Search Results

The VINScreen Urine Drug Test Cup is lateral flow immunoassays for rapid detection of multiple commonly abused drugs in human urine. The detectable drugs and their cutoff concentrations are listed below:

The single or multi-test cup can include any combination of the analytes listed above, with and without on-board adulteration tests. However, only one cut-off concentration can be included per analyte per device.

This in vitro diagnostic device provides only a preliminary test result. A more specific alternate chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical test result. GC/MS or LC/MS is the preferred confirmatory method.

The VINScreen Urine Drug Home Test Cup is lateral flow immunoassays for rapid detection of multiple commonly abused drugs in human urine. The detectable drugs and their cutoff concentrations are listed below:

The single or multi-test cup can include any combination of the analytes listed above, with and without on-board adulteration tests. However, only one cut-off concentration can be included per analyte per device.

This device provides only a preliminary test result. A more specific alternate method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical test result. GC/MS or LC/MS is the preferred confirmatory method.

VINScreen Urine Drug Test Cup and VINScreen Urine Drug Home Test Cup are immunochromatographic assays that use a lateral flow system for the qualitative detection of single or multiple drugs in human urine.

The devices are a cup format. Each test device is sealed with sachets of desiccant in an aluminum pouch. The device is in a ready-to-use format and no longer requires assembly before use.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

SOBER SELF-TEST is a qualitative screening test used to detect the presence of ethyl alcohol in human saliva. The test detects relative blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) greater than or equal to 0.02%. Results are used for the diagnosis of alcohol intoxication. For in-vitro diagnostic use. The assay is a disposable test for one-time use.

Sober Self-Test® strips are a visually read qualitative test for the detection of alcohol concentration in saliva. It consists of a visually interpreted test strip that develops a distinct blue color on the test pad when wet with human saliva that has a Alcohol Concentration (AC) equal to or greater than 0.02%. The device consists of a single test in a foil packet or in boxes of three, six, twelve, or 24 boxes of single test packets, each designed for one-time use only.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

Wisdiag Multi-Drug Urine Test Cup tests are competitive binding, lateral flow immunochromatographic assays for qualitative and simultaneous detection of Amphetamine, Buprenorphine, Secobarbital, Oxazepam, Cocaine, 2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine, Methamphetamine, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Morphine, Methadone, Oxycodone, Phencyclidine, Propoxyphene, Nortriptyline, Marijuana, Tramadol, Fentanyl, 6-Monoacetylmorphine and Norfentanyl in human urine at the cutoff concentrations of:

The single or multi-test cups can consist of up to nineteen (19) of the above listed analytes in any combination but only one cutoff concentration under same drug condition will be included per device with or without on-board adulteration/specimen validity tests (SVT).

The tests provide only preliminary results. To obtain a confirmed analytical result, a more specific alternate chemical method must be used. GC/MS or LC/MS is the recommended confirmatory method. Careful consideration and judgment should be applied to any drugs of abuse screen test result, particularly when evaluating preliminary positive results.

Wisdiag Multi-Drug Urine Home Test Cup tests are competitive binding, lateral flow immunochromatographic assays for qualitative and simultaneous detection of Amphetamine, Buprenorphine, Secobarbital, Oxazepam, Cocaine, 2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine, Methamphetamine, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Morphine, Methadone, Oxycodone, Phencyclidine, Propoxyphene, Nortriptyline, Marijuana, Tramadol, Fentanyl, 6-Monoacetylmorphine and Norfentanyl in human urine at the cutoff concentrations of:

Wisdiag Multi-Drug Urine Home Test Cup offers any combinations from 1 to 19 drugs of abuse tests but only one cutoff concentration under same drug condition will be included per device. It is for in vitro diagnostic use only. It is intended for over-the-counter use.

The tests provide only preliminary results. To obtain a confirmed analytical result, a more specific alternate chemical method must be used. GC/MS or LC/MS is the recommended confirmatory method. Careful consideration and judgment should be applied to any drugs of abuse screen test result, particularly when evaluating preliminary positive results.

The Wisdiag Multi-Drug Urine Test Cup and Wisdiag Multi-Drug Urine Home Test Cup are rapid, single-use in vitro diagnostic devices. Each test kit contains a test device in one pouch. One pouch contains a test Wisdiag Cup and two desiccants, and a package insert. The device is in a ready-to-use format and no longer requires assembly before use.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The Immunalysis SEFRIA™ Hydrocodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay is an enzyme immunoassay with a cutoff of 30 ng/mL in neat oral fluid collected by Quantisal™ or Quantisal™ II Oral Fluid Collection Device. The assay is intended for the qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis of hydrocodone in human oral fluid to be used with clinical analyzers. This assay is calibrated against hydrocodone.

The semi-quantitative mode is for purposes of enabling laboratories to determine an appropriate dilution of the specimen for confirmation by a confirmatory method such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) or Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or permitting laboratories to establish quality control procedures.

The Immunalysis SEFRIA™ Hydrocodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternate chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC-MS or LC-MS/MS are the preferred confirmatory methods. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any test result, particularly when preliminary positive results are used.

