Search Results

The Varelisa ReCombi CTD Screen EIA kit is designed for the qualitative determination of ten antinuclear antibodies in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases such as SLE (systemic lupus erythematosus), drug-induced lupus, scleroderma (progressive systemic sclerosis), MCTD (mixed connective tissue disease), SS (Sjögren's syndrome) and polymyositis/dermatomyositis. The Varelisa ReCombi CTD Screen detects antibodies against dsDNA, RNP (RNP70,A,C), Sm (B,B',D), SS-A/Ro(52 kDa,60 kDa), SS-B/La, Scl-70, CENP-B, Histone, Ribosomal P Protein and Jo-1 in a single microwell.

The new device is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using microtiter plates as the solid phase. The plate wells are coated with antinuclear antigens, which allow anti-nuclear antibodies (sample) to react with the immobilized antigens. The conjugate is rabbit anti-human IgG horseradish peroxidase (HRP), which uses 3, 3'5, 5' tetramethylbenzidine dihydrochloride (TMB) as substrate. The kit contains calibrator and negative control. The kit also contains sample diluent, wash buffer concentrate and stop solution.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Varelisa ReCombi CTD Screen, organized according to your requested information:

Device Acceptance Criteria and Performance Study

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "sensitivity must be > X%" or "specificity must be > Y%") for the Varelisa ReCombi CTD Screen. Instead, the study aims to demonstrate laboratory equivalence and substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Varelisa® ReCombi ANA Screen K993108). The performance metrics reported are focused on the agreement between the new device's results and clinical definitions of samples, compared to the predicate device.

Implicit Acceptance Criteria (based on the provided information):

• Substantial Equivalence: The primary "acceptance criterion" is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device. This is achieved through comparability in intended use, assay principle, and performance characteristics.
• Comparable Performance: The agreement rates for both positive (CTD) and negative (control) samples should be comparable to the predicate device, with differences falling within acceptable confidence intervals (though specific thresholds for these intervals are not explicitly stated as acceptance criteria). The presented data suggests the differences are deemed acceptable for substantial equivalence.
• "Performs according to state-of-the-art expectations": This is a qualitative statement in the summary implying that the device's overall performance is considered modern and effective for its purpose.

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

• Test Set Size:
  • Clinical Samples: 183 CTD (Connective Tissue Disease) samples.
  • Control/Negative Samples: 100 disease controls, plus "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)" (specific number not given for the normal population, but the "100 disease controls" are used for the negative agreement calculation).
  • Total: At least 283 samples (183 CTD + 100 disease controls). The text also mentions "clinically defined sera and for international reference sera" and "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)," suggesting the reported numbers might be a subset of a broader validation set.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the manufacturer is based in Germany, implying the study could have been conducted there or in collaboration with other European institutions. The mention of "international reference sera" suggests a diverse set of samples. The study appears to be retrospective, as it analyzed "results obtained for clinically defined sera."

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

The document does not specify the "number of experts" or their "qualifications" involved in establishing the ground truth. It refers to "clinically defined sera" and "clinical definitions of samples," implying that the ground truth for CTD status (positive/negative) was established through clinical diagnosis, likely by physicians or rheumatologists, based on a comprehensive set of clinical criteria, medical history, and other diagnostic tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The adjudication method is not explicitly described. Given that the ground truth is derived from "clinical definitions," it likely represents a consensus clinical impression rather than a specific adjudication process between multiple readers of the assay results.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not performed. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit for lab testing, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that helps human readers interpret images or complex data. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply to this submission.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was conducted. The reported "Agreement (%)" for both positive and negative samples (87.4% and 79.0%, respectively) represents the performance of the Varelisa ReCombi CTD Screen itself when tested against clinically defined samples, without human intervention in the result interpretation beyond standard lab protocols for reading ELISA plates (e.g., using a microplate reader). The ELISA kit itself is the "algorithm" in this context.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was clinical definitions/diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases. The text mentions "clinically defined sera" and "clinical definitions of samples," indicating that the diagnosis of CTD (or lack thereof for control samples) was established through medical evaluation of patients.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a training set size. This is common for traditional IVD kits as their development often involves iterative optimization and validation rather than a distinct "training set" in the machine learning sense. The "development" of the new device is mentioned in comparison to the predicate, implying an engineering and chemistry-focused development process rather than algorithmic training.

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

Since a specific "training set" is not mentioned, the method for establishing ground truth for such a set is also not specified. If any internal validation or optimization was done during development, the ground truth would likely have been established similarly to the test set: through clinical definitions and classification of samples.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Varelisa ReCombi ANA Profile EIA kit is designed for the qualitative determination of eight antinuclear antibodies in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of SLE (systemic lupus erythematosus), scleroderma (progressive systemic sclerosis and CREST syndrome), MCTD (mixed connective tissue disease), SS (Sjögren's syndrome) and polymyositis/dermatomyositis. The Varelisa ReCombi ANA Profile individually detects antibodies against dsDNA, U1 RNP (RNP 70 kDa,A,C), SmD, SS-A/Ro(52 kDa, 60 kDa), SS-B/La, Scl-70, CENP-B and Jo-1.

The new device is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using microtiter plates as the solid phase. Plate wells each coated with 1 of 8 different ANA antigens are included to allow corresponding antibodies in the patient samples react with the immobilized antigens. The conjugate is rabbit anti-human IgG horseradish peroxidase (HRP), which uses 3, 3'5, 5' tetramethylbenzidine dihydrochloride (TMB) as substrate. The kit contains a calibrator and a negative control. The kit also contains sample diluent, wash buffer concentrate and stop solution.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria for the Varelisa ReCombi ANA Profile. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices through comparability studies. Therefore, reported device performance is framed in terms of agreement with predicate devices and established reference standards.

• results obtained within a comparison study analyzing positive, equivocal, and negative sera.
• results obtained for international reference sera.
• results obtained for samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population). |

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

The document mentions "a comparison study analyzing positive, equivocal and negative sera" and "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)" but does not specify the exact sample size for the test set or the country of origin of the data. It can be inferred that the data is retrospective as it refers to a "comparison study" and "available data," suggesting pre-collected samples.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth. The nature of the device (an immunoassay for antibody detection) suggests that ground truth would likely be established through clinical diagnosis of autoimmune diseases or by established reference methods for antibody detection, rather than expert interpretation of images or complex data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not provide information on any adjudication method used for the test set.

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

A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is more relevant for diagnostic devices that rely on human interpretation of images or complex data, where the AI might assist a reader. The Varelisa ReCombi ANA Profile is an automated immunoassay where the output is a qualitative determination (positive/negative) based on optical density readings, not a human interpretation task.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was done implicitly. The entire evaluation described for the Varelisa ReCombi ANA Profile relates to its performance as a standalone assay, comparing its results directly to predicate devices and reference materials. The device is the algorithm, producing results without human-in-the-loop assistance for interpretation of the test itself.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used appears to be a composite of:

• Clinical Diagnosis: The intended use states the kit "aids in the diagnosis of SLE... scleroderma... MCTD... SS and polymyositis/dermatomyositis," implying that patient samples from individuals with confirmed diagnoses of these conditions would serve as ground truth for "positive" samples.
• Established Reference Materials: The study mentions "results obtained for international reference sera," indicating that recognized standard antibody preparations were used as ground truth.
• Predicate Device Results (as a gold standard proxy): A significant part of the study involves comparing the new device's results to those obtained with the predicate devices for positive, equivocal, and negative sera. This suggests the predicate device's performance served as a de-facto "ground truth" for demonstrating equivalence.
• Healthy Controls: "Samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)" were used to establish negative ground truth.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set or its sample size. This is typical for a traditional immunoassay device. "Training" in the context of an AI/ML device would refer to the data used to develop the algorithm. For this device, the "algorithm" is the biochemical assay itself and its reading protocol, not a machine learning model that learns from large datasets. The development process would involve optimization and validation runs rather than distinct "training" and "test" sets in the AI sense.

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

As no training set is mentioned in the AI/ML context, this question is not applicable. The "ground truth" for the development of the assay would have been established through a combination of chemical and biological principles, known antibody-antigen reactions, and clinical validation against diagnosed patient samples and controls, rather than a specific "ground truth for a training set."

