Transdermal Blood Sampling for C-Peptide Is a Minimally Invasive, Reliable Alternative to Venous Sampling in Children and Adults With Type 1 Diabetes
Performance · Detection of venous C-peptide ≥200 pmol/L and agreement in C-peptide levelsResult — go to the resultMean venous ln[C-peptide] - TCB ln[C-peptide] 0.008 95% CI −0.23 to 0.29Authors' conclusion
Transdermal capillary testing for C-peptide is a sensitive, specific, and acceptable alternative to venous sampling; TCB sampling for islet autoantibodies needs further assessment.
Study context
- Population
- Individuals with T1D (median age 14.8 years, diabetes duration 4.0 years) and control individuals (median age 42.2 years)71 T1D, 20 control
- Participants
- 91 individuals
- Comparison
- Transdermal capillary blood (TCB) sampling vs venous sampling for C-peptide and islet autoantibodies
- Outcome
- Ability of TCB plasma to detect significant endogenous insulin secretion (venous C-peptide ≥200 pmol/L) and agreement in levels (Bland-Altman)
Methodological detailscontemporaneous venous and TCB sampling
- Contemporaneous venous and TCB sampling
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Detection of venous C-peptide ≥200 pmol/L and agreement in C-peptide levels
Mean venous ln[C-peptide] - TCB ln[C-peptide]
0.008
95% CI −0.23 to 0.29
By group
TCB
- Sensitivity
- 100% [36 of 36]
- Specificity
- 100% [50 of 50]
TCB
Sensitivity100% [36 of 36]
Specificity100% [50 of 50]
Further findings
| Outcome | TCB |
|---|---|
| Multiple autoantibody positivity vs venous serum | |
| Sensitivity | 22 of 32 (69%) |
| Specificity | 35 of 36 (97%) |
Transdermal sampling performance
- Sampling time, mean (SD)
- 2.35 min (1.49)
- Sample volume, median (IQR)
- 50 µL (40-50)
- Failures
- 3 of 91 (3.3%)
- Volume <35 µL
- 13 of 88 (14.7%)
Preference, T1D
- Preferred TCB vs venous
- 63% vs. 7%
- Undecided
- 30%
Original publication
Transdermal Blood Sampling for C-Peptide Is a Minimally Invasive, Reliable Alternative to Venous Sampling in Children and Adults With Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. Published 13 December 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →