Search Results

The Influenza A/B Rapid Test is a qualitative immunoassay for the rapid detection of Influenza A/B viral antigens from throat swab specimens. This test is intended for professional in vitro diagnostic use to aid in the diagnosis of Influenza infections, and to gather epidemiological information for detection of Influenza outbreaks. When used for diagnosis, negative assay results should be confirmed by cell culture. This assay does not detect the presence of Influenza C viral antigens.

The Influenza A/B Rapid Test consists of swabs, reaction cups, test strips, and reagent solutions. The test detects the viral nucleoprotein associated with the viral nucleic acid. The nucleoprotein is released by lysing the virus envelop with the lysis/elution solution. Since the nucleoprotein is type specific only (not subtype specific), the test uses two pairs of monoclonal antibodies – one pair is specific for Influenza A, the other is specific for Influenza B. The antibody pairs are conjugated to either biotin or digoxigenin. In the presence of the viral antigen, a sandwich complex is formed, consisting of the biotin-conjugated antibody, the nucleoprotein, and the digoxigenin-conjugated antibody. When the test strip is placed in the reaction cup, the complex migrates chromatographically, solubilizing colloidal gold particles incorporated in the red pad of the strip. The colloidal gold particles bind to the digoxigenin of the complex, which is then bound by the biotin to the immobilized streptavidin on the strip (positive result line). Any excess gold particles continue to migrate to the second line (control line), which then becomes visible. This indicates the correct chromatographic migration.

Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Roche Diagnostics Influenza A/B Rapid Test:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a separate, pre-defined target. Instead, it presents performance metrics of the device and compares them directly to a predicate device. The implied acceptance criteria are that the device should perform comparably to or better than the predicate device.

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective nature of the study). This information is crucial for evaluating the robustness and generalizability of the reported performance.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth for the test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any adjudication method used for the test set.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. The study described focuses on the direct performance of the device against a known ground truth, not on human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The reported sensitivity and specificity are for the device (the "immunoassay") itself, operating without human interpretation in the results. The 'read results' step in the procedure implies a qualitative visual interpretation of the test strip, but the performance metrics are attributed to the device's ability to detect the antigen, not human accuracy in reading the strip.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The document states, "When used for diagnosis, negative assay results should be confirmed by cell culture." This strongly suggests that cell culture was used as the ground truth for determining the presence or absence of Influenza A/B viral antigens in the specimens used for performance evaluation. Cell culture is generally considered a gold standard for viral detection.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information about a "training set" or its sample size. This type of device (a rapid immunoassay) typically undergoes assay development and validation, rather than machine learning-style training. The performance reported likely reflects studies on a cohort of specimens representative of the intended use population.

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

As there's no mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning, this question isn't directly applicable. If a training phase for the assay's development (e.g., optimizing antibody concentrations) was implied, the ground truth would have been established through methods like cell culture or validated reference materials during that process. However, the immediate document doesn't detail this.

Ask a specific question about this device