Search Results

The GIARDIA/CRYPTOSPORIDIUM QUIK CHEK™ test is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous qualitative detection and differentiation of Giardia cyst antiqen and Cryptosporidium oocyst antigen in a single test device. It is intended for use with human fecal specimens from patients with gastrointestinal symptoms to aid in the diagnosis of Giardia and/or Cryptosporidium gastrointestinal infection. The test results should be considered in conjunction with the patient history.

The GIARDIA/CRYPTOSPORIDIUM QUIK CHEK™ test is a rapid membrane immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of Giardia cyst antigen and Cryptosporidium occyst antigen in a single test device. It is performed with a 25 to 30-minute total incubation time. The GIARDIA/CRYPTOSPORIDIUM QUIK CHEK™ test uses monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies to cell-surface antigens of the device contains a Reaction Window with three vertical lines of immobilized antibodies. The Giardia test line ("Giar") contains mouse monoclonal antibodies against Giardia. The Crypto test line ("Cryp") contains mouse monoclonal antibodies against Cryptosporidium. The control line ("C") is a dotted line that contains anti-horseradish peroxidase (HRP) antibodies. The Conjugate consists of polyclonal antibodies coupled to horseradish peroxidase. To perform the test, the sample is added to a tube containing a mixture of Diluent and Conjugate. The diluted sample-conjugate mixture is added to the Sample Well and the device is allowed to incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes. During the incubation, cyst antigens in the sample bind the antibody-peroxidase conjuqates. The antigen-antibody-conjugate complexes migrate through a filter pad to a membrane where they are captured by the immobilized Giardia and/or Cryptosporidium-specific antibodies in the test lines. The Reaction Window is subsequently washed with Wash Buffer, followed by the addition of Substrate. After a 10 minute incubation period, the reaction is examined visually for the appearance of a vertical blue line on either side of the Reaction Window. A blue line indicates a positive "control" reaction, indicated by a vertical dotted blue line under the "C" portion of the Reaction Window. confirms that the test is working properly and the results are valid.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the GIARDIA/CRYPTOSPORIDIUM QUIK CHEK™ device, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for a diagnostic test like this are typically defined by performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, and agreement with a predicate device or gold standard. The reported performance for the GIARDIA/CRYPTOSPORIDIUM QUIK CHEK™ test against the Microscopy - IFA gold standard is as follows:

The reported performance against Commercial ELISA Predicate Devices is as follows:

The regulatory acceptance of the device (K103673) by the FDA suggests that these reported performance metrics met their criteria for substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices.

Study Information

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

   • Test set for comparison to Microscopy (IFA): N = 791 (combined from Study Sites #1 and #3). This included 220 fresh, 140 frozen, 216 preserved-formalin, and 215 preserved-SAF fecal specimens.
   • Test set for comparison to Commercial ELISAs (predicate devices): N = 849 (combined from Study Sites #1 and #2). This included 349 fresh, 322 frozen, 36 preserved-formalin, and 142 preserved-SAF fecal specimens.
   • Data Provenance: The studies were conducted at "3 geographically diverse sites" within the US. The data is prospective in the sense that the test samples were collected and then tested with the new device, but the text doesn't specify if these were newly collected for the study or a collection of existing samples. Given the various preservation methods, it's likely a mix of prospective collection and retrospective analysis of stored samples.

2. 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 of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") used to establish the ground truth for the clinical specimens. It refers to "Microscopy - IFA (considered the gold standard)" and "two commercially available ELISAs (predicate devices)" as the comparators, implying the expertise lies in the performance of those established methods.

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

   • The document does not specify an adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1 for resolving discrepancies in the test set. The comparisons are presented as direct comparisons between the new device's results and the results from the gold standard/predicate devices.

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:

   • No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not reported. This device is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay (a lab test), not an AI-assisted imaging device that would involve human readers.

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

   • Yes, this was a standalone performance study of the diagnostic device itself. The "device performance" metrics (sensitivity, specificity, agreement) directly reflect the algorithm's (immunoassay's) ability to detect the antigens in the samples. There is no human-in-the-loop scenario described for the device's main function, as it's a qualitative visual membrane assay. The reading of the lines by a technician would be part of the standard operation of this type of IVD, but the fundamental detection is by the assay itself.

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

   • For clinical performance, the primary ground truth reference was Microscopy - IFA (Immunofluorescence Assay), which is explicitly stated as "considered the gold standard" for detecting Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts in fecal specimens.
   • Additionally, two commercially available ELISA predicate devices were used as comparators for agreement in other parts of the study.
   • For analytical sensitivity (LOD) and cross-reactivity studies, the ground truth involved purified Giardia cysts or Cryptosporidium oocysts quantified by immunofluorescent antibody microscopy (IFA) or documented positive specimens for other organisms by microscopy.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This is a traditional immunoassay. Therefore, there's no training set as understood in AI/ML development. The development of the assay (e.g., antibody selection, reagent concentrations) would be an iterative process, but not in the "training set" paradigm.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no specific "training set" mentioned in the context of an AI/ML algorithm for this immunoassay device. The assay development would rely on internal validation and optimization against known positive and negative samples, similar to how the analytical studies for sensitivity and cross-reactivity were performed.

Ask a specific question about this device