Search Results

The BioFire® Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel is a qualitative, mucleic acid-based test intended for use with BioFire® FilmArray® 2.0 and BioFire® FilmArray® Torch Systems. The BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel is for the simultaneous qualitative detection and identification of multiple bacterial, viral, and protozoan nucleic acids directly from EDTA whole collected from individuals with signs and or symptoms of acute febrile illness and known or suspected exposure to the target pathogens described below.

Pathogens identified:
Chikungunya virus Dengue virus (serotypes 1, 2, 3 and 4) Leishmania spp. that cause visceral leishmaniasis (e.g., L. donovani and L. infantum) Leptospira spp. Plasmodium spp. (including species differentiation of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax/ovale) West Nile virus

Pathogens presumptively identified:
Bacillus anthracis Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus Ebolavirus spp. Francisella tularensis Lassa virus Marburgvirus Yellow fever virus Yersinia pestis

Pathogens for which the panel provides presumptive identification results resting and confirmation procedures in consultation with the appropriate public health authorities for whom reports may be necessary.

Positive results do not rule out co-infections with pathogens not included on the BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel. Not all pathogens that cause acute febrile illness are detected by this test, and nectude infection with the pathogens targeted by the device and should not be used as the sole basis for diagnosis, treatment, or other patient management decisions.

Evaluation for more common causes of acute illness (e.g., infections of the upper and lower respiratory tract or gastroenteritis, as well as non-infectious causes) should be considered prith this panel. In the United States, patient travel history, exposure risk, and consultation of the CDC Yellow Book should be considered prior to use of the BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel as some pathogens are more common in certain geographical locations. Results are meant to be used in conjunction with other clinical, epidemiologic, and laboratory data, in accordance with the guided by the relevant public health authorities.

The BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel is indicatories having appropriate biosafety equipment, personal protective equipment (PPE), contamment facilities and persomel trained in the safe handling of diagnostic clinical specimens potentially containing any of the pathogens detected by this panel.

The BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel is indicated for use in laboratories that follow public health guidelines that address appropriate biosafety conditions, interpretation of test results, and coordination of findings with public health authorities.

For In Vitro Diagnostic Use.

The BioFire® Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel is a multiplexed nucleic acid-based test designed to be used with BioFire® FilmArray® Systems (BioFire® FilmArray® 2.0 or BioFire® FilmArray® Torch). The BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel pouch contains freezedried reagents to perform nucleic acid purification and nested, multiplexed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with DNA melt analysis. The BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel conducts tests for the identification of bacterial, viral, and protozoan pathogens from whole blood specimens collected in EDTA tubes (Table 1). Results from the BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel are available in about 1 hour.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The application does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" for PPA and NPA. However, it presents the clinical performance results in a way that suggests these are the key metrics for evaluating agreement with comparator methods. The "Expected percent agreement was >95%" in the reproducibility study might be inferred as a general target for performance. For this table, I'll use the Reported Clinical Performance Summary (Tables 4, 5, 6) as the "Reported Device Performance" against an implied high standard of agreement.

Note on "Acceptance Criteria": The document provides performance results but doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "PPA must be >95%"). However, the high percentages and confidence intervals presented imply that high sensitivity and specificity are expected for proper function. The "Reproducibility" section mentions ">95%", which can serve as a proxy for the general expectation of performance accuracy.

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

• Prospective Clinical Study Test Set:
  • Sample Size: 2139 prospectively collected whole blood specimens.
  • Data Provenance: The specimens were collected between March 2018 and March 2021 from 11 undisclosed sites. The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the mention of "CDC Yellow Book" in the "Indications for Use" suggests a relevance to North American (US) context, although the pathogens detected indicate global relevance. The data is prospective.
• Archived Specimen Study Test Set:
  • Sample Size: 416 archived specimens.
  • Data Provenance: The specimens were collected from undisclosed sites (Site 01: 199, Site 02: 82, Site 03: 135). The country of origin is not explicitly stated. The data is retrospective.
• Contrived Specimen Study Test Set:
  • Sample Size: 50 replicates for each analyte for which archived specimens were unavailable or insufficient. This resulted in varying total number of specimens tested per analyte (e.g., CCHF virus and Marburgvirus sp. had 100 replicates, others had 50).
  • Data Provenance: Contrived specimens were prepared using residual human whole blood. This is a laboratory-based study.

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

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set. Ground truth was established using "plate-based PCR comparator methods" and "additional PCR" for discrepant results. For archived specimens, they had "known analyte content" or "high likelihood of containing a given analyte." For contrived specimens, the "known composition of the contrived specimen" was the ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

The document describes "discrepancy testing" for samples where the BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel results differed from the initial comparator method results. For example:

• For Chikungunya virus, "Evidence of Chikungunya virus was found in 2/2 FP specimens by additional PCR."
• For Dengue virus, "15/17 FN specimens were positive upon BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel retest and by additional PCR, two were positive Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel retest, and eight were detected only by additional PCR."
• For Leptospira spp., "Evidence of Leptospira spp. was found in 1/1 FN specimens by BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel retest and by additional PCR, and in 3/4 FP specimens by additional PCR."
• For Plasmodium spp., similar retesting by the BioFire panel and "additional PCR" or "species-level comparator assay" was used.

This indicates an adjudication method that involves retesting with the device and/or additional PCR/comparator methods for discrepant results, rather than explicitly stating an "X+Y" consensus model among human experts.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a diagnostic assay (nucleic acid-based test), not an AI-assisted interpretation tool for human readers. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply to this submission.

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

Yes, the performance studies (clinical, archived, contrived) evaluate the BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel as a standalone device (algorithm only). The device provides automated test interpretation and report generation, and the "user cannot access raw data" (Table 2). This means the performance metrics (PPA, NPA) reflect the algorithm's detection capabilities without human intervention in the interpretation process.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth for the test sets was primarily established by:

• Comparator methods (e.g., plate-based PCR/additional PCR): For both prospective clinical and archived specimens.
• Known composition: For contrived specimens, where the analytes were intentionally spiked into the samples.
• Discrepancy testing: For cases where the device result and initial comparator result differed, further testing (usually additional PCR) was performed to resolve the discrepancy and establish the final ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not specify the sample size for a training set. The BioFire Global Fever Special Pathogens Panel is a diagnostic assay, and while its development would involve internal validation and optimization, the provided performance data relates to its analytical and clinical performance after development, rather than the data used for machine learning model training.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Since a "training set" in the context of the requested information (e.g., for an AI model) is not explicitly mentioned or relevant to this type of device submission, the document does not describe how ground truth for a training set was established. The performance studies presented are for the finished device's evaluation against established laboratory methods.

Ask a specific question about this device