The Immunalysis SEFRIA™ Hydrocodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay is a homogenous enzyme immunoassay with a cutoff of 30 ng/mL in neat oral fluid. The assay is intended for use in laboratories with clinical chemistry analyzers for the qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis of hydrocodone in human oral fluid collected with Quantisal™ Oral Fluid Collection Device or Quantisal™ II Oral Fluid collection device.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Test Easy Cup is a lateral flow immunoassay for the qualitative detection of Morphine, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Buprenorphine, Propoxyphene, Amphetamine, Phencyclidine, EDDP (Methadone metabolite), Oxycodone, Oxazepam, Nortriptyline, Secobarbital, Methadone, 6-Monoacetylmorphine and Fentanyl in human urine at the following cut off concentrations:

The single or multi-test cups can consist of any combination of the above listed drug analytes, but only one cut off concentration under same drug condition will be included per device.

This test provides only preliminary result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS or LC/MS is the preferred confirmatory method. Evaluate preliminary positive results carefully. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive.

The CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Home Test Easy Cup is a lateral flow immunoassay for the qualitative detection of Morphine, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Buprenorphine, Propoxyphene, Amphetamine, Phencyclidine, EDDP (Methadone metabolite), Oxycodone, Oxazepam, Nortriptyline, Secobarbital, Methadone, 6-Monoacetylmorphine and Fentanyl in human urine at the following cut off concentrations:

The test provides only preliminary test results. To obtain a confirmed analytical result, a more specific alternative chemical method must be used. GC/MS or LC-MS/MS is the preferred confirmatory method.

It is intended for over-the-counter (OTC) use. For in vitro diagnostic use only.

CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Test Easy Cup and CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Home Test Easy Cup are immunochromatographic assays that use a lateral flow system for the qualitative detection of single or multiple drugs in human urine.
The device is a cup format. Each test device is sealed with two sachets of desiccant in an aluminum pouch. The device is in a ready-to-use format and no longer requires assembly before use.

This document provides details on the performance characteristics of the CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Test Easy Cup and CLUNGENE Multi-Drug Home Test Easy Cup. Since this is an in vitro diagnostic device (specifically, a drug screening test), the acceptance criteria and study design are typically focused on analytical performance (accuracy, precision, analytical specificity) rather than a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, which is more common for imaging AI. Similarly, "human readers improving with AI vs without AI" is not applicable here as the device is the test, not an aid to human interpretation of another modality.

Here's the breakdown based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core acceptance criterion for qualitative drug screening tests like this is accurate detection around a specific cutoff concentration. The reported performance demonstrates the device's ability to correctly classify samples as positive or negative relative to these cutoffs.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Analytical Precision/Reproducibility)

The "Acceptance Criteria" column represents the desired performance for a qualitative assay around its cutoff. For positive results, this means detecting drug concentrations above the cutoff, and for negative results, it means not detecting concentrations below the cutoff. The provided precision data shows the number of positive (+) and negative (-) results out of 50 tests for various concentrations relative to the cutoff. An ideal performance would show 100% positive for concentrations above cutoff and 100% negative for concentrations below, with roughly 50/50 split at the cutoff itself (due to inherent variability).

Note: The implicit acceptance criterion for a qualitative test like this is generally that samples significantly above the cutoff should consistently yield positive results, samples significantly below the cutoff should consistently yield negative results, and samples near the cutoff (e.g., +/- 25% or 50% of the cutoff) will show varying results due to inherent assay variability, which is considered acceptable.

Study Details:

1. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

   • Analytical Performance (Precision/Reproducibility): For each drug and each concentration point (9 concentration levels per drug), 50 tests were performed (2 runs per day for 25 days). Given there are 20 analytes (including the alternative cutoffs), this amounts to 20 drugs * 9 concentrations * 50 tests/concentration = 9000 tests.
   • Analytical Specificity/Interference: Not explicitly stated as a "test set" size with a fixed number of samples, but "drug metabolites and other components" were "spiked into drug-free urine" and tested using three lots of the device. For compounds showing no interference, they were tested at a "concentration of 100µg/mL or specified concentrations" in both drug-free urine and urine containing target drugs at +/- 50% cutoff. Over 100 compounds were listed.
   • Method Comparison Study: For each drug, 80 "unaltered urine clinical samples" were used (40 negative and 40 positive). These were "blind labeled." With 20 analytes, this sums to 20 drugs * 80 samples/drug = 1600 clinical samples.
   • Lay Person Study: 280 lay persons participated. Urine samples were prepared at 7 concentration levels (-100%, +/-75%, +/-50%, +/-25% of cutoff). Each participant received 1 blind-labeled sample and 1 device. The tables suggest that for each configuration (1 and 2), for each drug, 20 samples were tested at each concentration level. Thus, for Configuration 1, there are 17 drugs, so 17 drugs * 7 concentrations * 20 samples/conc = 2380 samples. For Configuration 2, there are 17 drugs, so 17 drugs * 7 concentrations * 20 samples/conc = 2380 samples.
   • Data Provenance: The analytical and method comparison studies were performed "in-house." The lay user study was performed "at three intended user sites." The origin of the urine samples (e.g., country of origin) is not specified. It is implied these are prospective tests using prepared or collected samples for the purpose of the study.

2. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:

   • Analytical Precision/Reproducibility, Analytical Specificity/Interference, and Method Comparison: The ground truth for these studies was established by LC-MS/MS or GC/MS (or LC-MS/MS), which are reference analytical methods, not human expert consensus. The text states:
     • "Each drug concentration was confirmed by LC-MS/MS" for precision studies.
     • "The samples were…compared to LC-MS/MS results" for the method comparison study.
     • "The concentrations of the samples were confirmed by LC-MS/MS" for the lay person study.
   • Therefore, human experts were not directly establishing the ground truth for classification.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not applicable as the ground truth was established by LC-MS/MS/GC/MS, a definitive chemical analysis method, not by human expert reading requiring adjudication. The device itself is an immunoassay, the results of which are compared to the LC-MS/MS gold standard.

4. 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:

   • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study design is not applicable to a lateral flow immunoassay drug test. The device is a diagnostic test itself, not an AI assisting human interpretation of another modality.

5. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

   • Yes, implicitly. The precision, specificity, and method comparison studies evaluate the performance of the device itself (the immunoassay) against confirmed concentrations (LC-MS/MS), which represents its "standalone" analytical performance. However, there is a human element in reading the qualitative bands (positive/negative line), which is addressed in the lay-person study.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • The primary ground truth used across all analytical studies (precision, specificity, method comparison, lay person study) was LC-MS/MS or GC/MS results. This is considered a highly accurate and definitive chemical confirmatory method for drug concentrations in urine.

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • This device is a lateral flow immunoassay, not a machine learning/AI algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. Its "training" is inherent in its chemical and biological design. Therefore, this question is not applicable.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

   • As this is not an AI/ML device relying on a training set, this question is not applicable. The device's performance is governed by its chemical design (antibodies, reagents) and manufacturing process, which are developed and validated through iterative biochemical and engineering studies, not by a data-driven training process in the AI sense.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AssureTech Quick Cup Tests are competitive binding, lateral flow immunochromatographic assays for qualitative and simultaneous detection of Amphetamine, Secobarbital, Buprenorphine, Oxazepam, Cocaine, EDDP, Fentanyl, Ecstasy, Propoxyphene, Morphine, Methadone, Phencyclidine, Oxycodone, Norfentanyl, Methamphetamine, Nortriptyline, 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Tramadol and Marijuana in human urine at the cutoff concentrations of:

Configuration of the AssureTech Quick Cup Tests can consist of any combination of the above listed drug analytes. The test may yield positive results for the prescription drugs above when taken at or above prescribed doses. It is not intended to distinguish between prescription use or abuse of these drugs. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive. The test provides only preliminary test results. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS or LC/MS is the preferred confirmatory method.

For in vitro diagnostic use only.

The AssureTech Multi-drug Urine Test Cup are competitive binding, lateral flow immunochromatographic assays for qualitative and simultaneous detection of Amphetamine, Secobarbital, Buprenorphine, Oxazepam, Cocaine, EDDP, Fentanyl, Ecstasy, Propoxyphene, Morphine, Methadone, Phencyclidine, Oxycodone, Norfentanyl, Methamphetamine, Nortriptyline, 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Tramadol and Marijuana in human urine at the cutoff concentrations of:

Configuration of the AssureTech Multi-drug Urine Test Cup can consist of any combination of the above listed drug analytes. It is for in vitro diagnostic use only.

The test provides only preliminary test results. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS or LC/MS is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive.

The AssureTech Quick Cup Tests are immunochromatographic assays that use a lateral flow system for the qualitative detection of Amphetamine, Secobarbital, Buprenorphine, Oxazepam, Cocaine, EDDP, Fentanyl, Ecstasy, Propoxyphene, Morphine, Methadone, Phencyclidine, Oxycodone, Norfentanyl, Methamphetamine, Nortriptyline, 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Tramadol and Marijuana (target analytes) in human urine. The products are single-use in vitro diagnostic devices. Each test kit contains a Test Device and a package insert. Each test device is sealed with a desiccant in an aluminum pouch.

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter details the performance of the AssureTech Quick Cup Tests and AssureTech Multi-drug Urine Test Cup for qualitative and simultaneous detection of various drugs in human urine.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets those criteria:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For in vitro diagnostic devices like these, acceptance criteria are typically related to the accuracy of the qualitative detection (positive vs. negative) compared to a gold standard, particularly around the established cutoff concentrations. The performance is assessed through analytical studies (precision, specificity, interference) and comparison studies with a confirmatory method.

