Search Results

Rapidan Optima Early One Step hCG Urine Pregnancy Test is an in-vitro diagnostic test for qualitative determination of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) in human urine. It is intended for over the counter use to detect elevated (over the cut-off value of 20 IU/L) levels of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) in human urine to aid in the detection of pregnancy.

Toyo One Step hCG Urine Pregnancy Test is an in-vitro diagnostic test for qualitative determination of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) in human urine. It is intended for over the counter use and for professional / laboratory use to detect elevated (over the cut-off value of 25 IU/L) levels of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) in human urine to aid in the detection of pregnancy. Toyo Pregnancy Test has two formats, a cassette and a test strip format.

Device Description

The device is a qualitative assay based on immuno chromatography principle used to detect elevated levels of hCG over the cut-off value of the device, thus showing signs of pregnancy. Principle of the test; introduced from one end of the membrane, urine mobilizes the anti-hCG antibody complex and moves toward the other end of the membrane passing through the immobilized anti-hCG antibody test region and through the antibody recognizing control region. In the presence of hCG, the test line appears on the membrane together with the control line which confirms the antibody complex arrival to the other end of the membrane. The assay procedure is very simple and fast (introduce sample and wait 5 minutes). The device is designed as draw sample into the pipette, and dispense it onto the sample well of the cassette or dip into sample for strip type. Sampling end is color coded. The interpretation of the result is very easy (2 lines: pregnant, 1 line: not pregnant) even for the lay person.

AI/ML Overview

The manufacturer performed non-clinical and clinical studies to demonstrate the substantial equivalence of the Rapidan Optima Early Pregnancy Test and the Toyo Pregnancy Test to the predicate device, "One Step HCG Urine Pregnancy Test, K043443."

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., "sensitivity must be >95%"). Instead, the performance is demonstrated through comparisons to a predicate device and via robust internal testing for specificity, reproducibility, and interference. The "reported device performance" is essentially that the new devices perform identically to the predicate device and show no issues in non-clinical assessments.

Acceptance Criteria (Implied)	Reported Device Performance (Rapidan Optima, 20 IU/L cut-off)	Reported Device Performance (Toyo, 25 IU/L cut-off)
Non-Clinical Performance
Cross-reactivity:	No cross-reactivity with LH (500 IU/L), FSH (1000 IU/L), TSH (1000 IU/L)	No cross-reactivity with LH (1000 IU/L), FSH (1000 IU/L), TSH (1000 IU/L)
Interfering Substances:	No variations observed with 18 common interfering substances (e.g., albumin, glucose, hemoglobin, common drugs) and varying hCG concentrations.	No variations observed with 18 common interfering substances (e.g., albumin, glucose, hemoglobin, common drugs) and varying hCG concentrations.
pH and Specific Gravity:	No significant effect on results within pH 4-9 and specific gravity 1.003-1.040. No variations observed.	No significant effect on results within pH 4-9 and specific gravity 1.003-1.040. No variations observed.
Reproducibility:	No result deviation observed in 2,000 tests across 10 hCG concentrations.	No result deviation observed in 4,000 tests across 10 hCG concentrations (for both cassette and strip types).
Clinical Performance
Agreement with Professional User:	100% agreement between lay user and professional user (50 positive, 50 negative) for Rapidan Optima Cassette.	100% agreement between lay user and professional user (50 positive, 50 negative) for Toyo Cassette. 100% agreement between lay user and professional user (50 positive, 50 negative) for Toyo Strip.
Agreement with Predicate Device (Professional User):	100% agreement with predicate device when both tested by professional users (50 positive, 50 negative) for Rapidan Optima Cassette.	100% agreement with predicate device when both tested by professional users (50 positive, 50 negative) for Toyo Cassette. 100% agreement with predicate device when both tested by professional users (50 positive, 50 negative) for Toyo Strip.
Agreement with Predicate Device (Lay vs. Professional):	100% agreement between the new device used by lay users and the predicate device used by professional users (50 positive, 50 negative) for Rapidan Optima Cassette.	100% agreement between the new device used by lay users and the predicate device used by professional users (50 positive, 50 negative) for Toyo Cassette. 100% agreement between the new device used by lay users and the predicate device used by professional users (50 positive, 50 negative) for Toyo Strip.
Ease of Use for Lay Users:	All lay users found the test easy to perform and instructions clear. Women of various backgrounds could properly use it.	All lay users found the test easy to perform and instructions clear. Women of various backgrounds could properly use it.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

Rapidan Optima Early Pregnancy Test (20 IU/L cut-off):

Clinical Comparison Study (for OTC use):
- Lay User vs. Professional User: 100 samples (50 positive, 50 negative).
- New Device (Professional User) vs. Predicate (Professional User): 100 samples (50 positive, 50 negative).
- New Device (Lay User) vs. Predicate (Professional User): 100 samples (50 positive, 50 negative).
Non-Clinical (Reproducibility): 2,000 individual tests (10 concentrations tested 100 times in duplicates).
Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the submitter is from Turkey. The data is prospective as it involves active testing for the comparison studies.

