Search Results

The Generation 2.0 Monarch external Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation (eTNS) System® ("Monarch Gen 2") is indicated for treatment of pediatric Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as a monotherapy in patients ages 7 through 12 years old who are not currently taking prescription ADHD medications. The device is used for patient by prescription only and is intended to be used in the home under the supervision of a caregiver during periods of sleep.

The Monarch Gen 2 eTNS System is a non-invasive device that uses electrical signals to therapeutically stimulate the Trigeminal nerve. The primary components of the device are:

• . The Monarch® Gen 2 external pulse generator, which controls the electrical stimulation, and
• The Monarch® NS-2 external (cutaneous) electrical patches, which are single-use disposable patches worn on the forehead (Figure 3).

The provided text describes the Generation 2.0 Monarch external Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation (eTNS) System for treating pediatric Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and compares it to its predicate device, the first-generation Monarch eTNS System. However, it does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a table format and does not detail a specific study proving the device meets these criteria in the way requested. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device through technological comparison and performance data from internal bench tests and external lab testing, along with a reference to the clinical trials that supported the clearance of the first-generation device.

Based on the provided information, here's an attempt to structure the answer, acknowledging the limitations in fully addressing all aspects of the request due to the nature of the text:

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

The document does not provide a formal table of "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" for the Generation 2.0 Monarch eTNS System in the context of clinical efficacy for ADHD. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate device, which had previous regulatory clearance based on clinical trials. The performance data presented for the Generation 2.0 device primarily relate to safety and technical compliance.

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

For the Generation 2.0 Monarch eTNS System:

• Test set sample size: Not specified as a clinical test set. The performance data provided are from internal bench tests and external lab testing (e.g., electrical safety, EMC, battery testing, biocompatibility). These tests do not typically involve human subjects or "test sets" in the clinical sense.
• Data provenance: Not specified, but generally from internal company testing and external independent testing laboratories. The document implies these are retrospective for the purpose of demonstrating equivalence, as they are not new clinical trials for the Gen 2 device.

For the first-generation Monarch eTNS System (predicate device) (which the efficacy claims of Gen 2 lean on):

• Test set sample size: Two clinical trials.
  • Trial 1: 24 subjects (ages 7-14)
  • Trial 2: 62 subjects (ages 8-12)
• Data provenance: Clinical trials. The document does not specify the country of origin, nor whether they were retrospective or prospective, but clinical trials supporting device clearance are typically prospective.

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

This information is not provided for either the Generation 2.0 device's testing or the clinical trials of the first-generation predicate device. Clinical trials for ADHD would typically involve assessments by qualified clinicians (e.g., child psychiatrists, developmental pediatricians) using standardized diagnostic and symptom rating scales, but the text does not detail the specific number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing ground truth (e.g., ADHD diagnosis, symptom improvement assessments).

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

This information is not provided. Clinical trials for ADHD often involve multiple raters for symptom scales, with potential for adjudication in cases of disagreement, but the document does not elaborate on these methodologies for the predicate device's studies.

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

An MRMC comparative effectiveness study is not applicable to this device. This type of study usually pertains to diagnostic imaging or AI-assisted diagnostic tools where human readers interpret medical images or data. The Monarch eTNS System is a therapeutic device for ADHD. The document mentions clinical trials showing a "statistically significant outcome on the primary endpoint" for the predicate device, which implies efficacy, but not an MRMC study comparing human performance with and without AI assistance.

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

This concept is not applicable to this device. The Monarch eTNS System is a therapeutic device applied by a caregiver, not an algorithm that performs a task independently or as part of a diagnostic workflow.

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

For the Generation 2.0 Monarch eTNS System:

• The "ground truth" for its performance data is compliance with recognized standards (IEC 60601-x for electrical safety, EMC, home environment, nerve stimulation) and engineering specifications (battery life, output current).

For the first-generation Monarch eTNS System (predicate device):

• The ground truth for effectiveness was based on clinical outcomes data from two trials, demonstrating "statistically significant outcome on the primary endpoint." This would typically involve standardized clinical assessment tools for ADHD symptoms and functional impairment.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided. This term is usually relevant for machine learning algorithms. For regulatory clearance of a medical device, the focus is on verification and validation studies (like bench testing) and clinical trials (for the predicate device's efficacy), not typically on "training sets" in the AI sense.

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

As the concept of a "training set" in the AI sense is not applicable here, this information is not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device