Here's a table summarizing the implicit acceptance criteria based on the precision and lay-user studies, and the reported device performance. The acceptance criterion is inferred as the ideal performance for these types of tests, where results near or above the cutoff should be positive, and results significantly below should be negative. The performance data below is extracted from the "Precision" and "Lay-user study" sections.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The precision study for AMP300, MET300, and TML100 used 3 lots, with "50-/0+" meaning 50 negative results and 0 positive results, and "50+/0-" meaning 50 positive results and 0 negative results. For the 'Cutoff' concentration, it shows a mix of positive and negative results, which is expected due to the nature of qualitative assays around the threshold.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Precision Study:

  • For AMP300, MET300, and TML100: Each drug had 8 concentrations (spanning -100% to +100% of cutoff, plus the cutoff). For each concentration, tests were performed two runs per day for 25 days, for 3 different lots.
    • This means 50 observations per concentration per lot (2 runs/day * 25 days/run).
    • Total observations per drug for all 3 lots: 8 concentrations * 50 observations/concentration * 3 lots = 1200 observations per drug.
  • Data for other drugs refer to previous 510(k) clearances (K243996, K201630, K181768, K180349, K170049, K161044, K153465, K152025, K151211).
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, as samples were "prepared by spiking drug in negative samples" and confirmed by LC/MS. No specific country of origin is mentioned, but typically for FDA submissions, studies are conducted under GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) guidelines, often in the US or by international labs adhering to comparable standards.

• Comparison Studies (Clinical Samples):

  • For AMP300, MET300, and TML100: The tables show data broken down by "Negative" (presumably drug-free), "Low Negative" (< -50% cutoff), "Near Cutoff Negative" (-50% to cutoff), "Near Cutoff Positive" (cutoff to +50%), and "High Positive" (> +50%). The sum of the positive and negative results across these categories for each operator represents the number of clinical samples tested for that drug.
    • AMP300: 5 (Negative) + 15 (LN) + 19 (NCN) + 24 (NCP) + 16 (HP) = 79 samples per operator. (Operator 1)
    • MET300: 4 (Negative) + 13 (LN) + 23 (NCN) + 20 (NCP) + 20 (HP) = 80 samples per operator. (Operator 1)
    • TML100: 2 (Negative) + 18 (LN) + 18 (NCN) + 19 (NCP) + 20 (HP) = 77 samples per operator. (Operator 1)
    • Total (approximate, as numbers vary slightly between operators): ~79+80+77 = ~236 clinical samples for AMP300, MET300, TML100 combined.
  • Data for other drugs refer to previous 510(k) clearances.
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, using "unaltered clinical samples." No specific country of origin is mentioned.

• Lay-User Study:

  • Sample Size: 280 lay persons tested the device.
    • Configuration 1: 66 male + 74 female = 140 lay persons.
    • Configuration 2: 87 male + 53 female = 140 lay persons.
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, samples were "prepared at the following concentrations; negative, +/-75%, +/-50%, +/-25% of the cutoff by spiking drugs into drug free-pooled urine specimens." Confirmed by LC/MS. Conducted "at three intended user sites." No specific country of origin is mentioned.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth (Clinical Samples)

• Ground Truth Establishment for Clinical Samples: LC/MS (Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry) is stated as the preferred confirmatory method and was used to confirm the concentrations of the samples. This is an objective chemical method, considered the gold standard for drug detection and quantification in urine.
• Experts: The comparison studies were performed "in-house with three laboratory assistants." While these individuals are performing the rapid tests, the ultimate ground truth is established by the LC/MS results. The "laboratory assistants" are not explicitly designated as "experts" in establishing ground truth, but rather as trained users of the device whose results are compared to the LC/MS gold standard.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set (Clinical Samples)

• The document states that "Operators ran unaltered clinical samples for each drug. The samples were blind labeled and compared to LC/MS results."
• There were three operators. The "Discordant Results" tables show discrepancies between the rapid test results and the LC/MS results, sometimes across multiple operators for the same sample.
• No explicit adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the rapid test results themselves is described. The comparison seems to be a direct comparison of each operator's rapid test result against the LC/MS ground truth, and then discrepancies are noted. The LC/MS data serves as the final, objective ground truth.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• This document describes performance characteristics of an in-vitro diagnostic device (a qualitative urine drug test cup).
• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was performed in the context of comparing human readers (e.g., radiologists interpreting images) with and without AI assistance. This type of study design is specific to AI/CADe (Computer-Assisted Detection) or CADx (Computer-Assisted Diagnosis) devices in imaging, which is not applicable to a lateral flow immunoassay like the AssureTech Quick Cup Tests.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

• Given this is a physical immunoassay test cup, the concept of a "standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance)" study does not directly apply in the same way it would for a software-based AI device.
• The "Comparison Studies" with laboratory assistants and the "Lay-user study" assess the device's performance when interpreted by human users. The device itself, by producing a visual result (line/no line), is the "algorithm." Its performance is inherently tied to human interpretation of that visual output. The precision and specificity studies represent the analytical performance of the device itself.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Analytical Performance Studies (Precision, Specificity, pH/SG Effect): The ground truth was established by spiking known concentrations of drugs into negative urine samples, with concentrations confirmed by LC/MS.
• Comparison Studies (Clinical Samples): The ground truth was established by LC/MS results on unaltered clinical urine samples. LC/MS is a highly accurate chemical analytical method.
• Lay-User Study: Ground truth was established by spiking known concentrations of drugs into drug-free pooled urine specimens, confirmed by LC/MS.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• This document describes a 510(k) submission for a traditional in-vitro diagnostic device (immunoassay). It does not mention any artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) components that would typically require a "training set" in the computational sense.
• The terms "training set" and "test set" are common in AI/ML validation. For a traditional medical device, the studies described (precision, interference, specificity, comparison, lay-user) serve as the "validation set" against pre-defined performance criteria.
• Therefore, N/A for "training set" in the context of AI/ML.

