Search Results

The Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test for Marijuana (THC), Cocaine (COC), Amphetamine (AMP), Methamphetamine (mAMP), Opiates (OPI), and Phencyclidine (PCP) is a single-unit screening test for the rapid detection of two to six of the above drugs in human urine. The designated cutoff concentrations for these drugs are as follows: Marijuana at 50 ng/ml, Cocaine at 300 ng/ml, Amphetamine at 1000 ng/ml, Methamphetamine at 1000 ng/ml, Opiates at 2000 ng/ml, and Phencyclidine at 25 ng/ml. The tests are intended for over-the-counter (OTC) consumer use as the first step in a two step process that includes confirmatory testing of preliminary positive results. Information, along with the materials for shipping a portion of the urine specimen to the laboratory is provided.

The Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test for Marijuana, Cocaine, Amphctamine, Methamphetamine, Opiates, and Phencyclidine, like other commercially available drug screening tests, qualitatively measures the presence or absence of THC, COC, AMP, mAMP, OPI, PCP and their metabolites in urine, using a one step, rapid chromatographic immunoassay which operates under the principle of competitive binding. Drugs, which may be present in the urine specimen, compete against the drug conjugate for binding sites on the antibody. During testing, a urine specimen migrates upward by capillary action. Marijuana, if present in the urine specimen below 50 ng/ml, and the other drugs being tested for, if below the cut-off levels stated above, will not saturate the binding sites of the antibody coated particles in the test device. The antibody coated particles will then be captured by immobilized marijuana, cocaine, or other listed drug conjugate and a visible colored line will show up in the test line region. The colored line will not form in the test line region if the marijuana level is above the 50 ng/ml because it will saturate all the binding sites of antimarijuana antibodies. The same holds true for cocaine and the other drugs if the level is above the cut-off. It will saturate all the binding sites of anticocaine (or other drug) antibodies and therefore the colored line will not form in the test region.
A drug-positive urine specimen will not generate a colored line in the test line region because of drug competition, while a drug-negative urine specimen will generate a line in the test region because of the absence of a drug competition. To serve as a procedural control, a colored line will always appear at the control line region if the test has been performed properly.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test. It details the device's intended use and the basis for its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not contain a study or data proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the format requested.

The document discusses "consumer studies" that demonstrate "excellent overall performance in the hands of lay users" and states that "the data supports the conclusion that the consumer can use the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Tests." However, it does not provide the specifics of these studies, such as sample size, methodology, or detailed results, nor does it define explicit acceptance criteria with corresponding performance metrics.

Therefore, many of the requested sections cannot be filled from the provided text.

Here's an attempt to answer based on the available information:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantitative format (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) or present a table of device performance against such criteria. It generally claims "excellent overall performance."

The cut-off concentrations for the drugs are specified, which act as de facto performance targets:

• Marijuana: 50 ng/ml
• Cocaine: 300 ng/ml
• Amphetamine: 1000 ng/ml
• Methamphetamine: 1000 ng/ml
• Opiates: 2000 ng/ml
• Phencyclidine: 25 ng/ml

The operating principle described is that if the drug level is above the cut-off, a line will not form (positive result), and if below, a line will form (negative result).

Reported Device Performance:
The document states: "The consumer studies using the Accu-Stat™ Home Drug Test... demonstrates that the test exhibits excellent overall performance in the hands of lay users." No quantitative data like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy percentages are provided to back this claim in the given text.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document mentions "consumer studies" but does not specify the sample size, the country of origin of the data, or whether the study was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth for any test sets. The tests are for OTC consumer use, and the "two-step process" includes "confirmatory testing of preliminary positive results" by a laboratory, implying the ground truth for positive cases would be lab-confirmed, but details on this are absent.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

Not specified in the provided text. The "two-step process" implies an external lab confirmation for positive results, which serves as a form of adjudication for those specific results, but the method for the initial screening interpretations is not detailed.

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

There is no mention of a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study. The device is a rapid chromatographic immunoassay, not an AI-based system. Therefore, the question about human readers improving with AI assistance is not applicable.

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

This is a qualitative immunoassay test, not an algorithm. Its performance is inherent in its chemical reaction. The "standalone" performance is essentially its ability to react correctly to drug levels. The primary "human-in-the-loop" aspect is the consumer's interpretation of the line, which the document claims is "excellent overall performance in the hands of lay users." However, no specific study data for this standalone performance is provided.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

The ground truth implicitly used for positive results would be laboratory confirmatory testing. For negative results, it's the absence of the drug below the cut-off. The document states: "intended for over-the-counter (OTC) consumer use as the first step in a two-step process that includes confirmatory testing of preliminary positive results. Information, along with the materials for shipping a portion of the urine specimen to the laboratory is provided."

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not refer to a "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device