Search Results

The Alere NT-proBNP for Alinity i assay is a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) used for the in vitro quantitative determination of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in human serum and plasma on the Alinity i system.

In the emergency department, measurements of NT-proBNP are used as an aid in the diagnosis of heart failure (HF) in patients with clinical suspicion of new onset or worsening HF.

The Alere NT-proBNP for Alinity i assay is an automated, two-step immunoassay for the in vitro quantitative determination of NT-proBNP in human serum and plasma using chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) technology. Sample and anti-NT-proBNP coated paramagnetic microparticles are combined and incubated. The NT-proBNP present in the sample binds to the anti-NT-proBNP coated microparticles. The mixture is washed. Anti-NT-proBNP acridinium-labeled conjugate is added to create a reaction mixture and incubated. Following a wash cycle, Pre-Trigger and Trigger Solutions are added. The resulting chemiluminescent reaction is measured as a relative light unit (RLU). There is a direct relationship between the amount of NT-proBNP in the sample and the RLU detected by the system optics.

Despite the request for acceptance criteria and study proving the device meets said criteria, the provided document is a 510(k) summary for a diagnostic test (Alere NT-proBNP for Alinity i Reagent Kit). This type of document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, and thus does not explicitly list "acceptance criteria" for performance in the same way one might find for a new medical device claiming superiority or non-inferiority.

Instead, the document details various performance characteristics of the device, comparing them to relevant standards (CLSI guidelines) and providing statistical data. It aims to show that the new device performs acceptably and similarly to a previously cleared device.

Therefore, I cannot extract a table of "acceptance criteria" as such a table is not explicitly presented. However, I can infer the implied acceptance criteria from the reported performance, specifically from the "No Significant Interference" and "within acceptable performance" statements in the nonclinical performance section, and the effectiveness of the cutoffs for diagnosis in the clinical performance. The "reported device performance" will be the actual numbers provided in the document.

Here's a summary of the available information, structured to address your points as much as possible given the document type:

Implied Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As this is a 510(k) submission, explicit quantitative acceptance criteria are not stated in a dedicated table format. Instead, the device's performance characteristics are presented as evidence of substantial equivalence to a predicate device and adherence to recognized standards. The implied acceptance criteria are that the device demonstrates acceptable accuracy, precision, and clinical utility for its stated indications for use.

Here's a table summarizing key performance indicators that would implicitly serve as acceptance criteria given standard diagnostic device requirements:

Study Details:

1. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Clinical Performance Study (test set): 2127 Emergency Department (ED) subjects.
     • Provenance: Multi-center prospective study across 17 collection sites in the US.
     • Demographics: 1030 (48.4%) female, 1097 (51.6%) male, age 19-97 years. Predominantly White (53.1%) and Black/African American (39.5%). 90.9% non-Hispanic/Latino.
   • Nonclinical Performance (examples):
     • Within-Laboratory Precision: 240 replicates (controls/panels).
     • Reproducibility: 360 replicates (controls/panels) per assay (across 3 sites).
     • Lower Limits of Measurement: n ≥ 60 replicates for LoB, LoD, LoQ.
     • Analytical Specificity/Interference: Each substance tested at 2 analyte levels (approximately 125 pg/mL and 2000 pg/mL).

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

   • The ground truth for the clinical study was an "adjudicated diagnosis" determined by a panel of board-certified cardiologists. The exact number of cardiologists on the panel is not specified in the provided text.

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

   • The document states "An adjudicated diagnosis was determined by a panel of board-certified cardiologists." It does not specify the exact adjudication method (e.g., majority vote, sequential review, etc.).

4. 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:

   • No, this document describes the validation of a quantitative in vitro diagnostic (IVD) reagent kit for measuring NT-proBNP levels using an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CMIA) system. It is not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device, so an MRMC study is not relevant to this submission. The "readers" are the automated analyzers and laboratory personnel interpreting numerical results.

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

   • This device is a standalone diagnostic test in the sense that it provides a quantitative NT-proBNP result. The assay itself is a fully automated process on the Alinity i system. The performance data presented (precision, linearity, limits, specificity, clinical performance tables) represent the performance of the device "standalone" in generating these quantitative results, which are then used by clinicians as an "aid in diagnosis." There isn't a "human-in-the-loop" component to the measurement itself, though medical professionals interpret the results in a clinical context.

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

   • For the clinical performance study, the ground truth for Heart Failure (HF) diagnosis was established by expert consensus (adjudicated diagnosis by a panel of board-certified cardiologists).

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • This document describes a 510(k) submission for an in vitro diagnostic reagent kit. Unlike AI/ML software, such devices typically undergo analytical and clinical validation studies with defined test sets but do not have a "training set" in the sense of machine learning algorithms. The development and optimization of the assay would have involved various internal samples and experiments, but these are not explicitly termed "training sets" and their size is not reported in this context.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • As explained above, the concept of a "training set" with established ground truth, as typically applied to machine learning or AI models, does not directly apply to the regulatory submission type for this diagnostic reagent kit. The assay is based on chemical and biological principles (CMIA) rather than learned algorithms from large datasets.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ADVIA Centaur Active-B12 (Holotranscobalamin)(AB12) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative measurement of holotranscobalamin (holoTC) in human serum using the ADVIA Centaur XP system. Active-B12 (holotranscobalamin) is used as an aid in the diagnosis and treatment of vitamin B12 deficiency.