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

• N/A (as above, no "training set" in the AI/ML context).
• However, if we consider how the device itself was developed, the ground truth for optimizing its performance (e.g., antibody binding, membrane characteristics) would have relied on highly controlled experiments with known concentrations of analytes, likely confirmed by advanced analytical chemistry methods like LC/MS. This process is part of the extensive R&D and quality control that precedes a 510(k) submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Healgen® AccuFluor Fentanyl Fluorescence Immunoassay (FIA) Test Kit-Qualitative is a fluorescence immunoassay intended for the qualitative detection of fentanyl in human urine at a cutoff concentration of 1.0 ng/mL. The assay is intended for use with Healgen® Immunofluorescence analyzer OG-H180. This in vitro diagnostic device is for prescription use only.

This assay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternate chemical method must be used to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) and Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) are the preferred confirmatory methods. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to a Fentanyl test result, particularly when a preliminary positive result is obtained.

The Healgen® Immunofluorescence analyzer OG-H180 is a portable fluorescence instrument for in vitro diagnostic use only. The analyzer is designed to detect test results from in vitro diagnostic tests on clinical specimens. This analyzer can be used in a laboratory or point-of-care setting.

The AccuFluor Fentanyl FIA Test Kit-Qualitative is a rapid fluorescence immunoassay based on the principle of competitive binding, which uses fluorescent microspheres-labeled antibody as the indicator marker to qualitatively detect fentanyl in human urine. 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. Fentanyl, if present in the urine specimen below 1.0 ng/mL, will not saturate the binding sites of antibody-coated particles in the test device. The antibody coated fluorescence particles will then be captured by immobilized Fentanyl conjugate, and the signal will be detected in the test line (T) region to show a negative result. The signal will not be detected in the test line (T) region if the Fentanyl level exceeds 1.0 ng/mL because all the binding sites for the anti-Fentanyl antibodies will be saturated and the result will show as positive. To serve as a procedural control, a signal will be detected at the control line (C) region indicating the proper volume of specimen has been added and membrane wicking has occurred. The test is interpreted by the Healgen® Immunofluorescence analyzer OG-H180 and the result will be interpreted by the analyzer.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to the Healgen® AccuFluor Fentanyl Fluorescence Immunoassay (FIA) Test Kit - Qualitative and the Healgen® Immunofluorescence Analyzer (OG-H180). This document outlines the general regulatory approval and provides some performance characteristics, but it is not a comprehensive study report detailing all aspects of the acceptance criteria and the full study that proves the device meets those criteria.

Specifically, the document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a defined set of metrics and thresholds prior to presenting performance data. Instead, it presents results from various analytical performance studies which are implicitly used to demonstrate equivalence to a predicate device. Similarly, it does not describe "human expert ground truth establishment," "adjudication methods," or "MRMC comparative effectiveness studies" because these are typically relevant for AI/ML-based diagnostic devices utilizing image interpretation or complex decision support, which is not the primary function described for this immunoassay and analyzer.

This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) test for qualitative detection of fentanyl in urine, which relies on a chemical reaction read by an analyzer. Therefore, the "study" described is a series of analytical performance tests, rather than a clinical study with human readers and ground truth established by medical experts in the way that would be done for an AI radiology device, for example.

Despite these limitations in the provided text for certain categories, I will extract and infer information where possible based on the provided document and common IVD device clearance practices.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Healgen® AccuFluor Fentanyl FIA Test Kit

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As noted, the document does not explicitly list pre-defined "acceptance criteria" with specific numerical thresholds for all metrics. However, based on the provided performance data, here's an interpretation of the implied criteria and the reported performance. The "acceptance criteria" inferred here are based on what constitutes successful demonstration of performance for an IVD device of this type, often aiming for high accuracy, precision, and lack of interference, especially around the cutoff concentration.

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

• Analytical Precision: 60 replicates per concentration (6 replicates/day for 10 days) per lot, across 9 concentration levels, for 3 device lots. Total: 60 * 9 * 3 = 1620 individual tests.
• Interference: Samples with various interfering substances were tested, each at both drug-free and ±50% Cut-Off spiked fentanyl concentrations, using three batches of device. (Exact number of tests not specified, but implies a comprehensive set).
• Specificity: Various drug metabolites and other compounds tested, each using three batches of device. (Exact number of tests not specified).
• Effect of Urine Specific Gravity and pH: Samples across the specified ranges were tested at -50% and +50% Cut-Off levels by three different operators using three device lots. (Exact number of tests not specified).
• Method Comparison (Clinical Samples): 80 unaltered clinical samples (40 negative, 40 positive). These samples were run at three different testing sites.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the clinical samples. It does state they were "unaltered clinical samples," implying they were retrospective real-world samples collected from patients. It does not indicate if they were prospective.

