Search Results

The Atellica® CH Phencyclidine (Pcp) assay is for in the qualitative or semiguantitative analyses of phencyclidine in human urine using the Atellica® CI Analyzer, using a cutoff of 25 ng/mL. The Pop assay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternative chemical must be used to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GCMS) is the preferred confirmatory method. The semiquantitative 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.

Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any drug-of-abuse test result, particularly when preliminary positive results are used.

The Atellica® CH Vancomycin (Vanc) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative measurement of vancomycin in human serum and plasma (lithium heparin) using the Atellica® CI Analyzer. Vanc test results may be used in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring levels of vancomycin to ensure appropriate therapy.

The Atellica CH Pcp assay is a homogenous enzyme immunoassay based on competition between drug in the specimen and drug labeled with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) for antibody binding sites. G6PDH activity decreases upon binding to the antibody, so the drug concentration in the specimen can be measured in terms of enzyme activity. Active enzyme converts nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) to NADH in the presence of glucose-6-phosphate (G6P), resulting in an absorbance change that is measured spectrophotometrically at 340/410 nm. Endogenous G6PDH does not interfere because the coenzyme NAD+ functions only with the bacterial (Leuconostoc mesenteroides) enzyme employed in the assay.

The Atellica CH Vanc assay is based on a homogeneous particle enhanced turbidimetric inhibition immunoassay (PETINIA) technique which uses a synthetic particle-vancomycin conjugate (PR) and monoclonal vancomycin specific antibody (Ab). Vancomycin present in the sample competes with vancomycin on the particles for available antibody, thereby decreasing the rate of aggregation. Hence, the rate of aggregation is inversely proportional to the concentration of vancomycin in the sample. The rate of aggregation is measured using bichromatic turbidimetric readings at 545 and 694 nm.

This document describes the analytical performance of two in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assays, the Atellica® CH Phencyclidine (Pcp) assay and the Atellica® CH Vancomycin (Vanc) assay, and does not contain information related to AI/ML clinical studies or multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies. Therefore, it is not possible to address acceptance criteria and study designs typically found in AI/ML performance evaluations (e.g., sample size for training/test sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, etc.).

However, I can extract and present the analytical performance criteria and reported device performance based on the provided text, which are relevant for IVD devices.

Analytical Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Atellica® CH Phencyclidine (Pcp) Assay

This assay is for qualitative or semi-quantitative analysis of phencyclidine in human urine. The primary "acceptance" is demonstrated through agreement with a confirmatory method (GC/MS) and robust precision and recovery.

Table 1: Atellica® CH Phencyclidine (Pcp) Assay - Analytical Performance

• Overall POS agreement: 95% (19 true positives + 81 high positives / 108 total positives by Atellica CH)
• Overall NEG agreement: 94% (42 low negatives + 7 negatives / 54 total negatives by Atellica CH)
  Discordant Results (Atellica CI Pcp vs GC/MS cut-off 25 ng/mL):
• Atellica POS, GC/MS NEG: Samples 47 (27 ng/mL vs 18.0 ng/mL), 51 (30 ng/mL vs 24.2 ng/mL), 52 (26 ng/mL vs 24.8 ng/mL) - 3 false positives relative to GC/MS cut-off
• Atellica NEG, GC/MS POS: Samples 53 (21 ng/mL vs 25.8 ng/mL), 54 (20 ng/mL vs 26.7 ng/mL), 56 (22 ng/mL vs 27.6 ng/mL), 57 (24 ng/mL vs 27.8 ng/mL), 58 (24 ng/mL vs 28.5 ng/mL) - 5 false negatives relative to GC/MS cut-off |
  | Precision (Repeatability) | Overall Low CV% (e.g., 2.2% at 18.75 ng/mL, 2.4% at 25 ng/mL, 2.8% at 31.25 ng/mL)
• 0 ng/mL: SD 0.1, N/A CV
• 6.25 ng/mL: SD 0.4, 6.7% CV
• 12.5 ng/mL: SD 0.4, 3.3% CV
• 18.75 ng/mL: SD 0.4, 2.2% CV
• 25 ng/mL (Cutoff): SD 0.6, 2.4% CV
• 31.25 ng/mL: SD 0.9, 2.8% CV
• 37.5 ng/mL: SD 0.9, 2.3% CV
• 43.75 ng/mL: SD 1.1, 2.6% CV
• 50 ng/mL: SD 1.7, 3.3% CV |
  | Precision (Within-Lab) | Overall Low CV% (e.g., 4.4% at 18.75 ng/mL and 25 ng/mL, 5.3% at 31.25 ng/mL)
• 0 ng/mL: SD 0.20, N/A CV
• 6.25 ng/mL: SD 0.6, 10.0% CV
• 12.5 ng/mL: SD 0.6, 5.0% CV
• 18.75 ng/mL: SD 0.8, 4.4% CV
• 25 ng/mL (Cutoff): SD 1.1, 4.4% CV
• 31.25 ng/mL: SD 1.7, 5.3% CV
• 37.5 ng/mL: SD 2.3, 5.9% CV
• 43.75 ng/mL: SD 2.5, 5.8% CV
• 50 ng/mL: SD 3.7, 7.1% CV |
  | Reproducibility (Total) | Overall Low CV% (e.g., 6.1% for Urine QC 1, 5.8% for Urine QC 2, 6.5% for Urine QC 3)
• Urine QC 1 (18 ng/mL): SD 1.1, 6.1% CV
• Urine QC 2 (24 ng/mL): SD 1.4, 5.8% CV
• Urine QC 3 (34 ng/mL): SD 2.2, 6.5% CV |
  | Recovery | Mean Recovery ranging from 90% to 107% across various concentrations.
• 0 ng/mL: 0 ng/mL (N/A %)
• 4 ng/mL: 4 ng/mL (101 %)
• 5 ng/mL: 5 ng/mL (100 %)
• 10 ng/mL: 9 ng/mL (90 %)
• 15 ng/mL: 15 ng/mL (100 %)
• 20 ng/mL: 19 ng/mL (95 %)
• 25 ng/mL: 24 ng/mL (96 %)
• 30 ng/mL: 30 ng/mL (100 %)
• 40 ng/mL: 43 ng/mL (107 %)
• 60 ng/mL: 64 ng/mL (107 %)
• 80 ng/mL: 82 ng/mL (103 %) |
  | Endogenous Substances Interference | No false response relative to the 25 ng/mL cutoff for tested substances (Acetone, Ascorbic Acid, Conjugated bilirubin, Creatinine, Ethanol, Gamma Globulin, Galactose, Glucose, Hemoglobin, Human Serum Albumin, Oxalic Acid, Riboflavin, Sodium Azide, Sodium Chloride, Sodium Fluoride, Urea) at specified concentrations when spiked into control pools (19 ng/mL and 31 ng/mL). |
  | Specificity (Structurally Unrelated Compounds) | No false response relative to the 25 ng/mL cutoff for listed structurally unrelated compounds (e.g., Acetaminophen, Amitriptyline, Caffeine, Ibuprofen, etc.) at specified concentrations when spiked into control pools (19 ng/mL and 31 ng/mL). |
  | Specificity (Structurally Related Compounds - Cross-Reactivity) | Values range from 0.0% to 184.4% for structurally related compounds, indicating varying levels of cross-reactivity. Notably, 1-(1-Phenylcyclohexyl)pyrrolidine (PCPy) showed 154.4% and trans-4-phenyl-4-Piperidinocyclohexanol showed 184.4% cross-reactivity. This typically means these compounds may cause a positive result even if PCP itself is not present, emphasizing the need for confirmatory testing. |
  | Specific Gravity and pH Interference | No interference observed for negative urine pools with specific gravity 1.000–1.030 and pH 3–10, when tested at ±25% of the cutoff concentration. |
  | Standardization Traceability | Traceable to Emit Calibrators/Controls, which are referenced to gravimetrically prepared standards qualified by GC/MS from an independent laboratory (within ±10% of nominal). |