Ask a specific question about this device

The Varelisa Sm Antibodies EIA kit is designed for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of SmD antibodies in serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

The new device is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using microtiter plates as the solid phase. The plate wells are coated with a synthetic SmD peptide as antigen, which allow anti-SmD antibodies to react with the immobilized antigen (sample). The conjugate is rabbit anti-human IgG horseradish peroxidase (HRP), which uses 3, 3'5, 5' tetramethylbenzidine dihydrochloride (TMB) as substrate. The kit contains a set of six calibrators, positive and negative controls. The kit also contains sample diluent, wash buffer concentrate and stop solution.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for Varelisa® Sm Antibodies, an in vitro diagnostic device, not an AI or medical imaging device. Therefore, many of the requested criteria such as sample size for test and training sets, number of experts, adjudication methods, multi-reader multi-case studies, and standalone performance are not applicable or typically reported in this type of submission.

However, I can extract information related to acceptance criteria and the study performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For in vitro diagnostic devices like the Varelisa® Sm Antibodies, acceptance criteria often revolve around demonstrating comparable performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, agreement) to a legally marketed predicate device. The document states that the new device is a successor to the predicate and that "all available data support that the new device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device and that the new device performs according to state-of-the-art expectations." While specific numerical performance values (e.g., sensitivity/specificity percentages) are not provided in this summary, the outcome of the study (comparability) serves as the "reported device performance."

• results obtained within a comparison study analyzing positive, equivocal and negative sera.
• results obtained for clinically defined sera and for international reference sera.
• results obtained for samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)."

"In summary, all available data support that the new device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device and that the new device performs according to state-of-the-art expectations." |

Study Details:

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in the provided text. The submission refers to a "data set" that included "positive, equivocal and negative sera," "clinically defined sera and for international reference sera," and "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)." However, specific numbers for each group or total are not given.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the manufacturer is "Sweden Diagnostics (Germany) GmbH," suggesting European origin, though international reference sera would be globally sourced. The study appears to be retrospective as it uses collected sera.

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

   • This information is not applicable to this type of in vitro diagnostic device. The "ground truth" for diagnostic kits is typically established by the clinical status of the patient (e.g., diagnosed with SLE or healthy) and/or by established reference methods or reference materials (like international reference sera), not by individual expert consensus on image interpretation.

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

   • Not applicable for this type of in vitro diagnostic device. Adjudication methods are relevant for subjective interpretations, often in imaging, to resolve discrepancies among experts. Clinical diagnoses and reference standards provide objective "ground truth."

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:

   • Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic assay (laboratory test), not an AI-based system or a device that involves human readers or interpretation of cases in the context of AI assistance.

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

   • Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic kit. The device itself performs the assay (detecting antibodies). The "performance" is the assay's ability to correctly identify the presence or absence of antibodies, which then aids a clinician in making a diagnosis. There isn't a "standalone algorithm" in the typical sense of AI. The device is the standalone diagnostic tool (in the context of laboratory analysis).

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

   • The ground truth would be based on:
     • Clinical Diagnosis: For "clinically defined sera," the patient's existing clinical diagnosis of SLE or healthy status would serve as the ground truth.
     • Reference Standards: For "international reference sera," these are standardized biological materials with known characteristics, serving as a form of "ground truth."
     • Predicate Device Results (for comparison study): While not true ground truth, the predicate device's results would be used as a reference point for demonstrating comparability.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable in the context of typical machine learning or AI device development for which this question is usually posed. This device is an immunoassay kit; it is wet-lab developed and validated, not "trained" on a data set in the computational sense.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the computational sense for this type of device. The assay's parameters (e.g., reagent concentrations, incubation times) are optimized through laboratory development, potentially using a different set of samples (often called "development" or "optimization" samples), but these are not "training sets" in the AI context.

Ask a specific question about this device

Celikey IgG is intended for the semiquantitative and qualitative measurement of anti-tissue transglutaminase (tTG) IgG antibodies in human serum and plasma. Celikey IgG is based on recombinant human tissue transglutaminase as antigen and is useful as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of patients with celiac disease.

Celikey IgG is an indirect noncompetitive enzyme immunoassay for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of tTG (IgG) antibodies in human serum or plasma. Antibodies specific for tTG present in the patient sample bind to the antigen.

