Search Results

The VersaTREK® MYCO PZA KIT is used as a rapid qualitative procedure for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, from culture to pyrazinamide (PZA). The VersaTREK® MYCO PZA KIT is used with the ESP Culture System II (ESP) and the VersaTREK® Microbial Detection System (VTI).

The VersaTREK® MYCO PZA susceptibility testing kit is used with the VersaTREK MYCO culture bottle and performed on the ESP Culture System II and on the VersaTREK® Microbial Detection System. The MYCO bottles are supplemented with Myco Growth Supplement and VersaTREK® MYCO PZA reagent and prepared with the appropriate dilution of pyrazinamide as the mechanism for performing the susceptibility test.

The VersaTREK® MYCO PZA susceptibility test utilizes a 3 to 15 day testing protocol. A standard suspension of Mycobacterium tuberculosis growth is prepared from a liquid (seed inoculum). 0.5 mL is inoculated into a Growth Control bottle (drug-free), and a bottle containing PZA (both bottles are referred to as an AST set). The test determination is based upon growth of the M. tuberculosis isolate in the Growth Control Bottle compared to the growth in the drug-containing bottle.

At the completion of the PZA susceptibility testing protocol, the determination of susceptible or resistant is performed manually by the user, by comparing the time to detection of the Growth Control Bottle to the PZA test bottle.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: (Provided above)

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

   • Analytical Studies:
     • Critical Drug Concentration: 6 susceptible wild strains and 4 resistant strains of M. tuberculosis.
     • Lot Reproducibility: 4 well-characterized M. tuberculosis strains (2 ATCC, 2 CDC).
     • CDC Challenge Panel Testing: 10 strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis obtained from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
   • Clinical Studies:
     • Lot Reproducibility: 2 well-characterized M. tuberculosis strains from CDC.
     • Challenge Testing: 30 organisms from a CDC challenge set, resulting in 77 valid test points.
     • Clinical Isolate Testing: A total of 96 tests from seed bottle inoculum.
   • Data Provenance: The strains used were from known sources like ATCC and CDC, indicating well-characterized, reference strains. Clinical isolates were collected from 5 geographically diverse clinical sites, including regional reference centers, university- and community-based laboratories, suggesting real-world clinical samples. The study appears to be prospective in nature for the clinical isolate testing as it refers to performing tests on samples.

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 state the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth. It refers to "expected results" and comparisons to the predicate device (BACTEC 460TB PZA Kit) and CDC-provided challenge sets, implying that the ground truth for these reference strains and challenge sets was pre-established and widely accepted in the field.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: The document does not specify an adjudication method. For the "Challenge Testing" in clinical studies, the "expected results" were used as the ground truth.

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 device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers interpreting images or data. The "user manipulation for reading" is mentioned as "Yes" for the predicate and "No" for the new device in the comparison table, but this refers to the automation of the reading process, not human interpretation improvement.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: The device itself performs the susceptibility testing. The interpretation of the test "is performed manually by the user, by comparing the time to detection of the Growth Control Bottle to the PZA test bottle." This indicates a manual interpretation step. However, the device determines the growth automatically (via pressure sensor). Therefore, while the final call is human-derived, the core measurement is automated, but it's not a standalone "algorithm only" in the sense of a fully automated diagnostic decision.

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

   • For analytical studies and challenge sets, the ground truth was based on known characteristics of reference strains (ATCC, CDC) and comparisons to the established predicate device (BACTEC 460TB PZA Kit), which implicitly relies on previous expert consensus or established laboratory methods.
   • For clinical isolate testing, the 'expected results' would likely be derived from a reference method or expert consensus interpretation of growth patterns.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This document describes performance studies for an IVD kit, not a machine learning model that requires a "training set."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of device performance studies described here.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 PZA Kit is used as a rapid qualitative procedure for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, from culture, to pyrazinamide (PZA). The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 PZA kit is used with the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 System.

The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 PZA susceptibility test kit is used with the BACTEC® MGIT™ PZA Medium and performed on the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 System. The PZA Medium tube is supplemented with BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 PZA Supplement and prepared with the appropriate dilution of pyrazinamide as the mechanism for performing the susceptibility test.

The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 PZA susceptibility test utilizes a four to twenty-one day testing protocol. A standardized suspension of Mycobacterium tuberculosis growth is prepared from either solid or liquid culture media. An appropriate dilution is made of this suspension and 0.5 mL is inoculated into a Growth Control tube (drug-free) and a tube containing pyrazinamide (both tubes are referred to as an AST Set). The test interpretation is based on growth of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolate in the Growth Control tube compared to the growth in the drug-containing tube.

