Search Results

The ImmunoCard Toxin A enzyme immunoassay (EIA) is a rapid in vitro qualitative procedure for detecting Clostridium difficile toxin A in human stool. The test can be used to aid in the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated disease. The test may also be used to determine the production of toxin A by C. difficile in BHI broth culture.

The ImmunoCard Toxin A assay system is a card based EIA for toxin A of C. difficile. Each kit contains the following components: Toxin A ImmunoCards (50), Positive Control (0.5ml), Enzyme Conjugate (7.5ml), Sample Diluent (10.0ml), Wash Reagent (28ml), Substrate Reagent (13ml), Transfer Pipets (50). In brief, the assay is performed by preparing a 1/15 dilution of stool in a mixture of Sample Diluent and Enzyme Conjuqate. Using a transfer pipet, 150pl of diluted specimen are then added to each of the lower (sample application) ports on an ImmunoCard. The sample is allowed to enter the card for 5 minutes. Three drops of Wash Reagent are added to each of the upper (Reaction) ports and allowed to enter the card. Three drops of Substrate Reagent are then added and the card is viewed for visible blue color development after 5 minutes.

The provided 510(k) summary for Meridian Diagnostics, Inc.'s ImmunoCard Toxin A describes the device's intended use and performance characteristics based on a comparison to a predicate device and reference methods. Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note regarding acceptance criteria: The document doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria for sensitivity, specificity, and agreement. However, based on the reported values generally seen in diagnostic device submissions, typical implied thresholds of >80% sensitivity and >95% specificity/agreement are used in the table above. The "Equivalent relative performance" statement indicates the reported values were deemed acceptable for substantial equivalence.

Study Information:

1. Sample Size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for either the comparison to the cytotoxin test or the 3-reference method comparison. The document mentions "clinical data" but does not quantify the number of patient samples.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). The use of "clinical data" implies human stool samples, but details are lacking.

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

   • Not applicable as the ground truth was established by laboratory methods (cytotoxin assay and other reference methods), not by expert human readers.

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

   • Not applicable. The ground truth was established by laboratory tests. For the "3 reference methods" ground truth, it implies a consensus or agreement among those three methods, but the specific adjudication rules are not detailed (e.g., if 2 out of 3 had to agree).

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:

   • Not applicable. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not an AI-assisted imaging device that involves human readers.

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

   • Yes, the performance presented is for the ImmunoCard Toxin A assay as a standalone diagnostic test. It's a laboratory test, and its results are interpreted directly (visible blue color development), not requiring human-in-the-loop for result generation beyond the initial sample preparation and visual reading.

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

   • For the primary comparison: The predicate tissue culture cytotoxin assay with neutralization using specific anti-toxin was used as the ground truth.
   • For the more robust comparison: A combination of 3 reference methods (Toxin A EIA, cytotoxin, and toxigenic culture) was used. This represents a "composite reference standard" or "gold standard" based on established laboratory methods for C. difficile toxin detection and pathogenicity.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not explicitly stated. As this is an in-vitro diagnostic assay rather than an AI/ML algorithm requiring a distinct "training set," the concept of a training set in that sense does not apply. The development and optimization of the ImmunoCard Toxin A would have involved various experimental samples, but these are not typically categorized as a "training set" in the context of AI/ML.

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

   • Not applicable for the reason stated above. If there were any development samples, their "ground truth" would have been established by similar reference laboratory methods.

Ask a specific question about this device