dxl800, Beckman Coulter Diagnostics; Cobas e801, Roche Diagnostics) including reagents and necessary parts. 15 , 16 , 17 All kits are intended to be used to research and in‐vitro diagnosis depending on regional permission. Pooled human serum was obtained from Innovative Research (Canada) followed by homogenization, filtration, and aliquots in‐house protocol (Supporting Information). Human insulin certified reference materials (CRMs) were purchased from the National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ CRM 6209‐a) and Cerilliant Corporation (I‐034). 18 Both serum and CRMs were stored at −70°C prior to use. Bovine serum albumin (BSA), HPLC‐grade acetonitrile, formic acid, and trifluoroacetic acid were obtained from Sigma‐Aldrich. The water used in this study was produced using a Millipore Alpha‐Q water purification system (Millipore) with a filtration through a membrane filter (pore size 0.2 μm, Nylon) under vacuum.

2.2. Instruments

A multimode plate reader (EnSpire® system, PerkinElmer) was used for the manual ELISA assays.

The LC–MS system for insulin analysis was a 5600+ TripleTOF with a dual‐spray source (ABSciex) and nitrogen generator (Genius XE SMZ, PEAK Scientific), coupled with a Nanospace SI‐2 series UHPLC composed of a dual pump, column oven, and autosampler (Shiseido). Separation of human insulin was carried out using an Accucore C18 column (2.6 μm, 50 × 2.1 mm i.d., Thermo Fisher Scientific) with 0.1% v/v FA in water, and ACN as mobile phases A and B, respectively. The human insulin was detected at m/z 1162.5 [M + H] 5+ . The detailed analytical conditions are also shown in Table S1.

2.3. Sample analysis for immunoassay

All materials and prepared reagents were equilibrated at room temperature prior to use in accordance with each manufacturer's instructions for each kit. For CLIA analysis, the entire procedure was fully automated without any pretreatment before loading onto the instruments. In the manual preparation for the ELISA assays, generally, samples and standards were firstly added to plate wells. Next, antibody cocktails were added into the wells containing the samples and standards. The detailed preparation conditions were in accordance with the protocols of each manufacturer. The final samples were analyzed with a UV plate reader.

2.4. Standard and sample preparation

Serum sample used in this study is pooled serum from multi donor followed by homogenization in the Supporting Information. Frozen serum were thawed and equilibrated at room temperature before analysis. At least three serum samples were analyzed on three consecutive days for intra‐ and inter‐day assays to check the measurement precision of each kit.

The human insulin CRMs were also prepared with serial dilution using water down to the range 0–12 nmol/L, which is equivalent to 0–2000 μIU/ml based on the conversion factor of 1 μIU/ml = 6.00 pmol/L. 19 Additionally, the CRMs were also prepared with different diluents, such as 0.1% w/v BSA and human serum. The endogenous insulin in diluents were confirmed in each kit, and the results were subtracted as blank level. The concentrations of the samples were 0, 0.11, 1.08, 2.70, 5.40, and 10.8 nmol/L as prepared values of human insulin from the certified values. The samples were analyzed to check the matrix effects using four manual ELISA kits.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Comparison with serum sample

The pooled serum samples were measured by seven kits; Figure 1 shows the measurement results. The results were spread from 18 pmol/L to 150 pmol/L, and the RSD in each kit showed ranges from 1.7% to 23.2%, which may relate to the procedure being manual or automated. 3 Although the kits were validated and ready to use with no necessity for further verification, the measurement precision was re‐confirmed by comparing the results of serum samples in order to remove any doubt in operation. For this, three runs with three replicates each were processed over three consecutive days. Table 1 summarizes the intra‐ and inter‐day assay results, with all of the results showing acceptable precision. This indicates that the discrepancies in the serum results were not caused by random error but rather by systematic bias among all the kits. Particularly for kit A, two different data set are shown in Figure 1 as two different lots showed different ranges of results. The results in Table 1 are only used one of the lot. Including the within kit variations, the measured values of insulin were spread across the border lines of the clinically recommended reference ranges 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , and the results indicate possibility that diagnostic decisions and scientific discussion can vary depending on the kit selection in insulin measurement. Interestingly, we found two different references traceable to two different WHO International Standards (IS), IS 83/500 and IS 66/304. Assays C and D were traceable to IS 83/500, which presents strong evidence for their lower results than those of other kits. The form of the IS 83/500 standard is human insulin crystals prepared from the enzymatic modification of porcine insulin, while the IS 66/304 standard comes from purified human pancreatic insulin. Unfortunately, we were unable to figure out the reason for the relatively lower level of the IS 83/500 traceable kits, and it should be noted that both batches of IS 83/500 and 66/304 have been exhausted and replaced by IS 11/212. Fortunately, the IS 11/212 standard, which is the only commercially available WHO IS, serves information about comparability with IS 66/304, the previous batch. However, kits C and D are still commercially available with traceability to different IS, and therefore users need to check the traceability served by the manufacturer, not only between kits from different manufacturers but also within kits of different lot numbers.

Human insulin analysis in serum by two different assay methods. Box plots represent distributions of measured values. A to D are the results from ELISA manual kits, while E to G are the results from CLIA automated analyzers. White boxes represent ELISA kits traceable to IS 66/304, and light gray boxes are ELISA kits traceable to IS 83/500. The dark gray boxes are CLIA assays traceable to IS 66/304. The ‘X' represents the mean value, the line in the box represents the median value, and error bars represent the highest and lowest value. Y‐axes represent pmol/L and μIU/ml, respectively. Multiple conversion factors were used in unit conversion; 6.0 for kits A to D, 6.945 for kits E and G, 7.0 for kit F. For kit A, two data set with different lot numbers were used

TABLE 1

Measurement precision of intra‐ and inter‐run tests with the serum samples using different immunoassay kits