Search Results

The ARCHITECT HSV-2 IgG assay is a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) used for the qualitative detection of specific IgG antibodies to herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) in human serum (collected in serum and serum separator tubes) and plasma (collected in dipotassium EDTA, lithium heparin plasma separator tubes) on the ARCHITECT i System.

The ARCHITECT HSV-2 IgG assay is to be used for testing sexually active adults or expectant mothers to aid in the presumptive diagnosis of HSV-2 infection. The test results may not determine the state of active lessociated disease manifestations, particularly for primary infection. The predictive value of a reactive or nonreactive result depends on the prevalence of HSV-2 infection in the population and the pre-test likelihood of HSV-2 infection.

NOTE: The performance of the ARCHITECT HSV-2 IgG assay has not been established for use in the pediatric population, for neonatal screening, or for testing immunosompromised or immunosuppressed patients. The assay has not been FDA cleared or approved for screening blood or plasma donors.

The ARCHITECT HSV-2 IgG assay is an automated, two-step immunoassay for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies to HSV-2 in human serum and plasma using chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) technology.

The kit contains different components: Reagent (microparticles, conjugate and assay diluent), Calibrator, and external Controls (reactive and nonreactive).

The document describes the ARCHITECT HSV-2 IgG assay, a diagnostic device for detecting specific IgG antibodies to herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2). The study aims to demonstrate that this new device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

While the document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in the format of a separate table setting thresholds beforehand, the performance summary sections detail the studies and the observed performance. The key performance metrics demonstrated are:

• Clinical Performance (Positive Percent Agreement - PPA and Negative Percent Agreement - NPA): This is the primary measure of the device's accuracy in correctly identifying positive and negative samples for HSV-2 IgG antibodies.
• Precision (Within-Laboratory and Reproducibility): These studies evaluate the consistency and reliability of the assay results across different runs, days, and sites.
• Analytical Specificity (Interference and Cross-reactivity): These studies assess the device's ability to accurately measure HSV-2 IgG without being affected by other substances or related conditions.
• Specimen Collection Types: This confirms the assay's performance across various accepted sample types.
• Carry-Over: Verifies that prior samples do not affect subsequent sample results.

Here's an interpretation of the implied acceptance criteria and reported performance based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details:

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

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

   • Clinical Agreement Study: 915 specimens total (prospectively collected). Data provenance: Collected prospectively within the United States.
     • Sexually Active Population: 618 specimens (228 positive, 3 equivocal, 387 negative by composite comparator)
     • Pregnant Population: 297 specimens (82 positive, 0 equivocal, 215 negative by composite comparator)
   • CDC Panel Agreement: 100 blind characterized serum samples (50 unique samples, 2 aliquots each). Data provenance: From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
   • Cut-off Establishment: 505 serum samples (271 reactive, 228 nonreactive, 6 equivocal for HSV-2 IgG antibodies).
   • Specimen Collection Types: 61 sets of unique serum samples paired with other tube types.
   • Precision Studies: 240-244 samples per panel/control for 20-day study, 96 samples per panel for 12-day study, 90 samples per panel for reproducibility study (all tested multiple times).
   • Analytical Specificity (Interference/Cross-reactivity): Varies per substance/condition, typically around 8-13 samples each.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   The document does not explicitly state the number or qualifications of experts for establishing ground truth for the clinical agreement study. Instead, for the clinical performance evaluation, a "composite comparator method of 3 commercially available anti-HSV-2 IgG assays where a 2 out of 3 approach was followed" was used as the ground truth. This indicates a consensus or analytical comparison approach rather than expert human interpretation of results.
   For the CDC panel, it states "100 blind characterized samples," implying the CDC characterized these samples, likely through a robust expert-derived or reference method.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   For the main clinical agreement study, the ground truth was established by a "2 out of 3 approach" using three commercially available anti-HSV-2 IgG assays. This is a form of adjudicated ground truth.

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 fully automated chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) for the qualitative detection of specific IgG antibodies to HSV-2. It does not involve human readers for interpretation in the same way an AI for medical imaging (e.g., radiology) would, nor does it describe a human-in-the-loop AI assistance scenario. The output is a quantitative measure (S/CO) interpreted against a fixed cutoff.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   Yes, the entire study effectively describes the standalone performance of the ARCHITECT HSV-2 IgG assay. As an automated immunoassay, it inherently operates without human interpretation of the primary result output, beyond clerical tasks and result reporting based on predefined cutoffs.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
   For the primary clinical agreement study, the ground truth was established by a "composite comparator method" derived from the results of three commercially available anti-HSV-2 IgG assays, using a "2 out of 3 approach." This is a form of analytical ground truth based on established diagnostic methods.
   For the CDC panel, the ground truth was "characterized samples" provided by the CDC, implying a reference standard or validated characterization by that institution.

8. The sample size for the training set:
   The document does not explicitly describe a separate "training set" in the context of an AI/machine learning model development. This is a traditional IVD device (immunoassay). The "Cut-off" section mentions a study using 505 serum samples to establish the assay's cutoff, which is a key parameter for defining reactive/nonreactive results. This could be considered analogous to a "training" or "calibration" set for the assay's performance characteristics.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   As mentioned in point 8, the assay's cutoff was established using a Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis on 505 serum samples. The ground truth for these 505 samples (whether they were truly reactive or nonreactive for HSV-2 IgG antibodies) is not explicitly stated but would have been determined by a reference method or clinical diagnosis prior to cutoff establishment. The document states these samples were "271 reactive, 228 nonreactive, and 6 equivocal for HSV-2 IgG antibodies," implying this pre-classification was the ground truth for selecting the optimal cutoff.

Ask a specific question about this device