Search Results

The Airgent™ System is a needle-free injection system designed for the administration of various medicines and vaccines to the body by means of a high velocity jet of fluid that penetrates the skin. The Airgent™ includes a disposable delivery kit intended for multiple injections on a single patient. The Airgent™ System is indicated for professional use only.

The Airgent" System is an automated, multi-use, needless injector system, intended to deliver medications and vaccines to the body by a highly accelerated pneumatically powered jet of fluid via a very small entry point in the surface of the skin The system is comprised of a console and single-use sterile injector kit The user may control the dosage (150ul/200ul) and system pressure for the injection via the graphical user interface on the front panel of the console The entire injector kit is replaced between patients and may be used for multiple injections per patient

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for PerfAction's Airgent™ needle-free injection system. It details the device's intended use, description, and performance data used to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, the document does not contain explicit "acceptance criteria" for specific performance metrics from a study or the "reported device performance" against those criteria in the typical format of a clinical or performance study with quantified outcomes. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating equivalence through comparison testing and adherence to standards.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing the requested information to the extent possible:

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

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or reported device performance in a table format. The performance data section broadly states:

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "ex-vivo testing" was conducted, but does not provide details on the number of samples or tests performed.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the ex-vivo testing data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

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)

Not applicable. The study involved ex-vivo mechanical testing, not a human reader study requiring expert ground truth for interpretation.

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

Not applicable. This was ex-vivo performance testing, not a human reader study.

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. This document describes a medical device (a needle-free injection system), not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is not relevant or described.

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

Yes, in a sense. The "Performance Data" section describes "Comparison Testing" as "ex-vivo testing... to confirm the performance of Argent." This testing would be considered standalone performance of the device without human intervention beyond operating the device for the test.

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

The ground truth for the ex-vivo testing would likely be based on established engineering and performance specifications for needle-free injection systems (e.g., penetration depth, injection force, dosage accuracy, leakage) as outlined in ISO 21649. The document states the testing demonstrated the Airgent performs "as safe and effective as its predicate devices," implying the predicate devices' established performance acts as a comparative benchmark for "ground truth".

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. The Airgent is a physical medical device, not an AI 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 for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The over the counter Injex 30 Needle-Free Insulin Injector System is intended for the subcutaneous iniection of U-100 insulin. The Injex 30 Insulin Ampule is labeled as suitable for administration of 5 to 30 insulin units with a scale in 1 unit increments.

Equidyne Systems Injex 30 Needle Free Insulin Injector System is a means of administering insulin in the subcutaneous tissue without the use of needles. The needle free injector utilizes a high velocity focused jet of liquid to penetrate the skin and deposit the insulin in the subcutaneous tissue. The process takes place in a fraction of a second.
The Injex 30 Needle-Free Insulin Injector System consists of four main components:

1. Iniex 30 Needle-Free Insulin Injector A small re-usable hand held Iniector.
2. Reset Box - A compact re-usable Reset Box used to reset the Injex 30 Needle Free Insulin Injector,
3. Injex 30 Insulin Ampule - A disposable, sterile 30 unit Injex 30 Insulin Ampule that functions like a needle syringe to draw the medication from the medicine bottle or vial using a hand draw with a plunger. Once the Injex 30 Insulin Ampule is loaded into the Injex 30 Needle Free Insulin Injector, the dose is injected into the individual by releasing the Safety and pressing the trigger.
4. Vial Adapter - A disposable, sterile Vial Adapter facilitates the transfer of the insulin from the medicine bottle or vial to the Injex 30 Insulin Ampule.
   The Injex 30 Needle Free Insulin Injector can deliver variable doses of insulin from 5 to 30 units. The Injex 30 Insulin Ampule scale is in 1 unit increments.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Injex 30 Needle-Free Insulin Injector System, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Subjects are able to self-administer an injection after viewing training materials (i.e., not difficult or unable). | 1. 100% of subjects said it was either easy or somewhat easy to give themselves an injection after viewing the training video and reading the Instructions for Use.
3. None of the subjects said that it was difficult or they were not able to give themselves an injection after viewing the training video and reading the Instructions for Use. |
   | User Preference | A significant portion of subjects prefer the Injex device or are ambivalent (would use either Injex or needle/syringe) compared to a traditional needle and syringe. | 84% of the subjects said that they either prefer the Injex 30 Needle-Free Insulin Injector or would use either the Injex 30 Needle-Free Insulin Injector or a needle and syringe in the future. |
   | Pain Perception | Pain from the Injex device is perceived as similar to, or less than, a traditional insulin needle and syringe by a significant portion of subjects. | 91% of the subjects said the pain from the Injex 30 Needle-Free Insulin Injector was either the same as, a little less or a lot less than the insulin needle and syringe. |
   | Comparative Ease of Use | Subjects find the Injex device just as easy to use as an insulin needle and syringe. | 91% of the subjects felt that the Injex 30 Needle-Free Insulin Injector was just as easy to use as an insulin needle and syringe. |
   | Comparative Ease of Self-Injection | Subjects find it just as easy to give themselves an injection using the Injex device as with an insulin needle and syringe. | 100% of the subjects felt it was just as easy to give themselves an injection using the Injex 30 Needle-Free Insulin Injector as it was with an insulin needle and syringe. |

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

• Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the exact number of subjects in the clinical study. It mentions a "good distribution of age among the subjects with the average age being 48.5 years with a range of 25 to 77 years old" and provides percentages of education levels. This suggests a reasonably sized cohort, but the specific n is missing.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. It is a prospective study as subjects were observed administering injections and then surveyed.

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

• Not applicable. This study is based on subjective patient experience and self-reported perceptions (ease of use, pain, preference) when comparing the device to a traditional needle and syringe. There was no "ground truth" to be established by experts in the context of diagnostic accuracy or clinical correctness of the injection, as the purpose was to assess user experience and instruction adequacy.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. Since the study focuses on subjective user experience and self-reported outcomes, there was no need for an adjudication method by experts. The results are based on direct subject feedback via questionnaires.

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

• No. This was not an MRMC study. It was a clinical study evaluating user experience, ease of use, and pain perception for a medical device (insulin injector) compared to a predicate device (needle and syringe), not a diagnostic imaging study involving multiple readers and cases. Therefore, no effect size of human readers improving with or without AI assistance is reported.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Yes, in spirit, but within a user context. The study assessed the Injex 30 Needle-Free Insulin Injector System alone (after subjects viewed training materials) for ease of use and ability to self-administer, comparing these aspects to a traditional needle and syringe. While not a "standalone algorithm" performance, it evaluated the device's functional performance in the hands of users without external assistance during the injection process itself, beyond the provided instructions.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for this study was subjective patient feedback and self-reported experiences regarding ease of use, pain, and preference, gathered through questionnaires after direct interaction with both the investigational device and the predicate.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This device is a physical medical device (insulin injector), not a software algorithm requiring a training set.

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

• Not applicable. As above, there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device