Atellica® CH Vancomycin (Vanc) Assay

This assay is for quantitative measurement of vancomycin in human serum and plasma.

Table 2: Atellica® CH Vancomycin (Vanc) Assay - Analytical Performance

• Serum QC 1 (6.1 µg/mL): SD 0.14, 2.3% CV
• Serum 1 (13.4 µg/mL): SD 0.13, 1.0% CV
• Serum QC 2 (19.5 µg/mL): SD 0.15, 0.8% CV
• Serum QC 3 (32.6 µg/mL): SD 0.34, 1.0% CV
• Serum 2 (46.1 µg/mL): SD 0.54, 1.2% CV |
  | Precision (Within-Laboratory) | Overall Low CV% (e.g., 1.5% - 2.8%).
• Serum QC 1 (6.1 µg/mL): SD 0.17, 2.8% CV
• Serum 1 (13.4 µg/mL): SD 0.20, 1.5% CV
• Serum QC 2 (19.5 µg/mL): SD 0.33, 1.7% CV
• Serum QC 3 (32.6 µg/mL): SD 0.61, 1.9% CV
• Serum 2 (46.1 µg/mL): SD 0.89, 1.9% CV |
  | Reproducibility (Total) | Overall Low CV% (e.g., 1.8% - 4.0%).
• Serum QC 1 (6.0 µg/mL): SD 0.24, 4.0% CV
• Serum 1 (13.4 µg/mL): SD 0.27, 2.0% CV
• Serum QC 2 (19.7 µg/mL): SD 0.38, 1.9% CV
• Serum QC 3 (32.9 µg/mL): SD 0.62, 1.9% CV
• Serum 2 (45.9 µg/mL): SD 0.81, 1.8% CV |
  | Assay Comparison (Correlation vs. Predicate) | Correlation coefficient ≥ 0.980 and slope 1.00 ± 0.10.
• Regression Equation: y = 0.97x + 0.3 µg/mL (y = 0.97x + 0.2 µmol/L)
• Correlation coefficient (r): 0.999 (for 107 serum samples in range 4.1–45.9 µg/mL). Meets criteria. |
  | Specimen Equivalency (Serum vs. Plasma (Lithium Heparin)) | Demonstrated equivalency between plasma and serum.
• Regression Equation: y = 1.00x - 0.1 µg/mL (y = 1.00x - 0.7 µmol/L)
• Correlation coefficient (r): 0.996 (for 50 samples in range 4.5–43.9 µg/mL). |
  | Interferences (Hemolysis, Icterus, Lipemia - HIL) | ≤ 10% bias.
• Hemoglobin (1000 mg/dL): 2% and 6% bias at two analyte levels.
• Bilirubin, conjugated (30 mg/dL): 0% and 1% bias.
• Bilirubin, unconjugated (30 mg/dL): -2% and -1% bias.
• Lipemia (Intralipid® 2000 mg/dL): 8% and 6% bias.
• Lipemia (from trig fraction 2000 mg/dL): 6% and 8% bias. *All results meet the

Ask a specific question about this device

The Trinidad CH Vancomycin (Vanc) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative measurement of vancomycin in human serum or plasma on the Trinidad CH System. Vanc test results may be used in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring levels of vancomycin to ensure appropriate therapy.

The Trinidad CH Drug 3 Calibrator (DRUG3 CAL) is intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the calibration of Vancomycin (Vanc) on the Trinidad CH System.

The Trinidad CH Vancomycin (Vanc) assay is based on a homogeneous particle enhanced turbidimetric inhibition immunoassay (PETINIA) technique which uses a synthetic particle-vancomycin conjugate (PR) and monoclonal vancomycin specific antibody (Ab). Vancomycin present in the sample competes with vancomycin on the particles for available antibody, thereby decreasing the rate of aggregation. Hence, the rate of aggregation is inversely proportional to the concentration of vancomycin in the sample. The rate of aggregation is measured using bichromatic turbidimetric readings at 545 nm and 694 nm.

The Trinidad CH Drug 3 Calibrator (DRUG3 CAL) is a 5 level calibrator product prepared from bovine serum base product.

The Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. Trinidad CH Vancomycin (Vanc) assay and Trinidad CH Drug 3 Calibrator (DRUG3 CAL) underwent several studies to establish their performance and substantial equivalence to predicate devices. Here's a breakdown based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a formal "acceptance criteria" table with pass/fail thresholds for all metrics. However, it presents the results of various performance studies which implicitly serve as evidence for meeting regulatory requirements for substantial equivalence. The "Acceptance Criteria" column below is inferred from the document's reporting of satisfactory results against established clinical laboratory guidelines (e.g., CLSI documents) or from comparisons to the predicate device.

