Search Results

Immunoassay for the in vitro quantitative determination of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) in lithium heparin plasma. The immunoassay is intended to aid in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction. The electrochemiluminescence immunoassay "ECLIA" is intended for use on the cobas system analyzers. CalSet Troponin T Gen 5 STAT is used for calibrating the quantitative Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT immunoassay on the cobas system analyzers. PreciControl Troponin is used for quality control of the Elecsys Troponin I and Elecsys Troponin I STAT immunoassays on the Elecsys and cobas e immunoassay analyzers. PreciControl Troponin is also used for quality control of the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT immunoassay on the cobas system analyzers. The Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 CalCheck 5 is an assayed control for use in the calibration verification and for use in the verification of the assay range established by the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 reagent on the cobas system analyzers.

(1) The Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT Immunoassay is a two-step sandwich immunoassay on the cobas e 411analyzer and a one-step process on the cobas e 601 analyzer. The assay uses streptavidin-coated.

This document describes the analytical and clinical performance of the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT Assay and its associated calibrators and quality controls. It demonstrates the device's substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are generally implied by the "Results" sections showing that the device's performance metrics either

• met specific numerical targets (e.g., CV% for precision, ng/L for LoQ), or
• were within a defined percentage recovery or range (e.g., ±10% for interferences, 90-110% for control recovery, 80-120% for CalCheck recovery).

Here’s a table summarizing the performance based on the provided text, where acceptance criteria are explicitly stated or clearly implied by the successful results.

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Analytical Performance Test Sets:

  • Precision:
    • Sample size: Multiple human plasma samples (5 distinct pools) and 2 PreciControl levels were tested. For each, measurements were done in single determinations in four separate aliquots (2 runs per day) for 21 operating days (n=84 replicates for each sample type).
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The studies appear to be laboratory-based analytical studies (retrospective in nature of samples, but prospective in terms of the testing design).
  • LoQ/Functional Sensitivity:
    • Sample size: Ten Li-Heparin plasma pools and two controls tested. Data collected with two lots over 21 days, two runs per day with two replicates per run. (Total 84 measurements for each sample).
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Likely laboratory-based.
  • Linearity:
    • Sample size: One high analyte plasma sample (spiked with recombinant TnT) diluted to 21 concentrations (19 dilutions). Measured in three-fold determination within a single run.
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Likely laboratory-based.
  • High Dose Hook Effect:
    • Sample size: Two samples spiked to high TnT concentrations, with dilution series.
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Likely laboratory-based.
  • Endogenous Interferences:
    • Sample size: Three native or spiked plasma samples (one low, one medium, one high concentration of Troponin T) for each of 7 interfering substances. Dilution series tested.
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Likely laboratory-based.
  • HAMA Interference:
    • Sample size: Samples with three different levels of TnT spiked with HAMA. Tested in duplicate.
    • Data Provenance: The HAMA serum used was tested in an "external laboratory".
  • Analytical Specificity/Cross Reactivity:
    • Sample size: Three concentrations of troponin spiked with potential cross-reacting compounds. Tested in duplicate.
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Likely laboratory-based.
  • Exogenous Interference (Drugs):
    • Sample size: 16 common pharmaceutical compounds and 18 cardiac drugs spiked into plasma samples. Tested in 3-fold determination.
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Likely laboratory-based.
  • Sample Stability:
    • Study 1 (2-8°C): Nine Li-Heparin Plasma samples.
    • Study 2 (-20°C): Ten Li-Heparin Plasma samples.
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Likely laboratory-based.
  • Calibration Stability:
    • Onboard: Three plasma samples and two control levels. Each tested with two-fold determination.
    • Lot: Three human plasma samples and two control levels. Each tested with two-fold determination.
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Likely laboratory-based.
  • Reagent Stability: Done in four studies (first opening, on-board, stress, shelf life) with specific testing protocols.
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Likely laboratory-based.

