Search Results

This enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is indicated for the detection of autoantibodies to the antigens Proteinase 3 (PR-3) and myeloperoxidase (MPA) in human serum. The presence of these antibodies, In combination with clinical observations and other serological tests, can aid in the diagnosis of Wegener's granulomatosis (WG), polyarteritis, necrotizing glomerulonephritis and other conditions associated with elevated anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA). Since a positive test result with this assay does not indicate which ANCA is (are) present, all positives should be confirmed using assays designed for particular ANCA specificities.

An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) designed for the detection of autoantibodies to the antigens Proteinase 3 and mveloperoxidase in human serum. The ELISA methodology is commonly used for serum antibody evaluations. Purified PR3 and Myeloperoxidase antigens have been attached to the inner surfaces of the microwell plate. During the initial incubation step, antibodies in patient serum bind specifically to the immobilized antigens and remain in place after a wash step. A second antibody which is conjucated to horseradish peroxidase (HRP) is used to recognize the "heavy + light" chain regions of the patient's antibodies remaining after the wash step. In the wells where the second antibody remains bound, the conjugated HRP catalyzes a color change in the substrate, tetramethyl benzidine (TMB). After the reaction is stopped, the color is read in an EIA Plate reader.

The provided text describes the VIRGO® ANCA SCREEN Kit, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for detecting autoantibodies to Proteinase 3 (PR3) and myeloperoxidase (MPO) in human serum.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" with numerical thresholds prior to presenting results, but rather demonstrates performance through comparison to predicate devices and precision studies. Therefore, I will derive the implied acceptance criteria from the context of "Comparison Testing" and "Precision" sections.

2. Sample Sizes Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Positive Panels: 36 serum specimens. 17 from individuals with Wegener's Granulomatosis, 19 from "pANCA A" (the full context of "A would or 100 Bornh op of our the United States" is unclear, but suggests diverse origins).
• Normal Samples: 73 "normal apparently positive specificals taken from" (This phrase is confusing, but the context of "Normals" table implies healthy controls).
• Precision Studies: 8 serum samples (for both inter-assay and intra-assay studies), plus Negative Control, cANCA Positive Control, pANCA Positive Control, and Cutoff Serum.
• Interfering Substances: Specific samples with varying concentrations of hemoglobin, bilirubin, and lipids.
• Prozone: "several high titered serum samples".

Data Provenance: The text mentions "17 from individuals with Wegners Granulomatosis, 19 pANCA A would or 100 bornh op of our the United States," which suggests some of the data originated from the United States. It's unclear if all data is from the US. The study appears to be retrospective as it uses existing serum specimens for comparison testing.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the initial diagnosis of Wegener's Granulomatosis, pANCA, or normal status.

However, for the discrepant samples in the "Normals" table (one sample where the proposed device was positive, and the predicate device was negative), it states: "The six discrepants were evaluated by a third party IFA assay. All six of the samples were reported to be negative." This implies that the third-party IFA assay served as an arbitration method or a higher-tier "expert" validation for these specific cases, but not for the entire ground truth establishment.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

For the comparison testing, the primary method was direct comparison against the predicate device (Scimedx EIA Kit for Anti-PR3/MPO Antibodies).

For the six discrepant samples, a third-party IFA assay was used. This acts as an adjudication method, providing an independent assessment to resolve differences between the proposed and predicate devices. The rule here seems to imply that the third-party IFA assay was considered the definitive standard for these discrepants.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay that produces quantitative results (optical density) and a qualitative interpretation (positive/negative), not an imaging device or AI algorithm requiring human reader interpretation in a clinical setting. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply here.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

Yes, the data presented reflects the standalone performance of the VIRGO® ANCA SCREEN Kit. As an ELISA assay, its performance is evaluated based on its own output (optical density converted to positive/negative) without direct human intervention in the interpretation of each individual test result beyond following the established cutoff.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for the comparison testing was based on:

• Predicate Device Results: For the bulk of the "Comparison Testing," the predicate devices (Scimedx ANTI-PR3 ANTIBODY EIA and Scimedx ANTI-MPO ANTIBODY EIA) served as the primary reference standard to determine relative sensitivity and specificity.
• Clinical Diagnosis/Grouping: For the "Positive Panels," samples were identified based on clinical conditions (e.g., Wegener's Granulomatosis) or prior pANCA classifications, implying a pre-existing clinical or serological diagnosis.
• "Third Party IFA Assay": For the discrepant samples, a third-party IFA assay was used as an independent, higher-tier reference standard, which is often considered a gold standard for ANCA detection.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set as this is an ELISA assay, not a machine learning or AI algorithm in the contemporary sense that typically undergoes a distinct training phase. The development of the assay itself would have involved numerous experiments to optimize reagents and establish cutoffs, but these are not referred to as a "training set" in the context of AI regulatory submissions.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Since there is no mention of a "training set" in the context of an AI algorithm, the concept of establishing ground truth for it does not apply here. The "training" for such a device involves biochemical validation, optimization of reagent concentrations, and establishing robust cutoff values through extensive laboratory work and studies similar to those presented (precision, comparison).

Ask a specific question about this device