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

• Detection Limit (LoB/LoD):
  • LoB: 4 samples with no analyte tested (N=5) for 3 days, one run per day, 3 reagent lots. Total reps = 60 to determine rank for non-parametric approach.
  • LoD: 4 low serum samples tested (N=5) for 3 days, one run per day, 3 reagent lots.
• Limit of Quantitation (LoQ): 4 low serum samples processed on three reagent lots for three days, on one instrument. Total of 60 measurements per reagent lot, leading to a total of 180 determinations.
• Linearity Study: 10 samples (prepared by mixing high and low concentration samples). Six replicates were measured for each sample.
• Precision Studies: 80 replicates (n=2 replicates, two times a day for at least 20 days) for controls, serum, and plasma pools.
• Interferences: Conducted using a "paired difference worst case scenario" approach with fresh sample pools containing low or high levels of vancomycin. Specific N not provided for individual interferents.
• Method Comparison: 100 "remnant de-identified samples" (native, spiked, and diluted).
• Matrix Equivalency: 60 matched samples (serum and lithium heparin plasma). Some samples were diluted or spiked.

Data Provenance:

• All studies were "conducted internally by Siemens Healthcare Diagnostic Inc. R&D organization personnel."
• For the Method Comparison, "Remnant de-identified samples were tested. No patient history information was obtained on these samples." This suggests a retrospective data collection from a clinical laboratory or sample bank, likely within the US, given Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics is a US-based entity and the FDA submission is US-centric.

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

The document does not explicitly mention the use of experts to establish a "ground truth" in the sense of clinical interpretation or diagnosis for the test sets.

For quantitative assays like this:

• The "ground truth" for linearity, precision, and detection limits is based on the known concentrations of prepared standards or spiked samples.
• For method comparison, the "ground truth" comes from the measurements generated by the predicate device.
• The personnel conducting the study were "laboratory technicians with training similar to personnel who would conduct the tests in a hospital laboratory setting," and they were "trained on the operation of both the device and the predicate device." These individuals are not referred to as "experts" in the clinical sense of radiologists or pathologists, but rather as trained laboratory professionals.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable in the context described. Adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1) are typically used for establishing ground truth in diagnostic studies involving subjective interpretation (e.g., image analysis by multiple radiologists). This submission describes performance studies for a quantitative measurement assay where the "ground truth" is either inherent to the sample preparation (e.g., spiked concentrations) or established by a reference method (the predicate device). No human interpretation requiring adjudication is 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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted, nor is it applicable. MRMC studies evaluate the performance of human readers, often with or without AI assistance, on a set of cases, typically for diagnostic tasks like image interpretation. This submission is for an in vitro diagnostic assay that quantitatively measures vancomycin levels, not for an AI-powered diagnostic imaging device or a clinical decision support system that directly involves human "readers" interpreting cases.

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

This device is a standalone algorithm (an in vitro diagnostic assay) in the sense that its performance is measured directly and quantitatively on biological samples to determine vancomycin concentration. The "algorithm" here is the chemical reaction and measurement process (PETINIA technique) implemented on the Trinidad CH System, which then outputs a numerical value. There is no human "in-the-loop" interpretation component for the direct measurement itself; humans operate the instrument and interpret the final quantitative result. The performance data presented (linearity, precision, detection limits, method comparison) are effectively "standalone" performance metrics of the assay system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The ground truth used for the studies varied by the specific test:

• Detection Limits, LoQ, Linearity: Ground truth was established by known, prepared concentrations of vancomycin in control matrices (e.g., bovine serum base, spiked native serum).
• Method Comparison: Ground truth was established by the measurements from the legally marketed predicate device (Dimension RxL VANC assay), which is considered an accepted method for vancomycin quantification.
• Matrix Equivalency: Ground truth for comparison was the measurements from the new device itself on serum samples to compare against its performance on plasma from the same patient.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithms. As this is a traditional in vitro diagnostic assay based on an immunoassay technique, it is developed and validated through laboratory experiments, not typically "trained" on a dataset in the way an AI algorithm would be. The experiments described (e.g., development of the assay, optimization of reagents, calibration) are analogous to the development phase, but not termed a "training set."

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

As explained above, there isn't a "training set" in the AI sense for this type of IVD device. The development of such an assay involves:

• Careful formulation of reagents (synthetic particle-vancomycin conjugate, monoclonal vancomycin specific antibody).
• Optimization of reaction conditions and measurement parameters.
• Calibration using highly characterized standards (like the Trinidad CH Drug 3 Calibrator, which is prepared from bovine serum base). The calibrators themselves would be assigned values based on precise preparation and analytical verification against reference methods or materials.

The "ground truth" during assay development would stem from known quantities of vancomycin standards and reference materials, used to ensure the assay accurately measures concentrations across its intended range.

Ask a specific question about this device

In vitro test for the quantitative determination of vancomycin in serum and plasma on Roche/Hitachi cobas c systems.

A vancomycin test system is a device intended to measure vancomycin, an antibiotic drug, in serum and plasma. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring the level of vancomycin to ensure appropriate therapy.

The ONLINE TDM Vancomycin Gen.3 is a two reagent assay for the in vitro quantitative determination of vancomycin in human serum or plasma on automated clinical chemistry analyzers. It is a homogeneous microparticle agglutination immunoassay based on the kinetic interaction of microparticles in solution (KIMS). A competitive reaction takes place between the drug conjugate and vancomycin in the serum sample for binding to the vancomycin antibody on the microparticles. The resulting kinetic interaction of microparticles is indirectly proportional to the amount of drug present in the sample.

The provided text details the performance evaluation of the "ONLINE TDM Vancomycin Gen.3" device. Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as separate rows but presents performance study results, implying these results are considered acceptable for substantial equivalence. The table below compiles the reported performance data.

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

• Detection Limit (LoB, LoD):
  • LoB: 60 measurements (5-fold determinations per run, 6 runs over 3 days, across one or two instruments) per lot.
  • LoD: 30 samples/measurements (5 serum samples, 6 runs over 3 days, 1-fold or 2-fold determination per run, across one or two instruments) per lot.
  • LoQ: 15 serum samples, tested in two aliquots over 6 runs for 4 days.
• Precision: Not explicitly stated, but "two runs per day for $\geq$ 21 days" were performed. The number of samples for controls (3) and human serum (5) are listed, with replicates per run not specified but implied to be sufficient for precision calculations.
• Linearity: Sixteen levels (dilution series from a human serum sample pool and diluent) were prepared. The process was repeated for plasma samples.
• Matrix Comparison: 67 full tubes and 9 half-filled tubes of serum and plasma from a single donor. (K2-EDTA plasma had 10 half-filled tubes).
• Interferences (H, L, I Indices): Two human serum sample pools spiked with Vancomycin. An 11-step dilution series prepared for each interferent, with 3 aliquots per level tested.
• Interferences (Drugs): Two human serum sample pools spiked with Vancomycin. Tested with 3 replicates.
• Method Comparison to Predicate: 125 single native human serum samples from patients taking Vancomycin. 8 additional native Vancomycin samples were spiked, and 1 sample diluted to cover the range.