Toyo Pregnancy Test (25 IU/L cut-off - Cassette & Strip):

Clinical Comparison Study (for OTC use - Cassette):
- Lay User vs. Professional User: 100 samples (50 positive, 50 negative).
- New Device (Professional User) vs. Predicate (Professional User): 100 samples (50 positive, 50 negative).
- New Device (Lay User) vs. Predicate (Professional User): 100 samples (50 positive, 50 negative).
Clinical Comparison Study (for OTC use - Strip):
- Lay User vs. Professional User: 100 samples (50 positive, 50 negative).
- New Device (Professional User) vs. Predicate (Professional User): 100 samples (50 positive, 50 negative).
- New Device (Lay User) vs. Predicate (Professional User): 100 samples (50 positive, 50 negative).
Clinical Comparison Study (for Hospital/Lab use - Cassette):
- New Device (Professional User) vs. Predicate (Professional User): 100 samples (50 positive, 50 negative).
Clinical Comparison Study (for Hospital/Lab use - Strip):
- New Device (Professional User) vs. Predicate (Professional User): 100 samples (50 positive, 50 negative).
Non-Clinical (Reproducibility): 4,000 individual tests (10 concentrations tested 100 times in duplicates for both cassette and strip types).
Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the submitter is from Turkey. The data is prospective as it involves active testing for the comparison studies.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

Number of Experts: The document refers to "professional users" in the clinical comparison studies. In each comparison of the new device to the predicate, a "professional user" performed the test, and in many cases, served as the comparative benchmark. It's implicit that these professional users' results are considered a form of ground truth or highly reliable reference. The exact number of individual professional users involved is not specified, but the data implies at least two per comparison group (one for the new device, one for the predicate, and then possibly distinct professionals for the "Lay User" comparison groups).

Qualifications of Experts: The qualifications of the "professional users" are not explicitly stated (e.g., "medical technologists with 5 years of experience"). They are simply referred to as "professional users," implying personnel with appropriate training to perform diagnostic tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1 consensus). The ground truth for the clinical comparison studies appears to be established by the results obtained by "professional users" performing either the new device or the predicate device. For tests involving lay users, the professional user's result on the same sample is used for comparison. There is no mention of multiple experts independently reading results for discrepancy resolution.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study in the typical radiology sense (multiple readers interpreting cases with and without AI assistance to measure improvement) was not conducted.
This device is a qualitative diagnostic test (pregnancy test), not an imaging AI diagnostic tool. The "readers" are either lay users or professional users interpreting a visual line on a test strip/cassette. The studies compared the device's performance by lay users against professional users and against a predicate device. The concept of "AI assistance" or an "effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply to this type of device and study design.

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

Yes, in a way, the non-clinical performance data (cross-reactivity, interfering substances, pH/specific gravity, reproducibility) can be considered a standalone assessment of the device's inherent analytical capabilities, independent of human interpretation. These tests evaluate the device's chemical and biological detection accuracy under controlled conditions.

The clinical comparison studies, however, involve human-in-the-loop performance (lay users and professional users reading the results).

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Non-Clinical (Analytical): The ground truth for cross-reactivity, interfering substances, pH/specific gravity, and reproducibility was established by known concentrations of analytes/substances (e.g., known IU/L of hCG, known concentrations of potential interferents).
Clinical (Comparison studies): The ground truth for comparing lay users to professional users, and new devices to predicate devices, was assumed to be the results obtained by professional users using either the new device or the predicate device. This implies professional interpretation of the test results is the gold standard for these comparisons.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document describes performance studies, not the development or training of an AI algorithm. Therefore, there is no mention of a training set in the context of machine learning. The non-clinical and clinical data presented are essentially test sets for demonstrating performance and equivalence.

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

As there is no mention of an AI algorithm or a training set for machine learning, this question is not applicable to the provided information.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1