At the completion of the PZA susceptibility testing protocol. the instrument reports a susceptible or resistant result for the Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolate being tested.

The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 PZA Kit is a medical device used for the rapid qualitative susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to pyrazinamide (PZA) from culture. The device is used with the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 System.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implied through the comparison with a predicate device (BACTEC® 460TB PZA) and the achievement of high agreement percentages in various studies. The primary measure of performance is the "category agreement" with the reference method (BACTEC® 460TB PZA).

Study Details

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

• Analytical Study (Reproducibility): 26 qualified Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains (including 3 ATCC® strains).
• Analytical Study (CDC Challenge Panel): A panel of challenge strains from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
• Clinical Studies (Reproducibility): A panel of five qualified strains.
• Clinical Studies (CDC Challenge Panel): A panel of challenge strains from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
• Clinical Isolate Testing: A total of 118 clinical strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This generated 228 PZA test results. The testing included fresh clinical and subculture isolates from both liquid and solid source cultures.
• Data Provenance: The clinical studies were conducted at four geographically diverse clinical sites, comprising regional reference centers and university-based laboratories. This suggests a prospective collection of data from various real-world clinical settings within the US (given the involvement of the CDC).

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:
The document does not explicitly state the "number of experts" or their specific qualifications for establishing the ground truth. However, for the clinical isolate testing, the BACTEC® 460TB PZA test was used as the reference method. This implies that the results from the BACTEC® 460TB PZA, a legally marketed and established device, served as the ground truth. The CDC provides "expected results" for their challenge panels, indicating that their consensus or established laboratory findings were used as ground truth for those specific panels.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:
The document does not describe a formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). Instead, the performance of the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 PZA was compared directly to the results obtained from either the "expected results" (for reproducibility and CDC challenge panels) or the "reference method" (BACTEC® 460TB PZA) for clinical isolate testing. Discrepancy resolution is not detailed.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:
No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers improving with or without AI assistance was not performed. This device is an automated in vitro diagnostic test, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would involve human interpretation of images or data.

6. If a Standalone Study (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
Yes, the studies described are standalone performance evaluations of the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 PZA Kit and system. The device automatically interprets results ("the instrument reports a susceptible or resistant result," "data are automatically interpreted by the instrument software"). While human operators are involved in preparing the samples and loading them into the instrument, the interpretation of the susceptibility result itself is automated by the device, making this a standalone performance assessment.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Expected Results: For reproducibility testing (analytical and clinical) and CDC challenge panel testing (analytical and clinical), the "expected results" or "CDC expected results" were used as ground truth. These are likely established reference values for known strains.
• Reference Method: For the clinical isolate testing, the BACTEC® 460TB PZA test served as the reference method (ground truth). This implies that the results from an established and legally marketed predicate device were considered the correct outcome for comparison.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:
The document does not explicitly specify a "training set" size. The reported studies evaluate the performance of the device, implying that the algorithm and methodology were already developed. In vitro diagnostic devices like this typically undergo extensive development and internal testing, which would involve data, but it's not generally referred to as a "training set" in the context of reporting clinical validation for regulatory submission, as is common for AI/ML-based devices.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:
Since a "training set" is not explicitly mentioned in the context of this regulatory submission, how its ground truth might have been established is not described. The focus is on the validation of the final device against established methods and reference panels.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE Kit is a rapid qualitative procedure for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, from culture, to streptomycin (STR), isoniazid (INH), rifampin (RIF) and ethambutol (EMB). The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 STR 4.0 Kit and the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 INH 0.4 Kit are for testing at higher drug concentrations. The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE kits are used with the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 System. The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE Kit final test concentrations are 1.0 µg/mL for streptomycin, 0.1 µg/mL for isoniazid, 1.0 µg/mL for rifampin and 5.0 µg/mL for ethambutol. The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 STR 4.0 Kit final test concentration is 4.0 µg/mL for streptomycin and the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 INH 0.4 Kit final test concentration is 0.4 µg/mL for isoniazid.

The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE susceptibility test kit is used with the BBL® Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT™)-7mL on the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 System. The tube is supplemented with BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE Supplement enrichment and prepared with the appropriate dilutions of streptomycin, isoniazid, rifampin and ethambutol as the mechanism for performing the susceptibility test. The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE test utilizes a four to thirteen day testing protocol. A standardized suspension of Mycobacterium tuberculosis growth, from either solid or broth culture media, is prepared. An appropriate dilution is made of this suspension and 0.5 mL is inoculated into a Growth Control tube (drug-free) and tubes containing streptomycin, isoniazid, rifampin and ethambutol (this is referred to as an AST Set). The test interpretation is based on growth of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolate in the Growth Control tube compared to the growth in the drug-containing tubes. At the completion of the susceptibility testing protocol, the instrument reports a susceptible or resistant result for each drug at the concentration(s) being tested.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE Kits, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in the typical pass/fail threshold sense. Instead, it presents the "observed results" or "overall agreement" as the performance metrics achieved during the studies. The standard for acceptance implicitly appears to be "substantial equivalence" to the predicate method.