The data provenance regarding the country of origin is not specified. All studies appear to be prospective experimental studies conducted in a controlled lab setting, rather than retrospective patient data analysis.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay for quantitative determination of vancomycin concentration. The "ground truth" for these types of devices is based on established analytical reference methods or assigned values.

• For LoQ, the expected value was determined with Vancomycin LCMS/MS, which is a highly accurate reference method, not expert consensus.
• For Method Comparison to Predicate, the predicate device (ONLINE TDM Vancomycin, K060586) served as the reference standard for comparison, not human experts.
• No human experts were involved in establishing the ground truth for any of these analytical performance studies. These are laboratory-based measurements.

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

Not applicable. This is an IVD device for quantitative measurement, not an imaging or qualitative diagnostic device requiring expert adjudication. The "truth" is determined by analytical reference methods or comparison to a predicate device.

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. This is an IVD device for quantitative measurement, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

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

This entire submission describes the standalone performance of the ONLINE TDM Vancomycin Gen.3 assay. The device itself is an automated chemical analyzer system (Roche/Hitachi cobas c systems) that performs the assay, not an AI algorithm. The performance metrics listed (detection limit, precision, linearity, interference, method comparison) are all standalone analytical performance characteristics of the device.

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

The ground truth or reference methods used for evaluation include:

• LCMS/MS (Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry/Mass Spectrometry): Used for determining expected values for the Limit of Quantitation (LoQ).
• Predicate Device (ONLINE TDM Vancomycin, K060586): Used as the comparative reference for the method comparison study.
• Standard Analytical Protocols: Studies like precision, linearity, and interference follow established CLSI guidelines, where the "truth" is defined by the experimental setup (e.g., known concentrations of analytes, spiked interferents).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is an IVD assay, not a machine learning or AI-based system that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The development of such assays involves reagent formulation, optimization, and extensive analytical verification and validation, but not typically "training data" for an algorithm.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for an AI algorithm here.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ARCHITECT i Vancomycin assay is an in vitro chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) for the quantitative measurement of vancomycin in human serum or plasma on the ARCHITECT i System with STAT protocol capability. The ARCHITECT i Vancomycin assay is used in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring levels of vancomycin to help ensure appropriate therapy.

The ARCHITECT i Vancomycin assay is a one-step STAT immunoassay for the quantitative measurement of vancomycin in human serum or plasma using CMIA technology, with flexible assay protocols, referred to as Chemiflex.

Sample, anti-vancomycin coated paramagnetic microparticles, and vancomycin acridinium-labeled conjugate are combined to create a reaction mixture. The anti-vancomycin coated microparticles bind to vancomycin present in the sample and to the vancomycin acridinium-labeled conjugate. After washing, pre-trigger solutions are added to the reaction mixture. The resulting chemiluminescent reaction is measured as relative light units (RLUs). An indirect relationship exists between the amount of vancomycin in the sample and the RLUs detected by the ARCHITECT i System optics.

The ARCHITECT i Vancomycin assay is a device for the quantitative measurement of vancomycin in human serum or plasma. The device is a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) for in vitro diagnostic use, intended to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring its levels to ensure appropriate therapy.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Ask a specific question about this device

The ARCHITECT iVancomycin assay is an in vitro chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) for the quantitative measurement of vancomycin in human serum or plasma on the ARCHITECT i System with STAT protocol capability. The ARCHITECT iVancomycin assay is used in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring levels of vancomycin to help ensure appropriate therapy.

The ARCHITECT iVancomycin Calibrators are for the calibration of the ARCHITECT i System with STAT protocol capability when used for the quantitative determination of vancomycin in human serum or plasma.

For in vitro diagnostic use.

The ARCHITECT iVancomycin assay is a one-step STAT immunoassay for the quantitative measurement of vancomycin in human serum or plasma using CMIA technology, with flexible assay protocols, referred to as Chemiflex.

Sample, anti-vancomycin coated paramagnetic microparticles, and vancomycin acridinium-labeled conjugate are combined to create a reaction mixture. The antivancomycin coated microparticles bind to vancomycin present in the sample and to the vancomycin acridinium-labeled conjugate. After washing, pre-trigger and trigger solutions are added to the reaction mixture. The resulting chemiluminescent reaction is measured as relative light units (RLUs). An indirect relationship exists between the amount of vancomycin in the sample and the RLUs detected by the ARCHITECT i System optics.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not specify the exact sample size used for the clinical performance comparison, nor does it specify the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective. It only states that a "Summary of Clinical Performance" demonstrated "substantially equivalent performance" with a correlation coefficient of 0.996.

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

Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic device for quantitative measurement of vancomycin in human serum or plasma. Ground truth is established by a reference method (the predicate device) or by the inherent accuracy of the chemical measurement itself, rather than by human expert consensus or clinical assessment.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. See point 3.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for imaging or diagnostic interpretation tasks where human readers are involved. For an in vitro diagnostic device like this, the comparison is between the new device and a predicate device in terms of analytical performance.

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

Yes, the study described is a standalone performance assessment of the ARCHITECT iVancomycin assay. The device itself performs the quantitative measurement without human interpretation as part of its core function, although human operators are involved in running the assay. The comparison directly evaluates the device's analytical output against that of a predicate device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth or reference standard for evaluating the ARCHITECT iVancomycin assay's performance was the AxSYM Vancomycin II assay, which is the legally marketed predicate device. The clinical performance summary indicates a direct comparison of results between the new device and the predicate device.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is an immunoassay, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set in the conventional sense. The "training" for such a system involves the development and optimization of the reagent formulations, reaction conditions, and calibration procedures, which are determined during the device development phase, not through a "training set" of patient data as in machine learning.

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

Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IMMULITE® 2000 Vancomycin assay is intended for use as follows: For in vitro diagnostic use with the IMMULITE 2000 Analyzer - for the quantitative measurement of vancomycin in serum and plasma (EDTA or heparinized), as an aid in monitoring the therapeutic administration of this antibiotic.

The IMMULITE® 2500 Vancomycin assay is intended for use as follows: For in vitro diagnostic use with the IMMULITE 2500 Analyzer - for the quantitative measurement of vancomycin in serum and plasma (EDTA or heparinized), as an aid in monitoring the therapeutic administration of this antibiotic.

