Search Results

VIDAS® BRAHMS PCT is an automated test for use on the VIDAS instruments for the determination of human procalcitonin in human serum or plasma (lithium heparin) using the ELFA (Enzyme-Linked Fluorescent Assay) technique. The VIDAS BRAHMS PCT assay is intended for use in conjunction with other laboratory findings and clinical assessments to aid in the risk assessment of critically ill patients on their first day of ICU admission, for progression to severe sepsis and septic shock.

The VIDAS BRAHMS PCT Assay is an enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (ELFA) performed in an automated VIDAS® instrument. The assay principle combines a one-step immunoassay sandwich method with a final fluorescent detection (ELFA). The Solid Phase Receptacle (SPR), serves as the solid phase as well as the pipetting device for the assay. Reagents for the assay are ready-to-use and pre-dispensed in the sealed reagent strips. All of the assay steps are performed automatically by the instrument. The sample is transferred into the wells containing anti-procalcitorin antibodies labeled with alkaline phosphatase (conjugate). The sample/conjugate mixture is cycled in and out of the SPR several times. This operation enables the antigen to bind with the immunoglobulins fixed to the interior wall of the SPR and the conjugate to form a sandwich. Unbound compounds are eliminated during washing steps. Two detection steps are performed successively. During each step, the substrate (4-Methylumbellifery| phosphate) is cycled in and out of the SPR. The conjugate enzyme catalyzes the hydrolysis of this substrate into a fluorescent product (4-Methyl-umbelliferone) the fluorescence of which is measured at 450 nm. The intensity of the fluorescence is proportional to the concentration of antigen present in the sample. At the end of the assay, results are automatically calculated by the instrument in relation to two calibration curves corresponding to the two revelation steps and stored in memory, and then printed out.

The provided document describes the VIDAS® B-R.A.H.M.S PCT Assay, an enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (ELFA) for determining human procalcitonin in serum or plasma. It is intended for critically ill patients on their first day of ICU admission to aid in the risk assessment for progression to severe sepsis and septic shock.

The study presented focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the BRAHMS PCT LIA Assay, rather than proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria via a standalone study with pre-defined metrics. Therefore, a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance as typically understood for a novel device demonstrating efficacy against disease outcomes is not explicitly provided. Instead, the document compares analytical and clinical performance between the new device and the predicate.

Here's an analysis based on the provided information, framed to address your questions as much as possible, interpreting "acceptance criteria" as meeting or exceeding the performance of the predicate device.

1. Table of "Acceptance Criteria" and Reported Device Performance

As mentioned, explicit "acceptance criteria" for clinical performance are not stated in terms of specific sensitivity, specificity, PPV, or NPV targets for predicting severe sepsis/septic shock against a definitive ground truth. Instead, the comparison is against the predicate device's performance. The analytical performance comparisons can be seen as meeting "acceptance criteria" if they are comparable to or better than the predicate's.

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

• Clinical Sensitivity/Specificity Study:
  • Device (VIDAS BRAHMS PCT): 232 patients (US and Europe, likely retrospective or mixed, not explicitly stated but common for such studies).
  • Predicate (BRAHMS PCT LIA): 179 patients (Europe).
• Clinical Specificity Study on Healthy Subjects:
  • Device (VIDAS BRAHMS PCT): 200 healthy subjects (US).
  • Predicate (BRAHMS PCT LIA): 144 healthy subjects (US).
• Non-clinical (Analytical) Precision Study: 6 samples over 20 days for the device, 14 samples over 20 days for the predicate (no specific provenance mentioned for these samples, but assumed to be laboratory-prepared or pooled clinical samples).

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 or their qualifications used to establish the ground truth for "severe sepsis or septic shock." The studies are comparing the PCT assay results between the device and the predicate, and how those results correlate with the clinical diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock. The diagnostic criteria for severe sepsis/septic shock are assumed to be standard clinical practice at the study sites.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No multi-reader adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is described for establishing the clinical ground truth. It is implied that the clinical diagnoses of severe sepsis or septic shock were based on standard clinical assessments by treating physicians at the study sites.

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

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is described. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging or decision support system that would typically involve human-in-the-loop performance evaluation.

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

Yes, the performance data presented (analytical and clinical comparison) reflects the standalone performance of the VIDAS® B-R.A.H.M.S PCT Assay in determining procalcitonin levels. The assay itself is the algorithm/device being evaluated. Its intended use is "in conjunction with other laboratory findings and clinical assessments," meaning it's a tool for clinicians, not a complete standalone diagnostic for severe sepsis/septic shock.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the clinical studies appears to be the clinical diagnosis of "severe sepsis or septic shock" in critically ill patients, and the classification of subjects as "healthy." For the healthy subjects, the ground truth is simply their healthy status. For the critically ill patients, the ground truth is the outcome or diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock, which would be based on established medical criteria (e.g., Sepsis-3 definitions, though the document is from 2007 so older criteria like SIRS/Sepsis/Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock definitions would apply).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a separate "training set" for the device, as it is an immunoassay, not a machine learning algorithm that typically requires a large training dataset. The development and optimization of the assay would have involved various internal studies, but these are not specified as a "training set" in the context of clinical validation data.

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

Given that this is an immunoassay, the concept of "ground truth for a training set" as it applies to machine learning is not directly applicable. Assay development would involve optimizing parameters against known concentration controls and spiked samples, and eventually validating against clinical samples with known diagnoses (as described in the clinical studies).

Ask a specific question about this device