Search Results

The Verigene® Respiratory Virus Nucleic Acid Test is a qualitative multiplex in vitro diagnostic test for the detection and identification of Influenza A Virus. Influenza B Virus, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) nucleic acids purified from nasopharyngeal swab specimens obtained from patients symptomatic for viral upper respiratory infection. The test is intended to be used on the Verigene® System as an aid in the differential diagnosis of Influenza A, Influenza B, and RSV infections. The test is not intended to detect Influenza C virus.

Negative results do not preclude influenza virus or RSV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other management decisions. It is recommended that negative test results be confirmed by culture.

Performance characteristics for Influenza A Virus were established when Influenza A/H3 and A/H1 were the predominant Influenza A viruses in circulation. When other Influenza A viruses are emerging, performance characteristics may vary.

If infection with a novel Influenza A virus is suspected based on current clinical and epidemiological screening criteria recommended by public health authorities, specimens should be collected with appropriate infection control precautions for novel virulent Influenza viruses and sent to state or local health department for testing. Viral culture should not be attempted in these cases unless a BSL 3+ facility is available to receive and culture specimens.

Not Found

The provided text does not contain detailed information about the acceptance criteria or a comprehensive study report that proves the device meets those criteria. It is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device called "Verigene® Respiratory Virus Nucleic Acid Test," along with its indications for use.

While it mentions that the FDA has determined the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, it does not provide the specific performance metrics, sample sizes, ground truth establishment methods, or expert qualifications that would be expected in a detailed study report.

Here's what can be extracted and what is missing:

Information Present in the Document:

• Device Name: Verigene® Respiratory Virus Nucleic Acid Test
• Target Pathogens: Influenza A Virus, Influenza B Virus, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)
• Specimen Type: Nasopharyngeal swab
• Intended Use: Qualitative multiplex in vitro diagnostic test as an aid in the differential diagnosis of Influenza A, Influenza B, and RSV infections.
• Limitations:
  • Not intended to detect Influenza C virus.
  • Negative results do not preclude infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or management.
  • Negative results recommended to be confirmed by culture.
  • Performance characteristics for Influenza A Virus were established when A/H3 and A/H1 were predominant; performance may vary with other emerging strains.
  • If a novel Influenza A virus is suspected, specimens should be sent to public health authorities for testing (with appropriate precautions).

Missing Information (Required for the question):

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document does not contain this information. It only states that the device is "substantially equivalent."
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not mentioned.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not mentioned.
5. 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 as this is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) test, not an AI-assisted imaging device with human readers.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: As an IVD test, its performance is inherently standalone (the instrument provides the result). However, the specific metrics (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) are not provided.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): While it mentions confirmation by culture for negative results, the primary ground truth for the study (if one was conducted for the 510(k)) is not explicitly detailed. Often for such tests, ground truth would be established by culture or a highly sensitive and specific PCR method.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not mentioned (and likely not applicable in the same way as an AI model, as this is a traditional IVD).
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not mentioned.

Conclusion:

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter, which confirms substantial equivalence to a predicate device but does not detail the specific performance study, acceptance criteria, and results in the format requested. To obtain this information, one would typically need to review the full 510(k) submission summary or a peer-reviewed publication of the clinical validation study for the device.

Ask a specific question about this device