The test kit contains microplate strips coated with purified recombinant human tTG antigen, calibrators, positive and negative controls, enzyme-labeled conjugate, substrate and substrate stop solution, sample diluent and wash buffer.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the Celikey® IgG tTG Antibody Assay, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text does not explicitly state specific numerical acceptance criteria for the Celikey® IgG tTG Antibody Assay. Instead, it frames the performance evaluation in terms of comparability to a predicate device and meeting "state-of-the-art expectations" and "medical literature" expectations.

Therefore, the table will reflect the general performance goals described rather than hard numerical thresholds.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The text states "a data set including… results obtained within a comparison study analyzing positive, equivocal and negative sera," "results obtained for clinically defined sera," and "results obtained for samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)." However, the specific number of samples in each of these categories, or the total sample size for the test set, is not provided in the given document.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The study focuses on comparing the new device to a predicate device and clinically defined sera, but it doesn't detail the method of establishing the "ground truth" for those comparisons, nor does it mention expert involvement for this purpose.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided in the document.

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

• Was it done? No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay designed to measure antibodies, not an imaging device or a device requiring human interpretation of complex visual data where MRMC studies are typically employed to assess reader performance.
• Effect size of human readers with vs. without AI assistance: Not applicable, as this is an IVD assay.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

• Was it done? Yes, in a sense, the primary evaluation presented is of the device's standalone performance. The "comparability study" assesses the Celikey IgG device's ability to produce results akin to the predicate device, and its performance with clinically defined and healthy samples. This is a measure of the algorithm's (or assay's) output without a human in the loop interpreting the raw measurement. The device itself generates the semi-quantitative and qualitative results.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

Based on the description:

• Comparison to a predicate device: The results from the INOVA QUANTA Lite™ h-tTG IgG assay served as a form of reference or "truth" for comparability.
• Clinically defined sera: This implies that the samples had a known clinical status (e.g., celiac disease positive or negative) established by other diagnostic means (which are not specified but could include biopsy, other antibody tests, or clinical presentation).
• Samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population): These samples are expected to be negative for the target antibodies, effectively serving as a negative ground truth.

Therefore, the ground truth is a combination of comparison to a legally marketed predicate device and clinically defined (diagnosed) patient status, along with samples from a normal population.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided in the document. IVD assays like this typically undergo extensive development and validation, but the specific details of a "training set" (in the machine learning sense) are not outlined, nor are the "training" samples or their number explicitly stated.

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

This information is not provided in the document, as details about a "training set" for the assay's development or the method of establishing its ground truth are not included.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Varelisa Gliadin IgG Antibodies EIA kit is designed for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of gliadin (IgG) antibodies in serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of certain gluten sensitive enteropathies such as celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis.

Varelisa Gliadin IgG Antibodies is an indirect noncompetitive enzyme immunoassay for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of gliadin (IgG) antibodies in human serum or plasma. Antibodies specific for gliadin (IgG) present in the patient sample bind to the antigen.

The test kit contains microplate strips coated with gliadin antigen, calibrators, positive and negative controls, enzyme-labeled conjugate, substrate and substrate stop solution, sample diluent and wash buffer.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the Varelisa® Gliadin IgG Antibodies device. However, it does not contain explicit acceptance criteria in terms of specific performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds, or quantitative comparison targets) that the device must meet. Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device.

The study presented is primarily a "laboratory equivalence" and device comparison study, rather than a study designed to meet pre-defined, quantitative acceptance criteria.

Here's an attempt to extract and describe the requested information based on the provided text, while acknowledging the limitations of the input regarding explicit acceptance criteria.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for Varelisa® Gliadin IgG Antibodies

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As stated above, explicit quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., specific sensitivity/specificity thresholds, agreement percentages) are not provided in the submitted text. The document refers to "substantial equivalence" as the primary goal. The reported device performance is described qualitatively as supporting this equivalence.

