Search Results

The Watchhaler is a holding chamber intended to administer aerosolized medication with a Metered Dose Inhaler. For pediatric patients (3 years and older). The environment of use includes home care, nursing homes, sub-acute institutions, and hospitals

The Watchhaler is a spacer primarily used in the pediatric population for the inhalation of approved MDIs for the therapy of the upper and lower respiratory system. The design of the device is held in the shape of a colored toy animal to address its users, the children. The device consists of a balloon which is enclosed by a translucent housing. During inhalation the balloon collapses with the speed of deflation controlled by a mechanical valve. The fixed volume of the balloon and the low inhalation flow provided by the valve help to ensure a constant drug delivery.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a medical device (Watchhaler) and does not describe a clinical study or present data demonstrating the device meets acceptance criteria. Instead, it aims to establish substantial equivalence to predicate devices. Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from this document.

However, based on the provided text, here's what can be gathered regarding acceptance criteria and the comparison to predicate devices, recognizing that this is not a study proving the device meets performance criteria, but rather a submission arguing for substantial equivalence based on attributes:

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

The document doesn't present "acceptance criteria" in the traditional sense of performance metrics with thresholds that were tested against. Instead, it lists attributes of the proposed Watchhaler and implicitly argues that these attributes are substantially equivalent to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" would be the listed attribute itself.

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

This information is not provided. The document does not describe a test set or data generation.

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 information is not provided. The document does not discuss ground truth established by experts for a test set.

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

This information is not provided. The document does not describe an adjudication method for a test set.

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

A MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device is a physical medical device (spacer/holding chamber), not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

A standalone performance study was not done. The device is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

This is not applicable as there is no mention of a study generating data against a "ground truth" in the device's performance. The basis for approval is substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, meaning its attributes and intended use are similar enough to devices already deemed safe and effective.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided. The document does not describe a training set.

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

This information is not provided. The document does not describe how ground truth for a training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

Funhaler is intended for use primarily in the pediatric population. Funhaler is used in combination with a Metered Dose Inhaler for respiratory drug delivery.

The Funhaler® V201 is basically a Spacer, similar in function and construction to commonly used Spacers. It is nearly identical and functionally equivalent to the predicate device (Funhaler®, Infamed Ltd; K042546) the device consists of a Mouthpiece, cylindrical Spacer. tapered on each end, incentive module and a molded connector compatible with approved Metered Dose Inhalers.

The provided document describes the Funhaler V201, a spacer device intended for use with Metered Dose Inhalers (MDIs) primarily in the pediatric population. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Funhaler®, K042546) and compliance with various performance standards.

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

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Information

The document provides limited details regarding specific studies, primarily relying on demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device and compliance with general standards.

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

   • Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for either the particle size distribution/drug delivery testing or the "limited clinical testing."
   • Data Provenance: Not specified. The submitter (InfaMed Ltd) is based in Western Australia.

2. 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 document. The studies mentioned (particle size, drug delivery, and compliance) would likely rely on objective measurements or the assessment of healthcare professionals, but the specific number or qualifications of "experts" for ground truth establishment are not detailed.

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

   • Not described in the provided text.

4. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

   • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device (Funhaler V201) is a medical device spacer, not an AI-powered diagnostic or interpretive tool that would involve human readers. Its primary reported benefits are improved compliance and proper medication delivery, not diagnostic accuracy.

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

   • The Funhaler V201 is a physical medical device, not an algorithm. Therefore, a "standalone" algorithm-only performance study is not applicable. The device's performance relates to its mechanical and functional characteristics, such as particle size distribution and drug delivery when used with an MDI.

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

   • For particle size distribution and drug delivery, the ground truth would typically be established through in-vitro analytical measurements using standardized laboratory equipment (e.g., cascade impactors for particle size, chemical analysis for drug delivered).
   • For improved compliance, the ground truth would likely be based on observational data gathered during the "limited clinical testing," potentially through direct observation by clinicians or objective measures of engagement with the device's feedback mechanisms. The document doesn't specify the exact method.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set."

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device