Search Results

The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE Kit is a rapid qualitative procedure for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, from culture, to streptomycin (STR), isoniazid (INH), rifampin (RIF) and ethambutol (EMB). The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 STR 4.0 Kit and the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 INH 0.4 Kit are for testing at higher drug concentrations. The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE kits are used with the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 System. The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE Kit final test concentrations are 1.0 µg/mL for streptomycin, 0.1 µg/mL for isoniazid, 1.0 µg/mL for rifampin and 5.0 µg/mL for ethambutol. The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 STR 4.0 Kit final test concentration is 4.0 µg/mL for streptomycin and the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 INH 0.4 Kit final test concentration is 0.4 µg/mL for isoniazid.

The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE susceptibility test kit is used with the BBL® Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT™)-7mL on the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 System. The tube is supplemented with BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE Supplement enrichment and prepared with the appropriate dilutions of streptomycin, isoniazid, rifampin and ethambutol as the mechanism for performing the susceptibility test. The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE test utilizes a four to thirteen day testing protocol. A standardized suspension of Mycobacterium tuberculosis growth, from either solid or broth culture media, is prepared. An appropriate dilution is made of this suspension and 0.5 mL is inoculated into a Growth Control tube (drug-free) and tubes containing streptomycin, isoniazid, rifampin and ethambutol (this is referred to as an AST Set). The test interpretation is based on growth of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolate in the Growth Control tube compared to the growth in the drug-containing tubes. At the completion of the susceptibility testing protocol, the instrument reports a susceptible or resistant result for each drug at the concentration(s) being tested.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE Kits, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in the typical pass/fail threshold sense. Instead, it presents the "observed results" or "overall agreement" as the performance metrics achieved during the studies. The standard for acceptance implicitly appears to be "substantial equivalence" to the predicate method.

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

• Lot Reproducibility: 25 M. tuberculosis strains (including five ATCC strains).
• CDC Challenge Panels: 30 challenge strains obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), GA, USA.
• Clinical Reproducibility: A panel of ten qualified strains.
• Clinical Isolate Testing: A total of 106 clinical isolates of M. tuberculosis. This generated a total of 223 test results for ethambutol at the critical concentration (likely due to testing both liquid and solid culture sources).
• Data Provenance: The document explicitly mentions "one foreign site" in the clinical evaluation, indicating international data. It also states "fresh clinical and stock isolates from both liquid and solid culture sources," implying both retrospective (stock isolates) and prospective (fresh clinical isolates) data. The CDC data is from the USA.

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 of experts used to establish the ground truth or their specific qualifications (e.g., radiologist with x years of experience).

For the clinical isolate testing, the ground truth appears to be established by comparison to the Method of Proportion (MOP) susceptibility test, which is the predicate device. For discordant results, MOP testing at two independent sites was performed.

For CDC Challenge Panels, the ground truth was the CDC expected results. The method by which CDC establishes these expected results is not detailed in this document.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• For the clinical isolate testing, when discordant results occurred between the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE ethambutol test and the MOP test, a form of adjudication was used: "All isolates with discordant BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 EMB 5.0 results were tested by MOP at two independent sites." The outcome of this re-testing presumably informed the final ground truth or understanding of the discrepancy. This can be considered a 2-site re-testing adjudication method for discordant cases.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance was not mentioned. This device is an automated in vitro diagnostic system for susceptibility testing, not an AI-powered image analysis tool where human reader performance would be a primary metric. Its comparison is against another laboratory testing method (MOP).

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) was Done

• Yes, this is essentially a standalone performance study. The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE system is an automated instrument that "automatically interprets" results. The performance data presented (reproducibility, agreement with CDC expected results, and comparison to MOP) reflects the performance of the device without human intervention in the interpretation of the primary growth signal. Human involvement would likely be limited to preparing samples and loading the instrument.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Reference Method/Predicate Device: The primary ground truth for clinical isolates was the Method of Proportion (MOP) susceptibility test.
• Established Reference Materials: For the CDC Challenge Panels, the ground truth was the CDC expected results.
• Reproducibility: For reproducibility studies, the ground truth was "expected results" for the strains used, likely based on prior characterization or a consensus of reference methods.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" or its size. This is common for this type of IVD (in vitro diagnostic) device, where the underlying "algorithm" or system logic is based on established biological principles of microbial growth and drug inhibition rather than a machine learning model that requires a distinct training phase on clinical data. The development process would involve internal optimization and verification rather than a classic "training set" in the AI sense.

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

• As a "training set" is not explicitly mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not described. If one were to consider the initial development and optimization of the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE system, the ground truth would have been established through a combination of traditional microbiology methods, laboratory testing, and potentially comparison to predicate devices, similar to how the current validation studies are performed.

Ask a specific question about this device