• Results obtained for clinically defined sera were comparable.
• Results obtained for samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population) were comparable.
• All available data support substantial equivalence and performance according to state-of-the-art expectations. |
  | Intended Use | Aid in the diagnosis of certain gluten-sensitive enteropathies (celiac disease, dermatitis herpetiformis) by determining gliadin (IgG) antibodies in serum or plasma. | The device is designed and intended for this purpose, with the difference that the new device supports both serum and plasma, whereas the predicate only supports serum. |
  | Test Principle | Indirect noncompetitive enzyme immunoassay for semi-quantitative and qualitative determination of gliadin (IgG) antibodies. | Both the new device and the predicate device utilize an indirect noncompetitive enzyme immunoassay principle, with comparable antigens and detection systems. |
  | Sample Dilution | Recommend comparable sample dilutions to the predicate. | The new device recommends the same sample dilutions as the predicate device. |
  | Cut-off Determination | Effective classification of results (e.g., negative, equivocal, positive). | The new device uses a set of six calibrators and classifies results as negative, equivocal, and positive. (This differs from the predicate's use of low/high positive standards and grading as negative, weak, moderate, strong positive, but is presented as an alternative, acceptable method). |

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

• Sample Size: The document mentions "a data set including results obtained within a comparison study analyzing positive, equivocal and negative sera," "clinically defined sera," and "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)." However, the specific sample sizes for these test sets are not provided.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Given the manufacturer is based in Germany and the submission is to the US FDA, the data could be from Germany or elsewhere. The text does not specify if the data is retrospective or prospective.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. The text refers to "clinically defined sera" but does not detail how these definitions were established or by whom. The ground truth for "apparently healthy subjects" is assumed to be based on their health status.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• This information is not provided in the document.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study is not mentioned in the provided text. This type of study typically involves human readers aided by AI vs. without AI, which is not applicable here as the device is a diagnostic assay (an in vitro diagnostic device, not an AI-assisted image interpretation system).

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

• Yes, the testing described is inherent to a standalone device. The Varelisa® Gliadin IgG Antibodies kit is an in vitro diagnostic assay. Its performance is evaluated based on its ability to detect antibodies in serum/plasma samples, independent of human interpretation beyond reading the assay results. The "laboratory equivalence" study assesses the device's inherent performance characteristics.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth appears to be based on:
  • Clinical Definition/Classification: "Clinically defined sera" imply a diagnosis or classification based on established medical criteria (though the specific diagnostic criteria for celiac disease or dermatitis herpetiformis are not detailed in this document).
  • Health Status: "Samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)" serve as a 'negative' ground truth.
  • Predicate Device Results: The comparison against the predicate device also implicitly uses the predicate's results as a reference point for demonstrating equivalence, though the predicate itself would have been validated against clinical ground truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• This submission describes a commercial device and its validation for a 510(k) submission. It does not mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning, as this is a traditional immunoassay, not an AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, this question is not applicable.

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

• As the concept of a "training set" for an AI/ML algorithm is not applicable to this device, this question is also not relevant to the provided document.

Ask a specific question about this device

Celikey is intended for the semiquantitative and qualitative measurement of anti-tissue transglutaminase (tTG) IgA antibodies in human serum and plasma. Celikey is based on recombinant human tissue transglutaminase as antigen and is useful as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of patients with celiac disease.

Celikey is an indirect noncompetitive enzyme immunoassay for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of IgA antibodies against Tissue transglutaminase in human serum or plasma.

The test kit contains microplate strips coated with purified human recombinant tTG antigen, calibrators, positive and negative controls, enzyme-labeled conjugate, substrate and substrate stop solution, sample diluent and wash buffer.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for Celikey® Tissue Transglutaminase (human, recombinant) IgA Antibody Assay

This response details the acceptance criteria and the study performed to demonstrate the Celikey® Tissue Transglutaminase (tTG) IgA Antibody Assay meets these criteria, based on the provided 510(k) summary.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document doesn't explicitly list specific quantitative "acceptance criteria" in a table format with numerical targets for sensitivity, specificity, or agreement with a gold standard. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (INOVA QUANTA Lite™ tTG) and that the assay performs "as expected from the medical literature."

