Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(931 days)
Nova Allegro HbA1c Assay, Nova Allegro Analyzer
The Nova Allegro HbA1c Assay is intended for in vitro diagnostic use on the Nova Allegro Analyzer for the quantitative determination of the glycated Hemoglobin A1c) in capillary whole blood obtained from the fingertip. The results from this assay are intended to be used for the monitoring of long-term blood glucose/metabolic control in individuals with diabetes mellitus.
The Nova Allegro Analyzer is intended for in vitro diagnostic use in clinical laboratory and near-patient testing (point-of-care) settings for the quantitative determination of Nova Allegro Assays using Nova Allegro Test Cartridges.
Nova Allegro Analyzer: The Nova Allegro Analyzer is a compact, point-of-care analyzer that features a clinically important menu of measured and calculated tests. All tests are measured with disposable, ready-to-use cartridges, and are easily performed by non-technical personnel. The analyzer supports multiple wavelengths that are used to measure the assay of interest. The analyzer consists of the following key systems/components that the user interacts with: Two analytical bays where the single use test cartridges are analyzed, Color Touchscreen Display, Barcode Scanner, Printer, Data Export Options, Ethernet Connection, USB Port.
Nova Allegro HbA1c Assay: The Allegro HbA1c Assay is a completely automated assay for the HbA1c in human whole blood and the calculation of estimated average glucose (eAG). Nova Allegro HbA1c Test Cartridges are the key element a user interacts with to obtain the HbA1c concentration in a Capillary finger-stick whole blood sample. The main components of the Test Cartridge are the Capillary that is used to obtain the Capillary finger-stick whole blood specimen and present it to the Test Cartridge and the reaction chamber. The Test Cartridge has a barcode label with lot specific information.
The provided text describes the performance testing of the Nova Allegro HbA1c Assay and Nova Allegro Analyzer for the quantitative determination of glycated Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in capillary whole blood.
Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The document describes various performance tests and their outcomes, implying that meeting these outcomes constitutes the acceptance criteria. Explicit, numerical acceptance criteria are not always stated as "acceptance criteria," but rather as the successful outcome of the test.
Test Category | Acceptance Criteria (Implied by successful results) | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|---|
Linearity | Met across the reportable range (4.0-14.0 % HbA1c) compared to a reference method. | The resulting linearity data met the acceptance criteria when compared to the reference method across the reportable range of 4.0-14.0 % HbA1c. |
Interference Testing | Absolute difference between mean test value and mean control value for interfering substances 5.4%. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
- Linearity Testing: Eleven (11) linearity specimens.
- Interference Testing: Ten (10) replicate HbA1c tests per substance on prepared hemolysate specimens. Specific number of substances tested is indicated in Table 1 (40 substances).
- Total Hemoglobin Interference Testing: Not explicitly stated, but implies multiple HGB levels were tested.
- Method Comparison: A total of 526 subjects/specimens across four clinical sites.
- Site 1: 156 samples
- Site 2: 154 samples
- Site 3: 102 samples
- Site 4: 114 samples
- Precision (20-Day Imprecision - Controls): Two control solutions, each analyzed 80 times (20 days * 2 times/day * 2 duplicates) at each of four sites.
- Repeatability (Capillary Fingerstick Blood): 524 subjects from the Method Comparison study had a second fingerstick specimen collected and measured.
- Hemoglobin Derivative and Fractions, Hemoglobin Variants: Specific sample sizes for these tests are not provided, but imply testing of prepared specimens with varying concentrations.
Data Provenance:
- Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated, but "four (4) clinical sites" and "physician's offices" for point-of-care clinical performance studies indicate real-world clinical settings. The FDA submission suggests a US-centric regulatory and approval process.
- Retrospective or Prospective: The "Method Comparison" and "Precision" studies involved collecting and measuring samples, suggesting a prospective design for these clinical performance studies. The "Bench testing" for linearity and interference would be laboratory-based and controlled.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications
The document does not mention "experts" in the context of establishing ground truth in the way one would for image-based AI studies (e.g., radiologists reviewing images).
For this device, the "ground truth" is established by a reference method or a "NGSP Certified central laboratory reference method" for HbA1c measurements, which are analytical instruments and laboratory processes, not human experts making subjective assessments.
- Method Comparison: Compared to an "NGSP Certified central laboratory reference method." NGSP (National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program) certification implies a high standard of analytical accuracy and traceability to a primary reference method, essentially serving as a highly precise chemical/metrological "ground truth."
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
Not applicable. This is a quantitative diagnostic test where the "ground truth" is established by a reference laboratory method, not by human interpretation or consensus that would require adjudication.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done
No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for imaging diagnostics or other subjective interpretation tasks where human readers' performance with and without AI assistance is evaluated. This device is a quantitative assay, with performance evaluated against a reference laboratory method and through precision studies, not human reader performance.
6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Yes, the performance data presented (Linearity, Interference, Total Hemoglobin Interference, Method Comparison against a reference lab, Precision, Hemoglobin Derivative/Fractions, and Hemoglobin Variants) represents the standalone performance of the Nova Allegro HbA1c Assay and Analyzer. The results are generated directly by the device and compared to established analytical standards or reference methods. There is no human-in-the-loop component in the device's measurement process that is being evaluated in these tests.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
- Reference Method/NGSP Certified Central Laboratory Reference Method: For Linearity and Method Comparison studies, the device's measurements were compared against a "reference method" and an "NGSP Certified central laboratory reference method." This is an analytical ground truth based on established, highly accurate laboratory techniques.
- Prepared Samples with Known Concentrations: For Interference testing, Hemoglobin Derivative and Fractions, and Hemoglobin Variants, prepared hemolysate specimens with known concentrations of interfering substances or variants were used. This constitutes a controlled, analytical ground truth where the expected outcome is known based on the sample preparation.
- Control Solutions: For 20-Day Imprecision testing, "Nova Allegro HbA1c Control Solutions" were used, which are materials with known, stable HbA1c values, serving as an analytical ground truth for precision assessment.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of an AI/algorithm. This device is a diagnostic assay and analyzer, not an AI algorithm that undergoes machine learning training. The "development" of such a device involves chemical and engineering optimization, and analytical validation. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" as understood in machine learning is not applicable here.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established
As noted above, the concept of a training set and its ground truth is not applicable to this type of medical device (a quantitative diagnostic assay). The device's operational range and internal calibration would be established through a process of characterization and calibration using traceable standards and reference materials, which is standard for analytical instruments.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1