The IMMULITE 2000, IMMULITE 2500 Vancomycin assay is a solid phase competitive chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay. The solid phase (bead) is coated with ligandlabeled vancomycin. The reagent contains alkaline phosphatase (bovine calf intestine) conjugated to monoclonal murine antivancomycin in the patient sample competes with the ligand-labeled solid phase for vancomycin binding sites on the monoclonal murine anti-vancomycin enzyme conjugate. The excess sample and reagent are removed by a centrifugal wash. Finally, chemiluminescent substrate is added to the bead and signal is generated in proportion to the bound enzyme. The assay includes an automatic on-board predilution of 1/20 prior to immunoreaction. Immunoreaction incubation time is 30 minutes. The sample volume required is 10 µL for the test and 250 uL dead volume. The sample types are serum and plasma (heparin or EDTA).

{
  "acceptance_criteria_study": {
    "1_acceptance_criteria_table": [
      {
        "Criterion": "Reportable Range",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "Not explicitly stated as a separate acceptance criterion, but the reported range is 3.0 µg/mL – 50 µg/mL.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "3.0 µg/mL – 50 µg/mL for both IMMULITE 2000 and IMMULITE 2500 Vancomycin assays."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Limit of Blank (LoB)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "The highest value expected to be seen in a series of results for samples that contain no analyte, based on CLSI guideline EP17-A. Computed as mean CPS - 1.65 * total SDcps, then converted to vancomycin dose.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "0.4 µg/mL for both IMMULITE 2000 and IMMULITE 2500."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Limit of Detection (LoD)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "The actual concentration at which an observed test result is likely to exceed the Limit of Blank (LoB) and may therefore be declared as detected, based on CLSI guideline EP17-A. Formula: LoD = LoB + 1.65 * SD.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "0.9 µg/mL for both IMMULITE 2000 and IMMULITE 2500."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Precision (IMMULITE 2000)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "Intra- and inter-assay CV% over the range of approximately 5 to 47 µg/mL should not be greater than 10.2% and 6.8%, respectively.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "Max statistics across 3 lots show intra-assay CV% not greater than 10.2% and inter-assay CV% not greater than 6.8% over the range of approximately 5 to 47 µg/mL."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Precision (IMMULITE 2500)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "Intra- and inter-assay CV% over the range of approximately 5 to 45 µg/mL should not be greater than 6.1% and 6.0%, respectively.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "Max statistics for one kit lot show intra-assay CV% not greater than 6.1% and inter-assay CV% not greater than 6.0% over the range of approximately 5 to 45 µg/mL."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Linearity (Average Recovery)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "Not explicitly stated as a numerical threshold, but implied to be acceptable for patient samples. The reported value is 96.0%.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "Average recovery for patient samples tested in the IMMULITE 2000/IMMULITE 2500 Vancomycin assay was 96.0%."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Spiked Recovery (Average % Recovery)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "Not explicitly stated as a numerical threshold, but implied to be acceptable. The reported value is 101%.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "Average % recovery for spiked patient samples was 101%."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Interfering Substances (Bilirubin)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "No significant interference (up to a stated concentration) on results within the precision of the assay.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "No significant interference from Bilirubin up to 20 mg/dL."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Interfering Substances (Hemoglobin)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "No significant interference (up to a stated concentration) on results within the precision of the assay.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "No significant interference from Hemoglobin up to 600 mg/dL."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Interfering Substances (Triglycerides)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "No significant interference (up to a stated concentration) on results within the precision of the assay.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "No significant interference from Triglycerides up to 3000 mg/dL."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Cross-Reactivity",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "No detectable cross-reactivity to various potential cross-reactants when vancomycin-spiked human serum sample is tested.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "No detectable cross-reactivity to a long list of substances (e.g., Acetaminophen, Amikacin, etc.) at high concentrations (typically 500 µg/mL), or Teicoplanin/CDP-1 at relevant concentrations."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Interference (HAMA/RF)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "No detectable interference from HAMA or Rheumatoid Factor (RF) in tested samples.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "No detectable interference from HAMA (up to 1880 ng/mL) and RF (up to 2330 IU/mL)."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Sample Type Correlation (SST Serum vs Serum)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "High correlation and equivalence between sample types. For SST vs Serum: slope 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96 to 1.05), intercept -0.07 (95% CI: -1.43 to 1.28), r = 0.99.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "Linear Least Squares: Y= 1.00 X - 0.07; slope = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96 to 1.05); intercept = -0.07 (95% CI: -1.43 to 1.28); r = 0.99. Deming Regression: Y= 1.01 X - 0.28; slope = 1.01 (95% CI: 0.97 to 1.06); intercept = - 0.28 (95% CI: - 1.64 to 1.09)."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Sample Type Correlation (Lithium Heparin vs Serum)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "High correlation and equivalence between sample types. For Lithium Heparin vs Serum: slope 1.02 (95% CI: 0.97 to 1.06), intercept 0.03 (95% CI: -1.25 to 1.30), r = 0.99.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "Linear Least Squares: Y=1.02 X + 0.03; slope = 1.02 (95% CI: 0.97 to 1.06); intercept = 0.03 (95% CI: -1.25 to 1.30); r = 0.99. Deming Regression: Y= 1.02 X - 0.15; slope = 1.02 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.06); intercept = - 0.15 (95% CI: -1.43 to 1.14)."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Sample Type Correlation (EDTA vs Serum)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "High correlation and equivalence between sample types. For EDTA vs Serum: slope 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96 to 1.04), intercept 0.001 (95% CI: -1.19 to 1.19), r= 0.99.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "Linear Least Squares: Y= 1.00 X + 0.001; slope = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96 to 1.04); intercept = 0.001 (95% CI: -1.19 to 1.19); r= 0.99. Deming Regression: Y=1.01 X - 0.15; slope =1.01 (95% CI: 0.97 to 1.05); intercept = - 0.15 (95% CI: - 1.35 to 1.05)."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Method Comparison (IMMULITE 2000 vs AxSYM Vancomycin II)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "High correlation (r=0.97) between the platforms and the predicate device, indicating equivalence of assays.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "Linear Least Squares: r = 0.971. Slope = 1.022 (95% CI: 0.983 to 1.061), Intercept = 0.727 (95% CI: 0.060 to 1.394)."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Method Comparison (IMMULITE 2500 vs AxSYM Vancomycin II)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "High correlation (r=0.97) between the platforms and the predicate device, indicating equivalence of assays.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "Linear Least Squares: r = 0.966. Slope = 1.028 (95% CI: 0.985 to 1.071), Intercept = 0.495 (95% CI: -0.236 to 1.226)."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Method Comparison (IMMULITE 2500 vs IMMULITE 2000)",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "High correlation (r=0.970) between methods, indicating equivalence of assays.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "Linear Least Squares: r = 0.970. Slope = 0.981 (95% CI: 0.943 to 1.019), Intercept = 0.170 (95% CI: -0.526 to 0.866)."