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

• Not Applicable in the traditional sense for this device. For this IVD device, the primary ground truth for its performance studies (precision, specificity, method comparison) is established by analytical gold standards, specifically:
  • LC/MS-MS (Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry/Mass Spectrometry) for confirming fentanyl concentrations in precision studies and as the comparator method in the method comparison study.
  • This is a highly accurate and precise laboratory method for quantifying drug concentrations, and its results are considered the "ground truth" for chemical concentration data.
• There were "three different operators" for the specific gravity/pH study, but these are not "experts" in the sense of medical professionals establishing a clinical diagnosis ground truth. They are laboratory personnel performing the test.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable in the traditional sense. Given that the ground truth is established by LC-MS/MS, there is no human "adjudication" process like consensus reading by multiple radiologists for image interpretation. The LC-MS/MS results serve as the definitive reference.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study (comparing human readers with and without AI assistance on complex interpretation tasks) is not applicable to a qualitative immunoassay and analyzer like the Healgen AccuFluor Fentanyl FIA Test Kit, which determines the presence or absence of a substance based on a fluorescent signal. The device performance is assessed on its analytical accuracy against a gold standard method.

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

• Yes, the performance presented is primarily standalone. The Healgen® Immunofluorescence Analyzer (OG-H180) automatically interprets the fluorescent signal from the test kit. The performance data (precision, specificity, interference, method comparison) directly reflects the analytical capability of the device and test kit combination, without any human interpretation or intervention in the final "positive" or "negative" determination. A human loads the sample and the device performs the analysis and provides the result.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Analytical Gold Standard (LC-MS/MS): This is the primary method used to establish the true concentration of fentanyl in samples for precision studies and as the comparative reference for clinical samples.
• Spiked Samples: For analytical performance studies (precision, interference, specificity), known concentrations of fentanyl or interfering substances were added to negative urine samples, establishing a controlled ground truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not explicitly stated in the document, and likely not applicable in the typical AI/ML sense. This device is an immunoassay, not an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm that undergoes a "training" phase with a large dataset. Immunoassays are based on biochemical principles and do not "learn" from data in the same way. Performance is optimized during development and validated analytically.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Described. As it's not an AI/ML device relying on a training set, the concept of establishing ground truth for training does not apply here. The analytical performance is characterized through rigorous testing under controlled conditions and comparison to established reference methods (like LC-MS/MS).

Ask a specific question about this device

The ARCHITECT iGentamicin assay is an in vitro chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) for the quantitative determination of gentamicin, an antibiotic drug, in human serum or plasma on the ARCHITECT iSystem with STAT protocol capability. The measurements obtained are used in the diagnosis and treatment of gentamicin overdose and in monitoring levels of gentamicin to help ensure appropriate therapy.

The ARCHITECT iGentamicin Reagent Kit contains:

• Microparticles: 1 bottle (7.11 mL per 100 test cartridge). Anti-gentamicin (mouse, monoclonal) coated microparticles in TRIS buffer with protein (bovine) stabilizer. Minimum concentration: 0.13% solids. Preservatives: ProClin 950 and sodium azide.

• Conjugate: 1 bottle (11.75 mL per 100 test cartridge). Gentamicin acridinium-labeled conjugate in MES buffer. Minimum concentration: 3 nM. Preservative: ProClin 300.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The LZI Fentanyl III Enzyme Immunoassay is intended for the qualitative determination of fentanyl in human urine at the cutoff value of 1 ng/mL when calibrated against fentanyl. The assay is designed for prescription use with a number of automated clinical chemistry analyzers.

The assay provides only a preliminary analytical result. A more specific alternative chemical method (e.g., gas or liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry) must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary test result is positive.

The LZI Fentanyl III Enzyme Immunoassay is a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay with ready-to-use liquid reagents. The assay is based on competition between the drug in the sample and the drug labeled with the enzyme glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) for a fixed amount of antibody in the reagent. The drug-labeled G6PDH conjugate is traceable to a commercially available fentanyl standard and referred to as fentanyl-labeled G6PDH conjugate. Enzyme activity decreases upon binding to the antibody, and the drug concentration in the sample is measured in terms of enzyme activity. In the absence of a drug in the sample, fentanyl-labeled G6PDH conjugate is bound to the antibody, and the enzyme activity is inhibited. On the other hand, when the free drug is present in the sample, the antibody would bind to the free drug; the unbound fentanyl-labeled G6PDH then exhibits its maximal enzyme activity. Active enzyme converts nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) to NADH, resulting in an absorbance change that can be measured spectrophotometrically at 340 nm.

The LZI Fentanyl III Enzyme Immunoassay is a kit comprised of two reagents, R1 and R2, which are bottled separately but sold together within the kit.

The R1 solution contains mouse monoclonal anti-fentanyl antibody, glucose-6-phosphate (G6P), nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), stabilizers, and sodium azide (0.09%) as a preservative. The R2 solution contains glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) labeled with fentanyl in buffer with sodium azide (0.09%) as a preservative.