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

• Lot Reproducibility: 25 M. tuberculosis strains (including five ATCC strains).
• CDC Challenge Panels: 30 challenge strains obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), GA, USA.
• Clinical Reproducibility: A panel of ten qualified strains.
• Clinical Isolate Testing: A total of 106 clinical isolates of M. tuberculosis. This generated a total of 223 test results for ethambutol at the critical concentration (likely due to testing both liquid and solid culture sources).
• Data Provenance: The document explicitly mentions "one foreign site" in the clinical evaluation, indicating international data. It also states "fresh clinical and stock isolates from both liquid and solid culture sources," implying both retrospective (stock isolates) and prospective (fresh clinical isolates) data. The CDC data is from the USA.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts used to establish the ground truth or their specific qualifications (e.g., radiologist with x years of experience).

For the clinical isolate testing, the ground truth appears to be established by comparison to the Method of Proportion (MOP) susceptibility test, which is the predicate device. For discordant results, MOP testing at two independent sites was performed.

For CDC Challenge Panels, the ground truth was the CDC expected results. The method by which CDC establishes these expected results is not detailed in this document.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• For the clinical isolate testing, when discordant results occurred between the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE ethambutol test and the MOP test, a form of adjudication was used: "All isolates with discordant BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 EMB 5.0 results were tested by MOP at two independent sites." The outcome of this re-testing presumably informed the final ground truth or understanding of the discrepancy. This can be considered a 2-site re-testing adjudication method for discordant cases.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance was not mentioned. This device is an automated in vitro diagnostic system for susceptibility testing, not an AI-powered image analysis tool where human reader performance would be a primary metric. Its comparison is against another laboratory testing method (MOP).

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

• Yes, this is essentially a standalone performance study. The BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE system is an automated instrument that "automatically interprets" results. The performance data presented (reproducibility, agreement with CDC expected results, and comparison to MOP) reflects the performance of the device without human intervention in the interpretation of the primary growth signal. Human involvement would likely be limited to preparing samples and loading the instrument.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Reference Method/Predicate Device: The primary ground truth for clinical isolates was the Method of Proportion (MOP) susceptibility test.
• Established Reference Materials: For the CDC Challenge Panels, the ground truth was the CDC expected results.
• Reproducibility: For reproducibility studies, the ground truth was "expected results" for the strains used, likely based on prior characterization or a consensus of reference methods.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" or its size. This is common for this type of IVD (in vitro diagnostic) device, where the underlying "algorithm" or system logic is based on established biological principles of microbial growth and drug inhibition rather than a machine learning model that requires a distinct training phase on clinical data. The development process would involve internal optimization and verification rather than a classic "training set" in the AI sense.

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

• As a "training set" is not explicitly mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not described. If one were to consider the initial development and optimization of the BACTEC® MGIT™ 960 SIRE system, the ground truth would have been established through a combination of traditional microbiology methods, laboratory testing, and potentially comparison to predicate devices, similar to how the current validation studies are performed.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The ESP Culture System II is an automated system for the detection of microbial growth from blood and other normally sterile body fluids, and for the detection of mycobacteria from various sources. The system may be used for the susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis with the drugs rifampin (1μg/ml), isoniazid ( 0.1 and 0.4ug/ml), and ethambutol (5 and 8ug/ml) The inoculum source for the susceptibility testing can originate from an ESP Myco seed bottle, or a McFarland No. 1 equivalent cell suspension created from colonies grown on an agar source.

The ESP Culture System II is an automated system for the detection of microbial growth from blood and other normally sterile body fluids, and for the detection of mycobacteria from various sources. The system may be used for the susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis with the drugs rifampin (1μg/ml), isoniazid ( 0.1 and 0.4ug/ml), and ethambutol (5 and 8ug/ml) The inoculum source for the susceptibility testing can originate from an ESP Myco seed bottle, or a McFarland No. 1 equivalent cell suspension created from colonies grown on an agar source.

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a medical device called the "ESP Culture System II - Myco Susceptibility Testing." It does not contain the detailed study information required to answer your specific questions about acceptance criteria, device performance, and study design.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based on the input text. The document is primarily a regulatory approval and does not delve into the specifics of the performance study.

Ask a specific question about this device