Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K161819
    Date Cleared
    2016-11-25

    (147 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    886.5928
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Bausch + Lomb® NNR06 Multi-Purpose Solution is indicated for use in the daily conditioning, cleaning, removal of protein deposits, rinsing, chemical (not heat) disinfection, and storage of soft (hydrophilic) contact lenses, including silicone hydrogel contact lenses, as recommended by your eye care practitioner.

    Device Description

    Bausch + Lomb NNR06 Multi-Purpose Solution is a sterile, isotonic solution containing a triple disinfection system (polyaminopropyl biguanide 0.00005%, polyquaternium 0.00015% and alexidine 0.0002%), dual surfactants, poloxamine, poloxamer 181, and a novel buffering system consisting of edetate disodium, sodium citrate, and diglycine. The formulation also contains boric acid, sodium borate, sodium chloride and purified water. The sterile solution is packaged in a plastic bottle with a tamper evident seal and labeled with a lot number and expiration date.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes the Bausch + Lomb NNR06 Multi-Purpose Solution, a soft contact lens care product. It outlines the testing performed to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness for substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

    Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information:

    1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The document does not explicitly present a table of quantitative acceptance criteria with corresponding performance metrics like a typical AI/ML medical device submission might. Instead, it describes a series of preclinical and clinical tests whose results demonstrated that the device met the requirements for safety and effectiveness.

    Here's an interpretation of the implied acceptance criteria and reported performance based on the provided text:

    Acceptance Criterion (Implied)Reported Device Performance
    Biocompatibility:
    CytotoxicityMet
    Ocular irritationMet
    Oral toxicityMet
    SensitizationMet
    In vivo ocular biocompatibilityMet
    Microbiology:
    Disinfection efficacyExceeds criteria
    Preservative efficacyExceeds criteria
    Acanthamoeba encystmentDemonstrated efficacy (implied)
    Sterilization method for productionAssessed and implies effectiveness
    Lens Compatibility:
    Physical compatibility with soft contact lensesCompatible
    Compatibility with silicone hydrogel contact lensesCompatible
    Preservative uptake and releaseDemonstrated (implies acceptable levels)
    Cleaning Efficacy:
    Critical Micelle ConcentrationSurfactant concentrations well above CMC
    Protein deposit removal (in vitro)Demonstrated cleaning properties
    Clinical Safety:
    Slit lamp findings (primary endpoint)Achieved (implies acceptable findings)
    Adverse eventsNo reported adverse events
    Visual acuitiesSimilar between eyes of both groups
    Slit lamp findings, symptoms requiring medical treatment, comparison of visual acuities, absence of adverse eventsIndicate safety
    Clinical Effectiveness:
    Comfort-related symptoms/complaintsIndicate effectiveness
    Investigator-assessed lens wettabilityIndicate effectiveness
    Investigator-assessed lens depositsIndicate effectiveness
    Overall Comparison to Predicate:Similar safety and effectiveness profiles

    2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

    • Test Set Sample Size: The document states that a "controlled clinical study" was conducted with "habitual contact lens wearers." However, it does not specify the exact sample size for the clinical study.
    • Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin where the clinical study was conducted. It mentions that the study was "a three-month, active control, parallel group, masked randomized study of habitual contact lens wearers," indicating it was a prospective clinical study.

    3. Number and Qualifications of Experts for Ground Truth

    This information is not applicable as the document describes a contact lens solution, not an AI/ML device that would typically rely on expert-established ground truth for its performance assessment. The "ground truth" for this device's performance comes from validated laboratory tests and clinical outcomes assessed by investigators (e.g., observing slit lamp findings, assessing comfort).

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    Not applicable in the context of this type of device and study. The clinical study involved investigator assessments, which would follow a protocol but not an independent adjudication method for ground truth as seen in AI/ML performance studies.

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

    No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for AI-powered diagnostic tools to assess performance with and without AI assistance for human readers, which is not the nature of this device.

    6. Standalone Performance Study

    The reported clinical study is effectively a "standalone" outcome study for the device, in the sense that it evaluates the device's performance on its own (in comparison to an active control, rather than an AI-assisted human). The device itself (NNR06 Multi-Purpose Solution) is not an AI algorithm, so the concept of an "algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance" doesn't directly apply here. The safety and effectiveness were assessed based on user experience and clinical findings.

    7. Type of Ground Truth Used

    For the clinical study, the "ground truth" (or outcome measures) included:

    • Clinical Observations: Graded slit lamp findings, visual acuities, investigator-assessed lens wettability, investigator-assessed lens deposits.
    • Patient Reported Outcomes: Comfort-related symptoms/complaints.
    • Adverse Events Reporting: Absence or presence of adverse events.

    For the preclinical studies, the "ground truth" was established by validated laboratory test methods and international standards (e.g., ISO, EN ISO standards) for biocompatibility, microbiology, cleaning efficacy, and lens compatibility.

    8. Sample Size for the Training Set

    Not applicable. This device is a contact lens solution, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set. The "development" of the solution would involve chemical formulation and laboratory testing, not machine learning model training.

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

    Not applicable. As stated above, this is not an AI/ML device, and therefore no training set or its associated ground truth establishment methods are relevant.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1