Search Results

Lia Pregnancy Test is intended for non-professional, over-the-counter use for the qualitative identification of the elevated levels of human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) in urine to aid in the determination of pregnancy.

The Lia Pregnancy Test is an in vitro diagnostic device for the qualitative identification of the elevated levels of human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) in urine to aid in the determination of pregnancy. The method employs a unique combination of monoclonal-dye conjugate and polyclonal-solid phase antibodies to selectively identify hCG in the test samples. The sensitivity of the test has been adjusted to 22mlU/mL. The Lia Pregnancy Test is a lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay. When a mid-stream urine sample is applied to the absorbent end, the sample enters the device by capillary action and mixes with the antibody-dye coniugate (mouse anti-beta hCG monoclonal antibody), flowing across the pre-coated (Goat anti-alpha hCG polyclonal antibody) membrane. During the test, hCG in the urine specimen reacts with the dye conjugate and forms a complex. The complex migrates along the cellulose strip to the α-hCG antibody line (T), and remains captured in the T line. As a result, a red colored band develops in the T line, indicating a positive result. If there is no hCG in the urine, there is no red band in the test zone, indicating a negative result. The control line develops in the Control (C) zone regardless of the result.

The provided document describes the LIA Pregnancy Test, an over-the-counter device for the qualitative identification of elevated levels of human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) in urine to aid in the determination of pregnancy.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the studies performed:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance:

• Test Set (Clinical Performance Data):
  • Lay-user usability studies: Two studies with 174 lay-user consumers between the ages of 18-49.
  • Clinical Study: N = 153 women, attending four different women's health clinics. Approximately half were suspected pregnant.
  • Blinded Lay-user study: 15 women performed simulated mid-stream tests.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. Given the FDA oversight, it's typically understood to be U.S. data unless otherwise specified. The clinical studies were conducted at "4 women's health clinics," implying prospective data collection for the purpose of the study. The non-clinical performance data (e.g., LoD, cross-reactivity) uses hCG-spiked urine panels or pedigreed urine samples, which are laboratory-controlled.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications:

• Clinical Study: "Clinical staff member(s)" examined and reported their interpretation of Lia Pregnancy Test results. The number and specific qualifications (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience) are not explicitly stated. However, for in-vitro diagnostic products like pregnancy tests, "clinical staff" typically refers to trained medical professionals or laboratory personnel.
• Non-clinical studies: Experts were involved in establishing the ground truth (e.g., creating hCG-spiked samples, performing predicate device testing), but the number and specific qualifications are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method:

• Clinical Study: The study involved a comparison between "user interpretation of the Lia Pregnancy Test", "clinical staff interpretation of the Lia Pregnancy Test", and the "standard of care" (predicate device results by a professional). This implies a direct comparison, but a formal adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1 consensus) for disagreements is not explicitly described. However, the "conformity between the staff interpretation of the Lia Pregnancy and the standard of care is 100%" suggests the predicate device's result was the definitive truth in that comparison.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

• An MRMC study was not explicitly stated as a comparative effectiveness study in the traditional sense for improving human reader performance with AI assistance. This device is a standalone diagnostic test for lay-users. The studies focused on demonstrating that lay-users could accurately interpret the device results, and that these interpretations aligned with professional interpretations and a predicate device. The "multi-reader" aspect is covered by the multiple lay-users interpreting the tests. There is no AI component mentioned in the document.

6. Standalone Performance Study:

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire series of non-clinical performance tests (e.g., Limit of Detection, Reproducibility, Cross-reactivity, Interfering Substances, Stability, etc.) are demonstrations of the algorithm/device's standalone performance under various conditions without human interpretation bias.
• Additionally, the clinical study's "conformity between the staff interpretation of the Lia Pregnancy and the standard of care is 100%" demonstrates the device's performance when interpreted by trained professionals, validating its output. The blinded lay-user study (100% correct identification of positive/negative results) also serves as a standalone performance assessment interpreted by the intended user.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Non-clinical studies: The ground truth for these studies was established using known concentrations of hCG (e.g., WHO #5 reference material for LoD) or pedigreed urine samples with established characteristics (e.g., sero-negative, sero-positive, pH, specific gravity, presence of interferents, ßhCGcf concentrations).
• Clinical studies: The ground truth for determining pregnancy status was the predicate device's result as tested by a professional in a clinical lab (referred to as "standard of care").

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• The document does not mention a training set sample size. This is because the Lia Pregnancy Test is described as an immunochromatographic device, not an AI/ML-driven device that requires traditional "training data" in the machine learning sense. Its design and performance are based on biochemical reactions and physical principles, which are verified through the outlined performance testing.

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

• As the device is not an AI/ML system requiring a quantifiable training set, this question is not applicable in the context of the provided document. The ground truth for verification and validation studies was established as described in point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device