Search Results

Spherical and Aspheric

Ethos Aquell (Hioxifilcon A) Spherical and Aspheric One-Day Soft (Hydrophilic) Contact Lenses (59% Water) are indicated for daily wear for the correction of ametropia (myopia and hyperopia) in aphakic and/or non-aphakic persons with non-diseased eyes in powers from +10.00 to -20.00 diopters. The lenses may be worn by persons who exhibit astigmatism of 1.00 diopters or less that does not interfere with visual acuity.

Toric

Ethos Aquell (Hioxifilcon A) Toric One-Day Soft (Hydrophilic) Contact Lenses (59% Water) are indicated for daily wear for the correction of ametropia (myopia or hyperopia with astigmatism) in aphakic and/or non-aphakic persons with non-diseased eyes in powers from +10.00 to -20.00 diopters and astigmatic corrections from -0.50 to -6.00 diopters.

The lenses are intended for single-use disposable wear.

The Ethos Aquell (Hioxifilcon A) One-Day Soft (Hydrophilic) Contact Lenses (59% Water) are clear, visibility-tinted and include UV blocker-containing. The lens is available in spherical, aspherical and toric designs. It is an non-ionic hydrogel lens Hioxifilcon derived from of 2-Hydroxyethylmethacrylate (2-HEMA) and 2,3-Dihydroxypropyl Methacrylate (GlycerolMethacrylate, GMA), cross-linked with ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) and made by photo-polymerization. It consists of 41% Hioxifilcon A and 59% water by weight when immersed in buffered solution. There are two types of buffer solution. one is borate solution (Saline 2); another one is borate solution with sodium hyaluronate (Saline 1). The lens polymer further contains a benzotriazole UV absorbing monomer and thus is able to block UV radiation. The lens is visibly tined with "Reactive Blue19" color additive, 21 CFR part 73.3121.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a contact lens, not an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, the information typically required for an AI/ML device's acceptance criteria and study proving it meets those criteria (such as sample size for test/training sets, expert consensus, MRMC studies, etc.) is not present.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device, which is the standard pathway for many medical devices, including contact lenses. This involves showing similar technological characteristics and performance through non-clinical testing.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to the requested information, highlighting why certain points cannot be addressed:

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

The document provides a comparative table of technological characteristics between the proposed device ("Ethos Aquell (Hioxifilcon A) One-Day Soft (Hydrophilic) Contact Lenses (59% Water)") and a predicate device (K040303). This isn't strictly "acceptance criteria" in the sense of performance metrics for an AI/ML algorithm, but rather a comparison for demonstrating substantial equivalence.

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

The document states: "Clinical studies for Ethos Aquell (Hioxifilcon A) One-Day Soft (Hydrophilic) Contact Lenses (59% Water) of the present device are not required for the premarket notification," because the USAN name and process are the same as previously cleared predicate devices.

Instead, non-clinical testing was performed. The document lists the types of non-clinical tests (e.g., Physicochemical Properties, Biocompatibility Testing, Shelf Life Test, Sterility Test), but does not provide sample sizes for these tests or data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective). These types of details are usually found in the full submission, not the public 510(k) summary.

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 is not applicable as no clinical study or human expert review of "test sets" (in the AI/ML sense) was conducted or required for this 510(k) submission. The evaluation is based on material properties and non-clinical performance, and substantial equivalence to a predicate.

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

Not applicable, as no clinical test set requiring expert adjudication was part of this submission.

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

Not applicable. This is for an AI/ML device, not a contact lens.

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

Not applicable. This is for an AI/ML device.

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

For a contact lens, "ground truth" relates to material specifications and performance standards (e.g., ensuring water content is 59%, or that oxygen permeability meets a certain threshold). These are established physical and chemical properties, not clinical "ground truth" derived from patient data or expert consensus in the diagnostic sense. The document states that non-clinical performance tests were conducted "in accordance with the May 1994 FDA guidance title Premarket Notification 510(K) Guidance Document for Class II Contact Lenses." This guidance defines the expected methods and standards for these physical and chemical property assessments.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is for an AI/ML device.

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

Not applicable. This is for an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Extreme H2O® 54% (hioxifilcon D) soft contact lens for daily wear is indicated for the correction of visual acuity in aphakic or not-aphakic persons with non-diseased eyes that are myopic or hyperopic. The spherical lens may be worn by persons who exhibit astigmatism of 0.75 Diopters or less that does not interfere with visual acuity. The toric lens may be worn by persons who exhibit astigmatism of up to 10.00 Diopters.

Eye care practitioners may prescribe the lens for frequent/planned replacement wear, with cleaning disinfection and scheduled replacement. When prescribed for frequent/planned replacement wear, the lens may be disinfected using a chemical disinfection system.

Extreme H2O® 54% (hioxifilcon D) soft contact lenses are hemispherical shells and are available as spherical (G54 13.6 and G54 14.2) or toric (G54 Toric) lens designs. The Extreme H2O® 54% (hioxifilcon D) soft contact lens is fabricated from hioxifilcon D, which is a non-ionic, copolymer of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) and 2,3-Dihydroxypropyl Methacrylate (Glycerol Methacrylate, GMA) and cross-linked with ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA). It consists of 46% hioxifilcon D and 54% water by weight when immersed in normal saline solution buffered with either sodium bicarbonate or sodium borate. The lens is available with a blue visibility handling tint. phthalocyanato (2) - (copper).

In the hydrated state, the lens conforms to the curvature of the eye covering the cornea and extending slightly beyond the limbus forming a colorless, transparent optical surface. The hydrophilic properties of the lens require that it be maintained in a fully hydrated state in a solution compatible with the eye. If the lens dries out, it will become hard and appear somewhat warped. However, it will return to its proper configuration when completely rehydrated in the proper storage solution.

Here is the information about the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Device Name: Extreme H2O® 54% (hioxifilcon D) Soft Contact Lens for Daily Wear

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission relies on a comparison to a predicate device (59% Extreme H2O® (hioxifilcon A) soft contact lens) and chemical/physical/toxicological testing to establish substantial equivalence. Direct "acceptance criteria" and "reported performance" for specific clinical outcomes are not explicitly stated as they would be for a novel device. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by demonstrating that the new device's material properties fall within the range of, or are comparable to, already cleared materials and predicate devices.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of a clinical study. The "test set" here refers to the new device (Extreme H2O® 54%), which underwent material characterization and toxicology testing.
• Data Provenance: The toxicology tests were performed on the Extreme H2O® 54% material (hioxifilcon D). The document implies these were standard ISO tests. The country of origin and whether the data was retrospective or prospective is not specified for these specific tests, but they are generally carried out prospectively as part of product development.

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

Not applicable. Ground truth, in the sense of expert consensus on clinical findings, was not established for this submission. The "ground truth" for the material properties and toxicology was based on established scientific and regulatory standards for material characterization and pre-clinical safety testing (e.g., ISO standards for toxicology).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. There was no clinical test set requiring adjudication in the context of expert consensus or diagnostic accuracy.

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.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

Not applicable. This device is a contact lens, not an AI algorithm. Its performance is inherent to the physical and chemical properties of the lens, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this submission was based on:

• Material Characterization: Scientific measurements of properties like water content, refractive index, light transmission, specific gravity, and oxygen permeability.
• Toxicology Data: Results from standardized ISO safety tests (Systemic Injection Test, Agar Diffusion Test, Primary Ocular Irritation).
• Substantial Equivalence to Predicate Device: The established safety and effectiveness of the legally marketed predicate device(s) (59% Extreme H2O® (hioxifilcon A) and Benz-G 3X (hioxifilcon B)).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that uses a "training set."

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device