Therefore, the acceptance criteria are implicitly based on the predicate device's performance and general expectations for diagnostic tests for celiac disease, expressed as data showing comparability and expected performance.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the exact sample size for the test set used in the comparison study or for the clinically defined and normal population sera. It refers to a "data set including" these categories of results.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. It indicates the data includes:
  • Results obtained within a comparison study analyzing positive, equivocal, and negative sera.
  • Results obtained for clinically defined sera.
  • Results obtained for endemic and any and any subjects (normal population).
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not explicitly stated, however, the description of "results obtained" typically suggests retrospective analysis of collected samples, but this cannot be definitively confirmed from the provided text.

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

The document does not provide details on the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set. The ground truth for "clinically defined sera" would typically rely on clinical diagnosis by medical professionals, but this is not elaborated upon.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) used for the test set. The evaluation seems to rely on direct comparison of results between the new device and the predicate, and against expected outcomes for clinically defined samples.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study typically involves human readers interpreting diagnostic images or data with and without AI assistance, which is not applicable to this in-vitro diagnostic device (immunoassay). The study performed was a laboratory equivalence study comparing the new device to a predicate device.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was implicitly done. The "results obtained for clinically defined sera" and "results obtained for endemic and normal population subjects" constitute the standalone performance evaluation of the Celikey® assay itself, demonstrating its ability to distinguish between different clinical states, even if in comparison to the predicate and medical literature expectations. The device is an immunoassay that provides a quantitative or semi-quantitative result directly, without requiring human-in-the-loop interpretation for its primary output.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used appears to be a combination of:

• Predicate Device Results: For the "comparison study analyzing positive, equivocal and negative sera," the predicate device's results likely served as a reference or a comparative ground truth.
• Clinical Diagnosis/Medical Literature: For the "clinically defined sera" and "endemic and normal population subjects," the ground truth was based on the clinical diagnosis of the patients (e.g., diagnosed celiac disease patients vs. healthy controls) and general medical understanding of tTG IgA antibody levels in these populations. This indirectly points to clinical outcomes as the ultimate ground truth, but the direct evidence for the study was likely established diagnoses.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide any information regarding a training set or its sample size. Immunoassays like this do not typically involve a "training" phase in the same way machine learning algorithms do. The development of such assays involves optimizing reagents and protocols, but the concept of a "training set" with established ground truth for an algorithm is not applicable here.

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

As no training set is mentioned or applicable in the context of this device's development as described, there is no information on how its ground truth was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Varelisa Gliadin IgA Antibodies EIA kit is designed for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of gliadin (IgA) antibodies in serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of certain gluten sensitive enteropathies such as celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis.

Varelisa Gliadin IgA Antibodies is an indirect noncompetitive enzyme immunoassay for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of gliadin (IgA) antibodies in human serum or plasma. Antibodies specific for gliadin (IgA) present in the patient sample bind to the antigen. The test kit contains microplate strips coated with gliadin antigen, calibrators, test and negative controls, enzyme-labeled conjugate, substrate and substrate stop solution, sample diluent and wash buffer.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the Varelisa® Gliadin IgA Antibodies kit, a device intended for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of gliadin (IgA) antibodies to aid in the diagnosis of certain gluten-sensitive enteropathies. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the INOVA QUANTA Lite™ Gliadin IgA.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study based on the provided information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., specific thresholds for sensitivity, specificity, or agreement percentages). Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the need to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device. This is a regulatory standard where the new device performs as well as, or comparably to, an already legally marketed device for the same intended use.

The "reported device performance" is presented implicitly through the comparison study.

Study Details

The provided text describes a comparative study to establish substantial equivalence.

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
   The document states the study analyzed "positive, equivocal and negative sera," "clinically defined sera," and "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)." However, the specific sample sizes for these groups are not provided. The data provenance is not explicitly stated beyond the manufacturer being "Sweden Diagnostics (Germany) GmbH," suggesting the data would likely originate from Germany or other European countries where such diagnostics are developed and tested. The study appears to be retrospective, using existing samples rather than prospectively collecting new ones for the device evaluation.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth.

3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   The document does not specify any adjudication method for the test set.

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:
   This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not an imaging or AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would involve human readers interpreting results in the same way an MRMC study evaluates. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed in the context of human readers improving with AI assistance. The comparison is between the new device and a predicate IVD device.

