Search Results

The Accu-Stat™ Drugs of Abuse Home Test Cup for Marijuana (THC), Cocaine (COC), Amphetamine (AMP), Methamphetamine (mAMP), Ecstasy (MDMA), Opiates (OPI), and Phencyclidine (PCP), is a screening test for the rapid detection of three to seven of the above listed drugs in a variety of combinations human urine. The designated cut-off concentrations for these drugs are as follows: Marijuana at 50 ng/ml, Cocaine at 300 ng/ml, Amphetamine at 1000 ng/ml, Methamphetamine at 1000 ng/ml, Ecstasy at 500 ng/ml, Opiates at 2000 ng/ml, and Phencyclidine at 25 ng/ml. The tests are intended for over-the-counter (OTC) consumer use as the first step in a two-step process to provide consumers with information concerning the presence of the above stated drugs or their metabolites in a urine sample. Information, along with the materials for shipping a portion of the urine specimen to the laboratory for confirmation testing of a preliminary positive result, the second step in the process, is provided.

The Accu-Stat™ Drugs of Abuse Home Test Cup for Marijuana, Cocaine, Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, Ecstasy, Opiates, and Phencyclidine, like other commercially available drug screening tests, qualitatively measures the presence or absence of THC, COC, AMP, mAMP, MDMA, OPI, PCP and their metabolites in urine, using a one step, rapid chromatographic immunoassay which operates under the principle of competitive binding. Drugs. which may be present in the urine specimen, compete against the drug conjugate for binding sites on the antibody. During testing, a urine specimen migrates upward by capillary action. Marijuana, if present in the urine specimen below 50 ng/ml, and the other drugs being tested for, if below the cut-off levels stated in Attachment 3 Table 2, will not saturate the binding sites of the antibody coated particles in the test device. The antibody coated particles will then be captured by immobilized marijuana, cocaine, or other listed drug conjugate and a visible colored line will show up in the test line region. The colored line will not form in the test line region if the marijuana level is above the 50 ng/ml because it will saturate all the binding sites of antimarijuana antibodies. The same holds true for cocaine and the other drugs if the level is above the cut-off. It will saturate all the binding sites of anticocaine (or other drug) antibodies and therefore the colored line will not form in the test region. A drug-positive urine specimen will not generate a colored line in the test line region because of drug competition, while a drug-negative urine specimen will generate a line in the test region because of the absence of a drug competition. To serve as a procedural control, a colored line will always appear at the control line region if the test has been performed properly.

The Accu-Stat™ Drugs of Abuse Home Test Cup is a rapid screening test for the detection of various drugs in human urine. The device is intended for over-the-counter (OTC) consumer use as the first step in a two-step process, with confirmatory laboratory testing for preliminary positive results.

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document describes the cut-off concentrations for each drug as acceptance criteria for qualitative detection. The device is designed to indicate the presence of a drug if its concentration in urine is above the specified cut-off. While the document implies the device meets these criteria through a "consumer study," it does not provide detailed performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) against these cut-off levels in the format of a table. Instead, it makes a general statement about "excellent overall performance."

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

The document mentions "consumer studies" but does not specify the sample size used for the test set. The provenance of the data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) is not explicitly stated. However, given its application for OTC consumer use, it implies real-world use conditions.

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

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set in the context of the "consumer studies." The ground truth for this type of device, as implied, would likely be established through confirmed laboratory results for comparison, but the details are not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

No adjudication method is described for the test set.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

An MRMC study was not described, nor is there any mention of AI assistance. This device is a rapid immunoassay test cup, not an AI-powered diagnostic system.

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

The device is a standalone immunoassay test cup that provides a visual result. Its performance is inherent in the chemical reactions and visual line formation, which is essentially "algorithm only" in the sense of the chemical mechanism. The consumer interprets the visual result, which constitutes the human-in-the-loop for interpretation, but the core detection is standalone. The document states that the "consumer can use the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Tests to obtain immediate, preliminary information," indicating standalone performance in generating the result.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

The ground truth used for evaluating the device would be the confirmed laboratory results of urine specimens. The "two-step process" explicitly states that preliminary positive results require "confirmatory testing of preliminary positive results," indicating that laboratory confirmation serves as the ultimate ground truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not detail a separate "training set" as would be applicable to machine learning algorithms. For an immunoassay, the "training" (development and optimization) would refer to the extensive laboratory work to ensure the antibodies and reagents perform as expected across a range of concentrations and interferents. This information is not provided.

