Search Results

The Varelisa Gliadin IgA Antibodies EIA kit is designed for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of gliadin (IgA) antibodies in serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of certain gluten sensitive enteropathies such as celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis.

Varelisa Gliadin IgA Antibodies is an indirect noncompetitive enzyme immunoassay for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of gliadin (IgA) antibodies in human serum or plasma. Antibodies specific for gliadin (IgA) present in the patient sample bind to the antigen. The test kit contains microplate strips coated with gliadin antigen, calibrators, test and negative controls, enzyme-labeled conjugate, substrate and substrate stop solution, sample diluent and wash buffer.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the Varelisa® Gliadin IgA Antibodies kit, a device intended for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of gliadin (IgA) antibodies to aid in the diagnosis of certain gluten-sensitive enteropathies. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the INOVA QUANTA Lite™ Gliadin IgA.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study based on the provided information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., specific thresholds for sensitivity, specificity, or agreement percentages). Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the need to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device. This is a regulatory standard where the new device performs as well as, or comparably to, an already legally marketed device for the same intended use.

The "reported device performance" is presented implicitly through the comparison study.

Study Details

The provided text describes a comparative study to establish substantial equivalence.

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
   The document states the study analyzed "positive, equivocal and negative sera," "clinically defined sera," and "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)." However, the specific sample sizes for these groups are not provided. The data provenance is not explicitly stated beyond the manufacturer being "Sweden Diagnostics (Germany) GmbH," suggesting the data would likely originate from Germany or other European countries where such diagnostics are developed and tested. The study appears to be retrospective, using existing samples rather than prospectively collecting new ones for the device evaluation.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth.

3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   The document does not specify any adjudication method for the test set.

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:
   This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not an imaging or AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would involve human readers interpreting results in the same way an MRMC study evaluates. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed in the context of human readers improving with AI assistance. The comparison is between the new device and a predicate IVD device.

5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   Yes, the study evaluated the standalone performance of the Varelisa® Gliadin IgA Antibodies kit in comparison to the predicate device. The device itself is an assay, and its performance is assessed directly; there isn't an "algorithm" in the sense of a machine learning model that would then be combined with human interpretation. The output of the assay is a quantitative or semi-quantitative result that clinicians interpret.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
   The ground truth appears to be established by clinical definition and classification of patient samples ("clinically defined sera," "positive, equivocal and negative sera," "samples from apparently healthy subjects"). While not explicitly stated, for IVDs like this, ground truth for patient status (e.g., presence or absence of celiac disease) would typically be based on a combination of clinical diagnosis, other laboratory tests (e.g., biopsy for celiac disease), and a consensus of medical professionals. The predicate device itself might also serve as a defacto "ground truth" for comparison in some aspects of the equivalence claim.

7. The sample size for the training set:
   Since this is a 510(k) submission for an enzyme immunoassay kit and not a machine learning algorithm, the concept of a "training set" in the context of AI/ML is not applicable. The device likely underwent development and optimization using various internal data, but these are not typically referred to as "training sets" in this regulatory context.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   As stated above, the concept of a "training set" as in AI/ML is not relevant here. For the development and validation of the immunoassay, ground truth for control materials would be established through careful characterization using reference methods and clinical samples.

Ask a specific question about this device