Search Results

CHROMID® CARBA agar is a selective and differential chromogenic medium that is intended for the qualitative detection and presumptive identification of carbapenemase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in rectal swab specimens from patients at risk of colonization. CHROMID® CARBA agar is intended as an aid in the detection, identification of colonization and control of these bacteria in a healthcare setting.

Rectal swabs are inoculated directly onto CHROMID® CARBA agar without enrichment and results can be interpreted after incubation for 18-24 hours. Presumptive carbapenemase-producing colonies of E. coli appear pink to burgundy and those of K. pneumoniae appear blue-green or blue-grey.

Other organisms besides carbapenemase-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae can also grow on CHROMID® CARBA agar with colonies that appear pink to burgundy or blue-grey. Sub-culture to non-selective medium is required to confirm organism identity, for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, confirmation of carbapenemase production and epidemiological typing.

A lack of growth or the absence of pink to burgundy or blue-grey colonies does not preclude the carriage of carbapenemase producing organisms.

CHROMID® CARBA agar consists of a nutritive base combining different peptones, 3 chromogenic substrates and antibiotics. These components enable the screening and presumptive identification of E. coli: spontaneous coloration (pink to burgundy) of strains producing ß-glucuronidase (ß-GUR) and/or ß-galactosidase (ß-GAL) and K. pneumoniae: spontaneous blue-green to bluish-grey coloration of strains producing ß-glucosidase (ß-GLU) from rectal swabs.

The document describes the regulatory approval of CHROMID® CARBA agar, a chromogenic medium for detecting carbapenemase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. While it specifies the device's performance, it doesn't present "acceptance criteria" in a typical table format with specific target values like "sensitivity > X%" and "specificity > Y%." Instead, it details the results of analytical and clinical studies to demonstrate the device's acceptable performance and substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Here's an attempt to structure the information based on your request, inferring acceptance criteria from the presented results:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from Study Results) and Reported Device Performance

Since explicit numerical acceptance criteria were not directly stated, they are inferred based on the observed "acceptable results" and high agreement percentages across various studies.

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

• Analytical Studies (Overall): Specific sample sizes vary per analytical test:
  • Recovery Study (LOD): 2 well-characterized KPC strains.
  • Cross Reactivity: 59 target and non-target organisms.
  • Challenge Testing (Analytical Reactivity): 52 KPC-EK strains.
  • Mixed Infection: 4 carbapenemase-producing strains in various mixtures.
  • Incubation: 10 KPC-EK strains.
• Clinical Studies / Method Comparison:
  • Prospective Clinical Study: Total of 709 unique rectal swab specimens were included in the analysis.
    • Data Provenance: Prospectively collected rectal swabs from three external laboratories (2 in the US, 1 in Europe).
  • Challenge Study (Clinical Section): 50 well-characterized isolates (11 KPC negative, 39 KPC positive) tested in saline matrix.
    • Data Provenance: One external site.
  • Contrived Samples Study: Total of 210 contrived samples (simulated rectal swab matrix).
    • Data Provenance: Tested at four different sites.
  • Reproducibility: 10 well-characterized isolates tested in triplicate each day for five days at three sites.

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

• The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") for establishing the ground truth for the test sets.
• For the clinical studies, "ground truth" was established based on a combination of CDC enrichment culture method, followed by subculture, biochemical identification, carbapenem susceptibility testing, CARBA NP testing, and PCR for carbapenemase resistance markers (blaKPC, blaNDM, blaOXA-48, blaVIM, blaIMP). This indicates a highly technical and multi-faceted laboratory-based ground truth definition rather than expert visual interpretation. The performance of these reference methods themselves would implicitly rely on expert laboratory personnel and validated protocols.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1 consensus) for the test set used in the context of human reviewers agreeing on an outcome.
• The determination of the "carbapenemase status" for ground truth in clinical studies followed a defined algorithm (Table 1), which relied on multiple laboratory tests (MIC, Carba NP, PCR). This is a rules-based, objective definition rather than an expert consensus interpretation.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done.
• This device is a culture medium interpreted visually (colony color). The studies described are primarily analytical and clinical performance evaluations of the medium itself, not comparative studies of human reader performance with or without AI assistance. The "reader" in this context is a lab technician observing colony growth and color.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance)

• This question is not directly applicable to the device. CHROMID® CARBA agar is a manual culture medium that relies on visual interpretation by a human observer (a laboratory technician/microbiologist). It is not an AI algorithm. Its performance is inherently "human-in-the-loop," as the human observes the results.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Expert Consensus / Reference Method based on Laboratory Techniques for Clinical Samples:
  • For the clinical studies, the "ground truth" (Carbapenemase Status) was highly robust, determined by a comprehensive CDC enrichment culture method combined with:
    • Biochemical identification
    • Carbapenem susceptibility testing
    • CARBA NP testing (a phenotypic test for carbapenemase activity)
    • PCR for specific carbapenemase resistance genes (blaKPC, blaNDM, blaOXA-48, blaVIM, blaIMP).
  • A specific algorithm (Table 1) was used to integrate these results to define a positive or negative carbapenemase status. This is a very strong, multi-modal, and objective form of ground truth for microbial resistance.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly mention a separate "training set" as is common in AI/machine learning contexts. This is because the device is a chemical culture medium, not a machine learning model that undergoes a training phase. Its formulation and development (analogous to "training") would be based on scientific principles of microbiology and chromogenic media development, validated through the analytical and clinical studies described.

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

• As there is no distinct "training set" for an AI model, this question is not applicable. The development of the medium's formula would have relied on known biochemical properties of target organisms and carbapenemase mechanisms discovered through extensive microbiological research, which form the scientific basis for its selective and differential properties.

Ask a specific question about this device