      },
      {
        "Criterion": "Assay Kit Stability",
        "Acceptance Criteria": "Support a claim of 360 days shelf life when stored at 2-8°C, based on real-time and accelerated stress studies.",
        "Reported Device Performance": "Results of real-time and accelerated stress studies support the claim of 360 days shelf life for the assay kits when stored at 2-8°C."
      }
    ],
    "2_sample_size_and_data_provenance_test_set": {
      "Limit of Blank": {
        "Sample Size": "60 replicates of a zero analyte heparin plasma and serum sample, and the assay zero calibrator. Assayed across 3 IMMULITE 2000 kit lots (with 3 instruments per lot) and 1 IMMULITE 2500 kit lot (with 3 instruments per lot).",
        "Data Provenance": "Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). Implied to be laboratory-generated samples for method validation."
      },
      "Limit of Detection": {
        "Sample Size": "Five different samples with low concentrations of vancomycin (>0.4 ug/mL to 1.6 ug/mL). Assayed using 3 IMMULITE 2000 kit lots (2 instruments per lot) and 1 IMMULITE 2500 kit lot (2 instruments per lot). Eight runs of 2 replicates per sample over 8 separate days.",
        "Data Provenance": "Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). Implied to be laboratory-generated samples for method validation."
      },
      "Precision": {
        "Sample Size": "Two aliquots of each test sample in two runs per day over 20 different days, for a total of 80 replicates per test sample per lot. Three different kit lots on IMMULITE 2000 platform and one lot on IMMULITE 2500, with two instruments used per lot. Precision pools targeted 5, 10, 20, 30, and 45 µg/mL.",
        "Data Provenance": "Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). Implied to be laboratory-generated samples for method validation."
      },
      "Linearity": {
        "Sample Size": "10 patient samples (neat, 4 in 8, 2 in 8 and 1 in 8 dilutions) across the therapeutic range (9 to 46 ug/mL). Each assayed in triplicate.",
        "Data Provenance": "Patient samples. Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective)."
      },
      "Spiked Recovery": {
        "Sample Size": "6 patient sample pools spiked with various concentrations of 3 different spiking solutions.",
        "Data Provenance": "Patient samples. Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective)."
      },
      "Interfering Substances/Cross-Reactivity/HAMA/RF": {
        "Sample Size": "Varies by substance. Typically, neat normal human serum and human serum spiked with 25 ug/mL vancomycin, spiked with the potential interfering substance. Assayed in 2 replicates. For HAMA/RF, 6 normal human samples for HAMA, 5 RF-positive human samples and 1 normal for RF.",
        "Data Provenance": "Human serum samples. Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective)."
      },
      "Alternate Sample Types (Correlation Study)": {
        "Sample Size": "SST vs Serum: N=33. Lithium Heparin vs Serum: N=32. EDTA vs Serum: N=31. Matched sets of human serum, SST, lithium heparin and EDTA samples spiked with various concentrations of vancomycin. Each run in duplicate.",
        "Data Provenance": "Human samples. Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective)."
      },
      "Clinical Sample Population (Method Comparison)": {
        "Sample Size": "IMMULITE 2000 vs AxSYM II: N=162 endogenous serum patient samples. IMMULITE 2500 vs AxSYM II: N=162 endogenous serum patient samples. IMMULITE 2500 vs IMMULITE 2000: N=164 endogenous serum patient samples.",
        "Data Provenance": "Endogenous serum from patients being treated with vancomycin. Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective)."
      }
    },
    "3_number_and_qualifications_of_experts_ground_truth": "N/A. This document describes the validation of an in vitro diagnostic assay (a laboratory test) for quantitative measurement of vancomycin. The 'ground truth' for this type of device is typically established through analytical methods and comparisons to a predicate device, rather than expert consensus on image interpretation or clinical diagnosis. The predicate device (AxSYM® Vancomycin II) serves as the reference for method comparison.",
    "4_adjudication_method_test_set": "N/A. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in studies involving subjective expert review (e.g., radiology diagnosis) to establish ground truth from multiple readers. This document describes analytical performance studies of a quantitative assay, where objective measurements are compared against reference methods or established analytical criteria. No human adjudication is mentioned or implied.",
    "5_mrmc_comparative_effectiveness_study": "No. This document does not describe a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study involving human readers. The studies focus on the analytical performance of the device and its comparison to a predicate device, not on human-in-the-loop performance or the effect size of AI assistance for human readers.",
    "6_standalone_performance_study": "Yes. The entire document describes standalone performance studies of the IMMULITE 2000/2500 Vancomycin assays. The reported metrics (e.g., Limit of Blank, Limit of Detection, Precision, Linearity, Spiked Recovery, Interference, Cross-Reactivity, Sample Type Correlation, Method Comparison) represent the algorithm's (assay's) performance without human intervention in the measurement process, beyond initiating the automated assay and interpreting the quantitative result.",
    "7_type_of_ground_truth_used": "The ground truth for the analytical and method comparison studies relies on several approaches:\n\n*   **CLSI Guidelines:** For LoB and LoD, the 'ground truth' calculation methodology is defined by CLSI guidelines (EP17-A). Precision is guided by CLSI EP5-A2.\n*   **Analytical Standards/Spiking:** For linearity, spiked recovery, interfering substances, and cross-reactivity, ground truth is established by preparing samples with known, precise concentrations of vancomycin or potential interferents.\n*   **Predicate Device:** For method comparison and sample type correlation, the predicate device (Abbott AxSYM Vancomycin II) or the serum sample type (for correlation studies) serves as the reference or 'ground truth' method against which the new device's measurements are compared. This demonstrates substantial equivalence.",
    "8_sample_size_training_set": "N/A. For these in vitro diagnostic assays, the concept of a 'training set' in the machine learning sense is not directly applicable. The assay 'learns' and establishes its Master Curve at the site of manufacture using calibrators, which are not provided to customers. The document states that calibrators are used at the site of manufacture to establish the Master Curve. The specific sample size for this manufacturing calibration process is not provided in the document.",
    "9_how_ground_truth_for_training_set_was_established": "N/A. Similar to the training set concept, the 'ground truth' for the manufacturing calibration is established internally by DPC based on their proprietary calibration process using reference materials (Vancomycin adjustors and calibrators). The document states: \"In all IMMULITE platform instruments, calibrators are used at the site of manufacture to establish the Master Curve, which is encoded in the kit barcode label.\" The calibrators themselves are likely traceable to recognized reference standards for vancomycin concentration, establishing their 'ground truth'."
  }
}

Ask a specific question about this device

The ONLINE TDM Vancomycin assay is for the quantitative determination of vancomycin in human serum or plasma on Roche automated clinical chemistry analyzers. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring the level of vancomycin to ensure appropriate therapy.