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

This information is not provided, as the concept of a training set ground truth, in the context of an immunoassay, differs from its application in machine learning. Development of the immunoassay involves establishing its analytical sensitivity and specificity against known concentrations of drugs and metabolites, with ground truth established by precisely formulated drug solutions and confirmed analytical methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test for Marijuana (THC), Cocaine (COC), Amphetamine (AMP), Methamphetamine (mAMP), Opiates (OPI), and Phencyclidine (PCP) is a single-unit screening test for the rapid detection of two to six of the above drugs in human urine. The designated cutoff concentrations for these drugs are as follows: Marijuana at 50 ng/ml, Cocaine at 300 ng/ml, Amphetamine at 1000 ng/ml, Methamphetamine at 1000 ng/ml, Opiates at 2000 ng/ml, and Phencyclidine at 25 ng/ml. The tests are intended for over-the-counter (OTC) consumer use as the first step in a two step process that includes confirmatory testing of preliminary positive results. Information, along with the materials for shipping a portion of the urine specimen to the laboratory is provided.

The Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test for Marijuana, Cocaine, Amphctamine, Methamphetamine, Opiates, and Phencyclidine, like other commercially available drug screening tests, qualitatively measures the presence or absence of THC, COC, AMP, mAMP, OPI, PCP and their metabolites in urine, using a one step, rapid chromatographic immunoassay which operates under the principle of competitive binding. Drugs, which may be present in the urine specimen, compete against the drug conjugate for binding sites on the antibody. During testing, a urine specimen migrates upward by capillary action. Marijuana, if present in the urine specimen below 50 ng/ml, and the other drugs being tested for, if below the cut-off levels stated above, will not saturate the binding sites of the antibody coated particles in the test device. The antibody coated particles will then be captured by immobilized marijuana, cocaine, or other listed drug conjugate and a visible colored line will show up in the test line region. The colored line will not form in the test line region if the marijuana level is above the 50 ng/ml because it will saturate all the binding sites of antimarijuana antibodies. The same holds true for cocaine and the other drugs if the level is above the cut-off. It will saturate all the binding sites of anticocaine (or other drug) antibodies and therefore the colored line will not form in the test region.
A drug-positive urine specimen will not generate a colored line in the test line region because of drug competition, while a drug-negative urine specimen will generate a line in the test region because of the absence of a drug competition. To serve as a procedural control, a colored line will always appear at the control line region if the test has been performed properly.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test. It details the device's intended use and the basis for its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not contain a study or data proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the format requested.

The document discusses "consumer studies" that demonstrate "excellent overall performance in the hands of lay users" and states that "the data supports the conclusion that the consumer can use the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Tests." However, it does not provide the specifics of these studies, such as sample size, methodology, or detailed results, nor does it define explicit acceptance criteria with corresponding performance metrics.

Therefore, many of the requested sections cannot be filled from the provided text.

Here's an attempt to answer based on the available information:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantitative format (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) or present a table of device performance against such criteria. It generally claims "excellent overall performance."

The cut-off concentrations for the drugs are specified, which act as de facto performance targets:

• Marijuana: 50 ng/ml
• Cocaine: 300 ng/ml
• Amphetamine: 1000 ng/ml
• Methamphetamine: 1000 ng/ml
• Opiates: 2000 ng/ml
• Phencyclidine: 25 ng/ml

The operating principle described is that if the drug level is above the cut-off, a line will not form (positive result), and if below, a line will form (negative result).

Reported Device Performance:
The document states: "The consumer studies using the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test... demonstrates that the test exhibits excellent overall performance in the hands of lay users." No quantitative data like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy percentages are provided to back this claim in the given text.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document mentions "consumer studies" but does not specify the sample size, the country of origin of the data, or whether the study was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth for any test sets. The tests are for OTC consumer use, and the "two-step process" includes "confirmatory testing of preliminary positive results" by a laboratory, implying the ground truth for positive cases would be lab-confirmed, but details on this are absent.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

Not specified in the provided text. The "two-step process" implies an external lab confirmation for positive results, which serves as a form of adjudication for those specific results, but the method for the initial screening interpretations is not detailed.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

There is no mention of a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study. The device is a rapid chromatographic immunoassay, not an AI-based system. Therefore, the question about human readers improving with AI assistance is not applicable.

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

This is a qualitative immunoassay test, not an algorithm. Its performance is inherent in its chemical reaction. The "standalone" performance is essentially its ability to react correctly to drug levels. The primary "human-in-the-loop" aspect is the consumer's interpretation of the line, which the document claims is "excellent overall performance in the hands of lay users." However, no specific study data for this standalone performance is provided.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

The ground truth implicitly used for positive results would be laboratory confirmatory testing. For negative results, it's the absence of the drug below the cut-off. The document states: "intended for over-the-counter (OTC) consumer use as the first step in a two-step process that includes confirmatory testing of preliminary positive results. Information, along with the materials for shipping a portion of the urine specimen to the laboratory is provided."

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not refer to a "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test for Marijuana (THC) is a screening test for the rapid detection of THC and its metabolites in human urine at a cut-off level of 50 ng/ml. The test is intended for over-the-counter (OTC) consumer use as the first step in a two step process to provide consumers with information concerning the presence or absence of THC or its metabolites in a urine sample. Information, along with the materials for shipping a portion of the urine specimen to the laboratory for confirmation testing of a preliminary positive result, the second step in the process, is provided.

The Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Tcst for Marijuana and Cocaine (THC, COC) is a screening test for the rapid detection of THC and/or COC and its metabolites in human urine at a cut-off level of 50 ng/ml for THC and 300 ng/ml for COC. The test is intended for over-the-counter (OTC) consumer use as the first step in a two step process to provide consumers with information concerning the presence or absence of either THC, COC (or their metabolites) in a urine sample. Information, along with the materials for shipping a portion of the urine specimen to the laboratory for confirmation testing of a preliminary positive result, the second step in the process, is provided.

The Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test for Marijuana (THC) and the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test for Marijuana & Cocaine (THC, COC), like other commercially available drug screening tests, qualitatively measures the presence or absence of THC and COC and their metabolites in urine, using a one step, rapid chromatographic immunoassay which operates under the principle of competitive binding. Drugs, which may be present in the urine specimen, compete against the drug conjugate for binding sites on the antibody. During testing, a urine specimen migrates upward by capillary action. Marijuana, if present in the urine specimen below 50 ng/ml, and Cocaine, if present in the urine specimen below 300 ng/ml, will not saturate the binding sites of the antibody coated particles in the test device. The antibody coated particles will then be captured by immobilized marijuana or cocaine conjugate and a visible colored line will show up in the test line region. The colored line will not form in the test line region if the marijuana level is above 50 ng/ml because it will saturate all the binding sites of anti-marijuana antibodies. The same holds true for cocaine if the level is above 300 ng/ml. It will saturate all the binding sites of anti-cocaine antibodies and therefore the colored line will not form in the test region. A drug-positive urine specimen will not generate a colored line in the test line region because of drug competition, while a drug-negative urine specimen will generate a line in the test region because of the absence of a drug competition. To serve as a procedural control, a colored line will always appear at the control line region if the test has been performed properly.

The provided text describes two devices, the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test for Marijuana (THC) and the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test for Marijuana & Cocaine (THC, COC). It outlines their intended use and claims substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but does not include a detailed study with acceptance criteria and specific performance metrics for the Accu-Stat™ devices themselves.

Instead, the submission states that "The consumer studies using the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test for Marijuana (THC) and the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test for Marijuana & Cocaine (THC, COC) demonstrates that the test exhibits excellent overall performance in the hands of lay users. The data supports the conclusion that the consumer can use the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Tests to obtain immediate, preliminary information regarding the possible use of THC and COC."

It further argues for safety and effectiveness by claiming the devices are "identical to the ACON Laboratories One Step Marijuana Test Device and the Multi-Drug Multi-Line Device that is legally marketed under K003557 and K020313 respectively for professional use." This suggests reliance on the predicate devices' performance rather than a new, independent study with specific acceptance criteria reported in this document for the Accu-Stat™ devices.

Therefore, I cannot populate all the requested fields with specific, quantifiable data directly from this document regarding the Accu-Stat™ devices' performance against explicit acceptance criteria. The document claims substantial equivalence and mentions "consumer studies" but does not detail their methodology, results, or the acceptance criteria used.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated for the Accu-Stat™ devices in this document. The document refers to cut-off levels as part of the device's mechanism: "Marijuana, if present in the urine specimen below 50 ng/ml... and Cocaine, if present in the urine specimen below 300 ng/ml, will not saturate the binding sites..." This describes the functional threshold rather than an acceptance criterion for accuracy or precision.
• Reported Device Performance: The document offers a qualitative statement: "demonstrates that the test exhibits excellent overall performance in the hands of lay users. The data supports the conclusion that the consumer can use the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Tests to obtain immediate, preliminary information regarding the possible use of THC and COC." No specific numerical performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy percentages) are provided in this text for the Accu-Stat™ devices themselves.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size: Not specified. The document mentions "consumer studies" but does not quantify the sample size.
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not specified. The document does not describe the establishment of a ground truth for a test set for these specific devices, only mentions that they are "screening tests" and preliminary, requiring confirmation testing.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not applicable as the details of a specific test set study for these devices (beyond "consumer studies") are not provided.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• Not applicable. This device is a rapid immunoassay for drug detection, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, nor does the document describe a study of human readers.

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

• The device is a standalone immunoassay kit intended for "lay users" (consumers) at home without professional human-in-the-loop involvement for initial screening. However, the performance data for such standalone use (e.g., accuracy against a gold standard) is not detailed in this document. The instructions advise a second step of confirmation testing by a lab for positive results.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

• Not specified for the "consumer studies." Given the nature of a drug test, a typical ground truth would be laboratory confirmation using a highly accurate method like GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry). The document only states that the device is the "first step in a two-step process to provide over-the-counter (OTC) consumers... with information regarding the presence of THC or COC and their metabolites in a urine sample. Information regarding the second step, confirmation testing, is provided." This implies that the device offers a preliminary result rather than a definitive ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device is an immunoassay, not a machine learning or AI-based system that would typically have a "training set."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device