Search Results

The ImmuView S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila Urinary Antigen Test is an in vitro, rapid, lateral flow test, also known as a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay, intended for the qualitative detection of Streptococus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila antigens in urine specimens with symptoms of pneumonia. The assay is intended to aid in diagnosis of S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila serogroup 1 infections. The assay is further intended to aid in the diagnosis of S. pneumoniae infection of S. pneumoniae antigen in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Results from the ImmuView S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila Urinary Antigen Test should be interpreted in conjunction with the patient's clinical evaluation and other diagnostic methods.

ImmuView S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila Urinary Antigen Test is a rapid lateral flow test for qualitative detection of S. pneumoniae in human urine and CSF samples and L. pneumophila (primarily serogroup 1) antigens in human urine samples. The test is effective in presumptive diagnosis of pneumococcal pneumonia caused by S. pneumoniae or Legionella pneumonia (Legionnaires' disease) caused by L. pneumophila, in conjunction with culture and other methods. Correct and early treatment is vital for the prognosis of both diseases and therefore quick methods to confirm both diseases in the initial phase are very important in order to initiate the proper antibiotic treatment as soon as possible.

This document describes the validation of the ImmuView S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila Urinary Antigen Test, an in vitro lateral flow immunochromatographic assay.

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the device are implicitly demonstrated by the reported sensitivities and specificities, and positive/negative percent agreements achieving certain levels across various studies (retrospective, prospective, analytical). While explicit numerical acceptance criteria are not stated in a dedicated table, the consistently high performance metrics across both S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila detection in urine and CSF demonstrate the device's acceptable performance.

Here's a summary of the reported device performance, which serves as evidence of meeting implicit acceptance criteria:

Table 1: Summary of ImmuView S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila Urinary Antigen Test Performance

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Retrospective Study (Urine Samples):

  • S. pneumoniae: 100 culture-positive urine samples (48 from Sweden, 52 from Denmark, all from blood culture positive patients). 221 known negative urine samples.
  • L. pneumophila: 98 culture-confirmed urine samples (55 from Europe, 43 from the United States (US), these 43 were previously determined positive in a urinary antigen test). 240 known negative urine samples.
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, samples from Europe (Sweden, Denmark) and the United States.

• Prospective Study (Urine Samples):

  • Total Samples: 306 freshly collected urine samples (with 92 having to be frozen before testing due to practicalities).
  • Data Provenance: Prospective, collected from two sites in Spain and Denmark. These were from "all comers" at risk of community-acquired pneumonia.

• Clinical Study (CSF Samples):

  • S. pneumoniae: 14 culture-positive CSF specimens (9 from US labs, 5 from European labs). 169 known negative CSF samples (113 from US labs, 56 from European labs).
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective/Clinical, samples from US and Europe.

• Spiked CSF Testing:

  • S. pneumoniae: 50 human CSF samples spiked at the LOD. 10 additional unspiked negative CSF samples.

• Analytical Studies (Cross-Reactivity, LOD, Interfering Substances, Strain Reactivity): Sample sizes vary by test and are described in the relevant sections (e.g., 143 samples for cross-reactivity with spiked bacteria/viruses in urine, 47 interfering agents tested).

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") used to establish the ground truth. However, the ground truth for clinical studies (both retrospective and prospective) is defined as culture-confirmed results for S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila infections, and "known negative" samples based on culture.

For the CSF study, patients were "suspected of meningitis," and the ground truth was also culture-confirmed S. pneumoniae.

Given that these are in vitro diagnostic tests, the "experts" in establishing ground truth would primarily be laboratory personnel performing culture confirmation, which is the gold standard for defining infection status.

4. Adjudication Method

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1 concensus) for establishing the ground truth for the test sets. The ground truth appears to be based on culture results, which typically do not require adjudication by multiple human interpreters in the same way imaging studies might.

For the reproducibility study, the reading and interpretation of the panels were performed visually by operators. Errors in reading (e.g., operator interpreted S. pneumoniae Band result as negative even though band was present) are mentioned, indicating potential for individual variability, but a formal adjudication process for disagreements is not explicitly stated beyond what happens when "invalid" results occur.

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

No multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was performed or described. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) lateral flow assay, which is primarily a standalone test designed to provide a direct result, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. Therefore, there is no discussion of how human readers' performance might improve with AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance

Yes, extensive standalone performance testing was done. The entire study described focuses on the "algorithm only" (i.e., the ImmuView test's intrinsic performance) without human-in-the-loop assistance for interpretation. The results in the tables for sensitivity, specificity, and agreement are all measures of the device's standalone performance against established ground truth (culture or comparator tests).

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary type of ground truth used was culture confirmation for S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila from urine and CSF samples.

• Urine Retrospective Study: Culture-positive urine samples (blood culture positive for S. pneumoniae, culture confirmed for L. pneumophila) and known negative (culture confirmed negative) urine samples.
• CSF Clinical Study: Culture-positive CSF specimens.
• Prospective Study: Comparison with other lateral flow urine antigen tests (Comparator) was used, implying the Comparator's results served as an indirect ground truth or reference in this specific study, although the retrospective studies relied on culture.
• Analytical Studies: Ground truth was based on known concentrations of purified antigens (pg/mL, ng/mL) or specific colony-forming units (CFU/mL) for LOD and strain reactivity, and known substances/organisms for cross-reactivity and interfering substances.

8. Sample Size for Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of an algorithm or AI development. This product is a lateral flow immunoassay, a biochemical test, not a machine learning algorithm that undergoes a training phase. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" as it pertains to AI/ML models is not applicable here. The samples described were used for validation and performance evaluation.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established

As explained under point 8, the product is a lateral flow immunoassay, not an AI/ML model. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the computational sense, and thus no ground truth establishment specific to a training set for an algorithm. All samples were used for validation and performance assessment, with ground truth established primarily by culture confirmation as described in point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device