5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   Yes, the study evaluated the standalone performance of the Varelisa® Gliadin IgA Antibodies kit in comparison to the predicate device. The device itself is an assay, and its performance is assessed directly; there isn't an "algorithm" in the sense of a machine learning model that would then be combined with human interpretation. The output of the assay is a quantitative or semi-quantitative result that clinicians interpret.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
   The ground truth appears to be established by clinical definition and classification of patient samples ("clinically defined sera," "positive, equivocal and negative sera," "samples from apparently healthy subjects"). While not explicitly stated, for IVDs like this, ground truth for patient status (e.g., presence or absence of celiac disease) would typically be based on a combination of clinical diagnosis, other laboratory tests (e.g., biopsy for celiac disease), and a consensus of medical professionals. The predicate device itself might also serve as a defacto "ground truth" for comparison in some aspects of the equivalence claim.

7. The sample size for the training set:
   Since this is a 510(k) submission for an enzyme immunoassay kit and not a machine learning algorithm, the concept of a "training set" in the context of AI/ML is not applicable. The device likely underwent development and optimization using various internal data, but these are not typically referred to as "training sets" in this regulatory context.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   As stated above, the concept of a "training set" as in AI/ML is not relevant here. For the development and validation of the immunoassay, ground truth for control materials would be established through careful characterization using reference methods and clinical samples.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Varelisa MPO ANCA EIA kit is designed for the semi-quantitative and qualitative determination of myeloperoxidase anti neutrophil cytoplasmatic antibodies (MPO ANCA) in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of certain autoimmune vasculitides such as microscopic polyangiitis, and crescentic glomerulonephritis.

Varelisa MPO ANCA is an indirect noncompetitive enzyme immunoassay for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of MPO ANCA in human serum or plasma. Antibodies specific for MPO present in the patient sample bind to the antigen.

The test kit contains microplate strips coated with human purified MPO ANCA antigen, calibrators, positive and negative controls, enzyme-labeled conjugate, substrate and substrate stop solution, Sample Diluent and wash buffer.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Varelisa® MPO ANCA device, presented in the requested format:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a detailed list of specific acceptance criteria with numerical targets. Instead, it offers a general statement about "comparability" and "expected performance."

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

The document does not explicitly state the exact sample size for the test set used in the comparison study. It mentions a "data set including: results obtained within a comparison study analyzing positive, equivocal and negative sera; results obtained for externally defined Calibrators and clinically defined sera; results obtained for samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)."

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The document is from Pharmacia Deutschland GmbH, suggesting the studies likely originated in Germany or Europe, but this is not confirmed. The studies appear to be retrospective as they are described as "results obtained" from existing samples.

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

The document does not provide any information about the number or qualifications of experts used to establish a ground truth for the comparison study. The "ground truth" seems to be implied by existing clinical classifications (positive, equivocal, negative sera) and "clinically defined sera," but the method of definition is not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No information is provided regarding an adjudication method for the test set.

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. The study described compares the performance of a new diagnostic device (Varelisa MPO ANCA) against a predicate device (INOVA QUANTA Lite™ MPO) using patient samples, not evaluating human reader performance with and without AI assistance.

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

Yes, a standalone performance evaluation was done. The Varelisa MPO ANCA is an in vitro diagnostic immunoassay Kit, meaning its performance is evaluated as a standalone biological/chemical assay without human interpretation as part of its core function, other than laboratory personnel following the kit instructions. The comparison study assesses the kit's direct analytical output.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used appears to be a combination of:

• Clinical Definition/Classification: "positive, equivocal and negative sera" and "clinically defined sera" imply a pre-existing clinical diagnosis or classification for the samples.
• Reference Method Comparison: Implied by the comparison to the "INOVA QUANTA Lite™ MPO," which serves as the predicate device (and thus a de facto reference for comparison in this context).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI models. This device is an immunoassay kit, which is a chemical/biological test system, not an AI or machine learning algorithm that requires training data in the conventional sense. The "training" in this context would be the development and optimization of the assay reagents and protocol.

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

Since there is no "training set" in the machine learning sense for this immunoassay device, the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set does not apply. The development of the kit would involve internal validation and optimization, but this is distinct from establishing ground truth for an AI training set.

Ask a specific question about this device