The ONLINE TDM Vancomycin assay is for the quantitative determination of vancomycin in human serum or plasma on Roche automated clinical chemistry analyzers. The proposed labeling indicates the Roche Hitachi 911, 912, 917 and Modular P analyzers can be used with the Roche ONLINE TDM Vancomycin reagent kits. The assay is based on a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay technique used for the quantitative analysis of vancomycin in human serum or plasma. The assay is based on competition between drug in the sample and drug labeled with the enzyme glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) for antibody binding sites. Enzyme activity decreases upon binding to the antibody, so the drug concentration in the sample can be measured in terms of enzyme activity. Active enzyme converts oxidized nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) to NADH, resulting in an absorbance change that is measured spectrophotometrically. Endogenous serum G6PDH does not interfere because the coenzyme functions only with the bacterial (Leuconostoc mesenteroids) enzyme employed in the assay.

The provided document describes the ONLINE TDM Vancomycin assay, intended for the quantitative determination of vancomycin in human serum or plasma.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a set of predefined thresholds that the device must meet. Instead, it presents performance characteristics (precision and method comparison) and states that "All of the evaluation studies gave acceptable results compared to the predicate device." The comparison is implicitly against the performance of the predicate device, COBAS INTEGRA Vancomycin (K954992).

The table below summarizes the reported performance of the new device and the predicate device for comparison:

Note on Method Comparison Table: The document's method comparison section is a bit confusing. It lists a "Linear Regression: ONLINE TDM Carbamazepine Vs. COBAS INTEGRA Carbamazepine (FPIA) method" for the new device and then "Linear Regression: COBAS INTEGRA Carbamazepine (FPIA) Vs. COBAS FARA II" for the predicate. Since the device under review is for Vancomycin, the listing of "Carbamazepine" in the method comparison for the new device appears to be a typographical error or an irrelevant comparison. Assuming this is a typo and should refer to Vancomycin, the listed regression equation and correlation coefficient are for the new device against the predicate.

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

• Sample Size for Method Comparison (Test Set): N=55
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated in the document (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

This information is not provided in the document. The studies listed are analytical performance studies (precision, method comparison) comparing the new device against a predicate device, not clinical studies involving expert interpretation of patient samples where "ground truth" would be established by experts.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable/provided. The studies are analytical performance comparisons, not clinical evaluations requiring adjudication of expert interpretations.

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

An MRMC study was not done for this device submission. This is an in-vitro diagnostic device measuring a chemical analyte, not an imaging or diagnostic interpretation device where human readers would be involved.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

The device itself is an automated assay, meaning its performance is inherently standalone (algorithm/analyzer only). The precision and method comparison studies directly evaluate this standalone performance. No human-in-the-loop performance is expected or evaluated for this type of device.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For the method comparison study, the "ground truth" or reference method was the predicate device, COBAS INTEGRA Vancomycin (K954992). The new device's measurements were compared against the measurements obtained by this established and legally marketed predicate device.

For the precision studies, the "ground truth" is typically the known concentration of vancomycin in control materials, against which the device's variability is assessed.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided in the document. For an immunoassay like this, there isn't typically a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device is developed and validated through analytical studies.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. As mentioned above, a "training set" in the machine learning context is not relevant for this type of immunoassay device. The assay development would involve optimizing reagents and conditions, and its performance is then characterized by analytical validation studies against known standards and comparative methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

The QMS® Vancomycin assay is intended for the quantitative determination of vancomycin in human serum or plasma on the Hitachi 717 analyzer.

The results obtained are used in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring levels of vancomycin to ensure appropriate therapy.

The QMS® Vancomycin assay is a homogeneous particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay. The assay is based on competition between drug in the sample and drug coated onto a microparticle for antibody binding sites of the vancomycin antibody reagent. The vancomycin-coated microparticle reagent is rapidly aqglutinated in the presence of the anti-vancomycin antibody reagent and in the absence of any competing drug in the sample. The rate of absorbance change is measured photometrically, and is directly proportional to the rate of agglutination of the particles. When a sample containing vancomycin is added, the agglutination reaction is partially inhibited, slowing down the rate of absorbance change. A concentrationdependent classic agglutination inhibition curve can be obtained, with maximum rate of agglutination at the lowest vancomycin concentration and the lowest agglutination rate at the highest vancomycin concentration.

The assay consists of reagents R1: vancomycin monoclonal and R2: vancomycin-coated microparticles. A six-level set of QMS® Vancomycin Calibrators (A through F) i

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study findings for the QMS® Vancomycin assay, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for QMS® Vancomycin Assay

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state pre-defined "acceptance criteria" with numerical thresholds for all tests. Instead, it presents study results and implies that the observed performance characteristics were deemed acceptable for substantial equivalence to the predicate device. For the purpose of this table, "Acceptance Criteria (Implied)" are derived from the overall goal of demonstrating equivalency or typical performance expectations for such assays, and "Reported Device Performance" are the results presented in the summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

1. For in vitro diagnostic use only. VITROS Chemistry Products VANC Reagent is used on the VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry System to quantitatively measure vancomycin (VANC) concentration in human serum and plasma. Serum or plasma vancomycin measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring levels of vancomycin to ensure appropriate therapy.
2. For in vitro diagnostic use only. VITROS Chemistry Products Calibrator Kit 11 is used to calibrate VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry Systems for the quantitative measurement of vancomycin (VANC).
3. For in vitro diagnostic use only. VITROS TDM Performance Verifier is an assaved control used to monitor performance of ACET, CRBM, DGXN, PHBR, PHYT and VANC on VITROS Chemistry Systems.

The VITROS Chemistry Products VANC Reagent, VITROS Chemistry Products Calibrator Kit 11, and the VITROS Chemistry Products TDM Performance Verifiers are combined by the VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry System to perform the VITROS VANC assay. VITROS Chemistry Products VANC Reagent is a dual chambered package containing ready-to-use liquid reagents that are used in a two-step reaction to quantitatively measure vancomycin.