• Clinical Performance (Diagnostic Sensitivity and Specificity) Test Sets:

  • APACE Population:
    • Sample Size:
      • Total enrolled: 718 subjects.
      • Baseline test result: 718 subjects.
      • Second test result (3 hour time point): 515 subjects.
      • Test result (6 hour time point): 310 subjects.
    • Data Provenance: International, multicentric prospective trial (APACE study, ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00470587.6). Countries of origin are not specified beyond "international".
  • Second Multicenter Study:
    • Sample Size:
      • Total enrolled: 1679 subjects presenting with chest pain.
      • Evaluated on cobas e 411: 1679 subjects.
      • Evaluated on cobas e 601: 1675 subjects.
      • Adjudicated MIs: 173 subjects.
    • Data Provenance: Multicenter study. Countries of origin are not specified. Subjects were prospectively enrolled.

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

• Clinical Performance (APACE Population):
  • Number of Experts: An "independent adjudication committee" was used. The document specifies that this committee "included cardiologists" and, "In the case of a disagreement, a third independent cardiologist was used as the tie breaker." This implies at least two cardiologists for initial adjudication and a third for tie-breaking, so a minimum of 3 experts involved in ground truth establishment for each case.
  • Qualifications: "Cardiologists." No specific experience levels (e.g., "10 years of experience") are mentioned, but their specialization is stated.
• Clinical Performance (Second Multicenter Study):
  • Number of Experts: An "independent adjudication committee" was used, which "included cardiologists and emergency medicine physicians." Similar to APACE, it implies multiple experts, but the exact number or tie-breaking mechanism is not detailed as explicitly as for APACE.
  • Qualifications: "Cardiologists and emergency medicine physicians." No specific experience levels are mentioned.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Clinical Performance (APACE Population): "Diagnosis of MI was done through an independent adjudication committee which included cardiologists. This included 60 day follow-up information on each subject. In the case of a disagreement, a third independent cardiologist was used as the tie breaker." This is a "2+1" or similar consensus-based adjudication method.
• Clinical Performance (Second Multicenter Study): "Final diagnoses were determined by an independent adjudication committee which included cardiologists and emergency medicine physicians using the universal guidelines." While an independent committee is stated, the specific "tie-breaker" or "consensus" method is not as explicitly detailed as for APACE. No indication of a lack of adjudication.

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. The document focuses on the performance of the immunoassay itself, both analytically (precision, linearity, interference, etc.) and clinically (diagnostic sensitivity and specificity) in aid of myocardial infarction diagnosis. It does not describe a study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance or any other form of AI. This is a submission for an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic device.

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

This question is not directly applicable as the device is a laboratory immunoassay, which naturally performs "standalone" as an analytical instrument. The "performance" described is the standalone performance of the assay. There is no AI algorithm component mentioned or evaluated as a separate entity that would require a human-in-the-loop for its performance to be assessed.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Clinical Performance:
  • For both clinical studies (APACE and the second multicenter study), the ground truth for Myocardial Infarction (MI) diagnosis was established by an independent adjudication committee composed of medical experts (cardiologists and/or emergency medicine physicians). This adjudication was based on "diagnostic criteria described in the ACC/ESC/AHA guidelines reference including ECG changes, symptoms characteristic for ischemia and elevations of cardiac troponin," and "60 day follow-up information on each subject" for the APACE study. This falls under expert consensus guided by clinical outcomes data and established guidelines.
• Analytical Performance:
  • For analytical studies (precision, linearity, interference, stability, etc.), the ground truth relies on reference methods, spiked samples with known concentrations, or comparison to fresh/unstressed samples, which are standard practices for IVD assay validation.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable/provided. This submission is for an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not a machine learning or AI model. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of an algorithm that learns from data. The studies described are validation studies for the assay's analytical and clinical performance.

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

This information is not applicable/provided for the same reason as above (no training set for an AI/ML algorithm).

Ask a specific question about this device