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the LZI Fentanyl III Enzyme Immunoassay details the device's acceptance criteria (in terms of performance characteristics) and the study results that demonstrate the device meets these criteria.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the satisfactory performance demonstrated in the various studies, aiming to prove substantial equivalence to the predicate device. The performance characteristics sections show the device meets the expected qualitative and quantitative accuracy, precision, and specificity.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • Precision Study: 88 replicates for each concentration level (0 ng/mL to 2 ng/mL fentanyl).
  • Method Comparison (Clinical Samples): 150 unaltered clinical samples.
  • Cross-Reactivity: Duplicates for each compound and concentration tested.
  • Interference (Endogenous/Preservative): Duplicates for each compound and concentration tested.
  • Specific Gravity/pH Interference: Duplicates for each specific gravity/pH level and fentanyl concentration.
• Data Provenance:
  • The clinical samples for the Method Comparison study were obtained by LZI and "through collaboration with various clinical laboratories across the United States and Canada." This indicates a prospective and/or retrospective collection of real-world clinical samples from diverse geographical regions. The nature (retrospective/prospective) of the collection for these specific 150 samples isn't explicitly stated but "clinical samples" usually implies samples collected from patients.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• The document does not specify the number of experts used to establish ground truth.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not explicitly stated. However, for LC/MS confirmation, it implicitly relies on the expertise of the laboratory personnel performing and interpreting the LC/MS (Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry) analysis, which is a gold standard for chemical identification and quantification. These would typically be trained analytical chemists or lab technicians with experience in mass spectrometry.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not describe an adjudication method for the test set in the typical sense of multiple human readers or reviewers resolving discrepancies.
• For the Method Comparison study, the "ground truth" was established independently by LC/MS. Discrepancies between the EIA result and the LC/MS result were reported and attributed to norfentanyl cross-reactivity. This is a comparison against a reference method, not a subjective adjudication by experts.

5. Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is more common for diagnostic imaging AI algorithms where human interpretation is a primary component and AI aims to augment or replace it. This document describes an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, an enzyme immunoassay, which is an automated lab test. Its performance is evaluated against a reference standard (LC/MS), not against human reader performance.

6. Standalone Performance

• Yes, standalone performance was done. The entire submission details the performance of the LZI Fentanyl III Enzyme Immunoassay as a standalone device. The qualitative accuracy, precision, cross-reactivity, and interference studies all evaluate the algorithm/device's performance independently in generating a preliminary analytical result from a urine sample. It does not involve human-in-the-loop performance; rather, it provides a result that a clinician then interprets in conjunction with other clinical data.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The primary type of ground truth used for the quantitative confirmation of fentanyl concentration in the clinical samples (Method Comparison study) was LC/MS (Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry) analysis. This is considered a highly specific and sensitive reference method for drug quantification.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly state the sample size for the training set. The described studies are verification and validation activities for a modified assay (Special 510(k) for an existing predicate device, LZI Fentanyl II). For IVD assays, "training" often refers to the internal development and optimization of the assay performed by the manufacturer, which precedes the formal V&V studies presented for regulatory submission. The reported studies are the test set performance.

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

• Since the training set size is not explicitly stated, the method for establishing ground truth for it is also not explicitly described. However, it is highly probable that internal development and optimization of the assay would have utilized similar rigorous analytical methods, likely LC/MS or other established analytical techniques, to calibrate and refine the assay's performance against known concentrations of fentanyl and its metabolites. This would be part of the manufacturer's design control and development process.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Deepblue Multi-Drug Urine Test Cup is a rapid lateral flow immunoassay for the qualitative detection of 6-Monoacetylmorphine, d-Amphetamine, Benzoylecgonine, Buprenorphine, EDDP, fentanyl, Methadone, d-Methamphetamine, d/l-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Morphine, Nortriptyline, Oxazepam, Oxycodone, Phencyclidine, d-Propoxyphene, Secobarbital, and THC-COOH in human urine. The test cut-off concentrations and the compounds the tests are calibrated to are as follows:

The single or multi-test cups can consist of up to seventeen (17) of the above listed analytes in any combination with or without on-board adulteration/specimen validity tests (SVT).

The tests provide only a preliminary result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used to obtain a confirmed presumptive positive result. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS), Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS), and their tandem mass-spectrometer versions are the preferred confirmatory methods. Careful consideration and judgment should be applied to any drugs of abuse screen test result, particularly when evaluating preliminary positive results.

The Deepblue Home Multi-Drug Urine Test Cup is a rapid qualitative immunoassay. The device provides preliminary results for the detection of one or more of the following drugs.

This drug test cup may contain any combination of the drug tests listed in the table above.

This test provides only preliminary result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used to obtain a confirmed presumptive positive result. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS), Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS), and their tandem mass-spectrometer versions are the preferred confirmatory methods. Careful consideration and judgment should be applied to any drugs of abuse screen test result, particularly when evaluating preliminary positive results.

Deepblue Home Muti-Drug Urine Test Cup and Deepblue Muti-Drug Urine Test Cup are immunochromatographic assays that use a lateral flow system for the qualitative detection of single or multiple drugs in human urine.

The device is a cup format. Each test device is sealed with two sachets of desiccant in an aluminum pouch. The device is in a ready-to-use format and no longer requires assembly before use.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter details the performance characteristics of the Deepblue Multi-Drug Urine Test Cup and Deepblue Home Multi-Drug Urine Test Cup. This information allows us to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets these criteria.