VITROS Chemistry Products Calibrator Kit 11 and TDM Performance Verifiers are packaged and sold separately.

VITROS Chemistry Products Calibrator Kit 11 is a liquid ready to use calibrator set for vancomycin. Each kit contains one bottle each of six (6) levels. The level 1 bottle (zero level) contains 5 milliliters. The level 2 through 6 bottles each contain 2 milliliters.

VITROS Chemistry Products TDM Performance Verifier I, II and III are liguid ready to use controls with assayed values published for each lot. The controls are prepared from bovine serum with therapeutic drugs and preservatives added. The product is sold in separate kits of Level I, II and III. Each kit contains 6 vials (2 mL each).

Here's an analysis of the provided 510(k) summary regarding the VITROS Chemistry Products VANC assay and controls:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission uses substantial equivalence to a predicate device as its basis for clearance, rather than defining explicit acceptance criteria with pre-specified thresholds for performance metrics. The primary "acceptance criteria" here are implied by the performance of the predicate device and the demonstration of equivalent performance for the new device.

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

The provided summary mentions "patient samples" were used for correlation studies but does not specify the sample size for the test set used to compare the VITROS VANC assay against the predicate device.
The data provenance is not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective), but it's implied to be retrospective as patient samples were used for correlation against an existing, cleared assay.

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

This information is not applicable as the device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay for quantitative measurement. Ground truth for quantitative diagnostic assays typically refers to a reference method or a predicate device comparison rather than expert adjudication of images or clinical assessments.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable for this type of IVD assay. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for subjective interpretations (e.g., imaging studies) where human experts determine ground truth. For a quantitative assay, the comparison is against an established reference method or predicate device.

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

A MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not conducted and is not applicable for this device. This type of study involves human readers interpreting cases with and without AI assistance, which is irrelevant for a standalone quantitative IVD assay.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire evaluation described is a standalone performance study, as it assesses the algorithm (the VITROS VANC assay) directly against a predicate device and other performance characteristics (precision, linearity, specificity) without human-in-the-loop interpretation. The performance metrics reported (correlation coefficient, linear regression) are direct measures of the assay's agreement with the predicate.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the comparison was established using a predicate device (SYVA Emit 2000 Vancomycin Assay) and patient samples. This means the new device's measurements were compared against the measurements obtained from an already FDA-cleared, commercially available assay using the same patient samples.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information regarding a specific "training set" sample size. For an IVD assay, the development process might involve numerous samples for calibration development and optimization, but these are typically not referred to as a distinct "training set" in the same way as machine learning models. The correlation and performance studies act as the validation.

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

Since a specific "training set" and its ground truth establishment mechanism are not detailed in the provided summary, this information is not available. However, for a chemical assay, the "ground truth" during development (analogous to training) would involve:

• Using known concentration standards to develop calibration curves.
• Testing against reference materials with established vancomycin concentrations.
• Optimization of reagent formulations to achieve desired analytical performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CEDIA® Vancomycin Assay is a homogenous enzyme immunoassay intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of vancomycin in human serum or plasma for the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring the level of vancomycin to ensure appropriate therapy.

The CEDIA® Vancomycin Assay uses recombinant DNA technology (US Patent No. 4708929) to produce a unique homogeneous enzyme immunoassay system. The assay is based on the bacterial enzyme ß-galactosidase, which has been genetically engineered into two inactive fragments i.e., enzyme acceptor (EA) and enzyme donor (ED). These fragments spontaneously reassociate to form fully active enzyme that, in the assay format, cleaves a substrate, generating a color change that can be measured spectrophotometrically.

In the assay, analyte in the sample competes with analyte conjugated to one inactive fragment of B-galactosidase for antibody binding site. If analyte is present in the sample, it binds to antibody, leaving the inactive enzyme fragments free to form active enzyme. If analyte is not present in the sample, antibody binds to analyte conjugated on the inactive fragment, inhibiting the reassociation of inactive 8-galactosidase fragments, and no active enzyme is formed. The amount of active enzyme formed and resultant absorbance change are directly proportional to the amount of drug present in the sample.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the CEDIA® Vancomycin Assay, a diagnostic device. It aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not necessarily to independently prove the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria through a dedicated study with the information requested. Therefore, much of the requested information is not available in the provided document.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantitative manner for specific performance metrics (like accuracy, precision, limits of detection). Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on intended use and physical properties.

The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" is implicitly the comparison to the predicate device (Abbott AxSYM® Vancomycin II, K955851). The 510(k) process relies on demonstrating that the new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than requiring extensive new clinical trials to establish de novo performance criteria. The summary states: "The information provided in this pre-market notification demonstrates that the CEDIA® Vancomycin Assay is substantially equivalent to the Abbott AxSYM® Vancomycin II assay, the previously cleared predicate device (K955851). Substantial equivalence was demonstrated through comparison of intended use and physical properties to the commercially available predicate device."

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

The document does not provide specific details on a test set sample size or data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). This type of detail is typically found in the more comprehensive study reports or validation data submitted to the FDA, which are not part of this 510(k) summary. The summary focuses on comparing the new device's characteristics and intended use to the predicate.

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

This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. Given that this is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device for quantitative measurement, the "ground truth" would likely be established through reference methods (e.g., HPLC-MS) rather than expert consensus on images or interpretations.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation (e.g., radiology) to resolve discrepancies. For a quantitative IVD, the "adjudication" would be related to statistical analysis and agreement with reference methods.

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

An MRMC study is not applicable to this device. This is a quantitative immunoassay for vancomycin concentration, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device requiring human readers or interpretation improvement.

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

This concept is not directly applicable in the typical sense for this type of IVD. The device itself performs the quantitative measurement. Its "standalone" performance would be its analytical performance (accuracy, precision, linearity, etc.), which would have been part of the validation studies submitted to the FDA but is not detailed in this 510(k) summary.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth for a quantitative immunoassay like the CEDIA® Vancomycin Assay would typically be established by a reference method (e.g., liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)) or well-characterized control samples with known vancomycin concentrations, rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the usual sense. The summary does not explicitly state the specific reference method used for validation studies.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. For an enzyme immunoassay, the "training set" would refer to samples used during the assay development and optimization phases to establish calibration curves, reagent formulations, and operating parameters. This is distinct from machine learning model training sets.

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

This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. Similar to item 7, the ground truth for samples used in development and optimization would have been established by reference methods or gravimetric preparation of standards.

Ask a specific question about this device