The ADVIA Centaur AB12 assay is a fully automated, two-step direct immunoassay using chemiluminescent technology. The assay utilizes an acridinium ester-labeled anti-transcobalamin antibody as the Lite Reagent. The Solid Phase consists of biotinylated anti-holotranscobalamin antibody coupled to streptavidin-coated magnetic latex microparticles.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the ADVIA Centaur Active-B12 (Holotranscobalamin) (AB12) assay, structured to address your specific questions about acceptance criteria and the supporting study:

It's important to note that this document is a 510(k) summary, which is a high-level overview. It describes a modification to an already cleared device (K160757), primarily focusing on a change in calibration traceability. Therefore, detailed study protocols and raw data are not typically included in this summary. The summary focuses on demonstrating that the modified device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device and that the modification did not negatively impact its performance.

Since this is a summary of a modification intended to show substantial equivalence, the "acceptance criteria" discussed are largely in the context of ensuring the modification did not degrade performance.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that "The device passed all of the tests based on pre-determined Pass/Fail criteria." However, the specific numerical acceptance criteria for each test are not explicitly provided in this 510(k) summary. It lists the types of tests performed and implies that the results were satisfactory.

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

The summary does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for the various validation tests (Accuracy, Linearity, Precision, Detection Limits, Recovery, Proficiency, or Reference Range).

• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the reference range study provides a mean and 95% central reference interval for an "asymptomatic population," implying human serum samples. The device itself is for in vitro diagnostic use in human serum. The data would have been collected in the course of validating the device. The manufacturer is Axis-Shield Diagnostics Ltd. in Scotland, UK, so it's plausible the data collection occurred there or in other regions where they conducted studies. The study is retrospective in the sense that these tests are performed after the device (or its modification) has been developed, but the sample collection itself for the reference range could be prospective.

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

This type of information is not applicable and not provided in the context of this device. This is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay that measures a biomarker (holotranscobalamin) directly. The "ground truth" for the test set is established by the analytical reference methods or reference materials (like the WHO International Standard), not by human experts interpreting images or complex clinical scenarios.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable for this type of IVD device. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are typically used in studies involving human interpretation of medical images or clinical data where there might be inter-reader variability. For an IVD assay, the result is a quantitative measurement, and the "ground truth" is based on the accuracy and precision of the analytical measurement itself, often against a validated reference method or material.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is for evaluating human performance, often with and without AI assistance, especially in radiology or pathology. This device is an automated IVD assay, not an AI-assisted human interpretation tool.

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

This device is a standalone algorithm/assay in the sense that it performs the measurement automatically without human intervention during the measurement process. The "performance" mentioned (accuracy, linearity, precision, etc.) are all standalone performance metrics of the assay itself. There is no "human-in-the-loop" once the sample is loaded onto the ADVIA Centaur XP system for this specific measurement.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for evaluating the performance of this IVD assay is primarily based on:

• Reference Materials: Specifically, the WHO International Standard for Holotranscobalamin (NIBSC Code 03/178) is highlighted as the new traceability standard for calibration. This serves as a primary ground truth for accurate measurement.
• Comparative Methods: The "Accuracy by correlation" likely involved comparing results from the modified device with those obtained using a reference method or the predicate device.
• Defined Concentrations: For tests like dilution linearity, precision, and detection capability, samples with precisely known or established concentrations of holotranscobalamin are used.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" sample size as this is not a machine learning or AI algorithm in the contemporary sense that would require a separate training phase with a distinct dataset for model building. The calibration process implicitly "trains" the device to measure correctly against known standards. The calibration itself uses "2-point Calibration using 2 level calibrators" (Low – 19 pmol/L, High - 121 pmol/L). However, this is not a "training set" in the context of complex ML models.

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

Given that there isn't a traditional "training set" for a machine learning model, the "ground truth" for the calibration materials (which serve a similar function of establishing correct performance parameters) is established through:

• Reference to the WHO International Standard (NIBSC Code 03/178): The primary modification in this 510(k) is to make the calibration traceable to this international standard. This standard itself would have been value-assigned through a rigorous international collaborative study.
• Internal Reference Material: The predicate device used an "Internal reference material; recombinant holotranscobalamin and phosphate buffer with protein (bovine) stabilizers." This internal standard would have been characterized and assigned values through the manufacturer's own internal assay development and validation processes, likely against an existing recognized reference method or material.

In summary, this 510(k) pertains to a minor modification (calibration traceability) of an existing in vitro diagnostic test. The evaluation focuses on ensuring the modification did not alter the fundamental performance characteristics, and the "acceptance criteria" are implied to be that the modified device performs comparably to the predicate and meets standard analytical performance requirements for IVDs. The "study" refers to a series of analytical verification and validation tests rather than clinical trials with human readers or AI algorithms.

Ask a specific question about this device