Search Results

The BinaxNOW® Influenza A & B Test is an in vitro immunochromatographic assay for the qualitative detection of influenza A and B nucleoprotein antigens in nasopharyngeal (NP) swab and nasal wash/aspirate specimens. It is intended to aid in the rapid differential diagnosis of influenza A and B viral infections. Negative test results should be confirmed by culture.

The BinaxNOW® Influenza A & B Test is an immunochromatographic membrane assay that uses highly sensitive monoclonal antibodies to detect influenza type A & B nucleoprotein antigens in nasopharyngeal specimens. These antibodies and a control antibody are immobilized onto a membrane support as three distinct lines and combined with other reagents/pads to construct a test strip. This test strip is mounted inside a cardboard, book-shaped hinged test device. Swab specimens require a sample preparation step, in which the sample is eluted off the swab into elution solution or transport media. Nasal wash/aspirate samples require no preparation. Sample is added to the top of the test strip and the test device is closed. Test results are interpreted at 15 minutes based on the presence or absence of pink-to-purple colored Sample Lines. The blue Control Line turns pink in a valid assay.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of numerical thresholds for sensitivity and specificity. Instead, it demonstrates performance by comparing the new BinaxNOW® Influenza A & B Test to existing predicate devices (Binax NOW® Flu A Test and Binax NOW® Flu B Test) and viral culture. The key indication of "acceptance" is the determination of "substantial equivalence" to the predicate devices by the FDA.

Based on the performance data presented, here's a summary:

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

• Clinical Sample Comparison (BinaxNOW® A & B vs. individual NOW® A & B tests):

  • Influenza A comparison: 306 retrospective frozen clinical samples.
  • Influenza B comparison: 303 retrospective frozen clinical samples.
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective frozen clinical samples collected from symptomatic patients at multiple physician offices, clinics, and hospitals in the Southern, Northeastern, and Midwestern regions of the United States, and one hospital in Sweden.

• Original Multi-site Prospective Clinical Study (comparing individual NOW® Flu A & B Tests to viral culture, 2002):

  • 191 nasal wash specimens
  • 182 nasopharyngeal (NP) swab specimens
  • Data Provenance: Multi-center prospective study during the 2002 flu season at physician offices and clinics located in the United States.

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 or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth for the clinical comparison directly assessing the BinaxNOW® Influenza A & B Test.

• For the comparison against the predicate devices: The predicate devices (individual NOW® Flu A and NOW® Flu B Tests) were used as the reference standard (ground truth). The ground truth for these predicate devices themselves would have been established historically (likely via viral culture).

• For the historical 2002 multi-site prospective clinical study: The ground truth was viral culture, which is considered an objective laboratory method, not reliant on expert interpretation of the rapid test results.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an adjudication method for the clinical test sets in terms of resolving discrepancies between readers or between the device and ground truth. The comparisons are presented as direct measures against a reference standard (predicate devices or viral culture).

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done as described in the context of assistance from AI.
• This device is a rapid diagnostic test (immunochromatographic assay), not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging or interpretation system. The "readers" for the analytical sensitivity experiment were "operators" interpreting the device results, not expert diagnosticians being assisted by AI.

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

• Yes, standalone performance was assessed in the context of a rapid diagnostic test. The results (sensitivity, specificity) presented for the BinaxNOW® Influenza A & B Test were generated by having operators read the test strip, not by integrating it with human interpretive assistance beyond the basic instruction of how to read the pink-to-purple lines.
• The "Analytical Sensitivity Comparison" section involved 12 different operators interpreting devices for LOD and cutoff levels. This is a form of standalone performance evaluation for the test itself.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Clinical Sample Comparison (BinaxNOW® A & B vs. individual NOW® A & B tests): The ground truth was the result from the predicate devices (Binax NOW® Flu A Test and Binax NOW® Flu B Test). This implies that the predicate devices were considered the accepted standard for influenza detection in these samples.
• Original Multi-site Prospective Clinical Study (of individual NOW® Flu A & B Tests): The ground truth was viral culture. Viral culture is generally considered a gold standard for influenza diagnosis.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a training set in the context of machine learning or algorithm development. This device is an immunochromatographic assay, which is a chemical and biological test, not typically "trained" in the way an AI algorithm is. The "development" of the test would involve optimization of its biological components and chemical reactions.

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

As there is no mention of a training set for an algorithm, this question is not applicable. The development of the immunochromatographic assay relies on chemical and biological principles and optimization, not on a "training set" with established ground truth in the AI sense.

Ask a specific question about this device