It's important to note that this device is a qualitative lateral flow immunoassay for initial drug screening, not a diagnostic imaging AI, so the criteria and study methodology differ significantly from those for an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Specifically, there are no references to AI assistance, human readers, or image adjudication, as these are not relevant to this type of device.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Deepblue Multi-Drug Urine Test Cups

The acceptance criteria for this type of qualitative immunoassay are primarily based on its analytical performance, specifically its ability to correctly identify the presence or absence of target drugs at specified cutoff concentrations. This is demonstrated through precision/reproducibility studies, analytical specificity (cross-reactivity and interference), and method comparison studies against a gold standard (LC-MS/MS).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly derived from the successful demonstration of performance in the analytical and method comparison studies. The goal is to achieve high agreement rates with the confirmatory method (LC-MS/MS) and consistent results at and around the cutoff concentrations.

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

• Analytical Performance (Precision): For each drug, 50 runs were performed per concentration (9 concentrations tested: +100%, +75%, +50%, +25%, cutoff, -25%, -50%, -75%, -100%). This involved using 3 lots of test cups, with 2 runs per day for 25 days. The sample provenance is not explicitly stated as patient data, but rather drug-free urine spiked with controlled concentrations of target drugs. This is typical for analytical validation.
• Analytical Specificity: Urine samples were spiked with various drug metabolites, analogs, and interfering substances. The number of samples per compound tested is not explicitly stated but implied to be sufficient for demonstrating cross-reactivity thresholds.
• Method Comparison Study: For each drug, 80 unaltered urine clinical samples were used (40 negative, 40 positive). The data provenance is "in-house," implying these were from a controlled setting, likely in China where the submitter is located. It is labeled as "clinical samples," suggesting they were derived from human urine. The study was retrospective in nature, as pre-collected samples were tested.
• Lay Person Study: 280 lay persons participated. The samples were prepared by spiking drug-free pooled urine specimens with known drug concentrations and blind-labeled.

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

• For Analytical Performance (Precision & Specificity): The ground truth was established by precise spiking of drugs into drug-free urine samples. The concentrations were confirmed by LC-MS/MS, an advanced analytical chemistry technique. LC-MS/MS is considered a gold standard for quantifying drug concentrations and establishing ground truth in these types of studies, requiring skilled analytical chemists or lab technicians to perform. The number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., number of years of experience) are not provided in the document, but the use of LC-MS/MS inherently implies expert execution and interpretation.
• For Method Comparison Study: The ground truth for the 80 clinical urine samples per drug was established by LC-MS/MS results. These results served as the reference against which the device performance was compared. As above, this relies on the expertise of those performing and interpreting LC-MS/MS.
• For Lay Person Study: The ground truth was based on precisely prepared spiked samples with confirmed concentrations by LC-MS/MS.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• For Analytical Performance (Precision & Specificity): No multi-reader adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is described as relevant. The results are quantitative (spiked concentrations) confirmed by LC-MS/MS, and the device provides a qualitative output (positive/negative) that is directly compared to the expected qualitative outcome from the established concentration and cutoff.
• For Method Comparison Study: Three operators performed the tests. The results from each operator are reported individually ("Operator A," "Operator B," "Operator C"). Discordant results (where the device outcome did not match the LC-MS/MS ground truth, or where operators' results differed) are explicitly listed. There is no explicit mention of an adjudication process among the operators; rather, the data from each operator is presented against the LC-MS/MS reference. This indicates that their individual interpretations are the "reads," and the LC-MS/MS is the adjudication method.
• For Lay Person Study: No explicit adjudication method is described. The results from the lay persons were compared against the known concentrations of the spiked samples.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study (MRMC) is typically performed for diagnostic imaging devices where human readers interpret images with and without AI assistance to assess the AI's impact on human performance in a clinical setting. The Deepblue device is a rapid lateral flow immunoassay for drug screening, not an imaging device or an AI-powered system designed to assist human interpretation. Therefore, this section is not applicable.

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

• Yes, in essence, a "standalone" or "device-only" performance study was done. The "Analytical Performance" section (Precision/Reproducibility and Analytical Specificity/Interference) and portions of the "Method Comparison Study" demonstrate the device's performance based on its inherent physical and chemical properties and its interaction with the sample, irrespective of human interpretation variability (though human operators handle the device and read the result). The "Method Comparison" explicitly compares the device's output to the gold standard (LC-MS/MS) directly. The "Lay Person Study" assesses the ease of use and reads by untrained users, ensuring the device works as intended without specialized human expertise. Since it's a simple qualitative result (presence of a line), "human-in-the-loop" "performance" is primarily about correct reading of a physical characteristic.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary type of ground truth used for both the analytical performance and method comparison studies was confirmatory analytical chemistry data, specifically Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) or Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). These methods are considered the gold standard for accurate and quantitative identification of drugs and their metabolites in biological samples.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

No specific "training set" or "training" is described, as this device does not use machine learning or AI that requires a distinct data training phase. The development of the immunoassay itself relies on chemical and biological design principles, not data-driven model training.

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

As there is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model for this device, a corresponding ground truth establishment process is not applicable. The immunoassay itself is developed and validated through iterative biochemical and engineering processes to ensure sensitivity and specificity to the target analytes.

Ask a specific question about this device