DEN100020 · Inbios Intl., Inc. · OSU · Apr 8, 2011 · Microbiology
Device Facts
Record ID
DEN100020
Device Name
DENV DETECT IGM CAPTURE ELISA
Applicant
Inbios Intl., Inc.
Product Code
OSU · Microbiology
Decision Date
Apr 8, 2011
Decision
DENG
Submission Type
Post-NSE
Regulation
21 CFR 866.3945
Device Class
Class 2
Attributes
Real-World Evidence
Real-World Evidence
Submission
Device
Sponsor
RWD Sources
RWE Use Summary
Key Tags
DEN100020 · Apr 8, 2011
DENV DETECT IGM CAPTURE ELISA
Inbios Intl., Inc.
Archived clinical serum samples; Reference laboratory diagnostic records; Public health laboratory records
Retrospective clinical studies were conducted using archived samples from symptomatic patients to establish clinical sensitivity and specificity of the DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA. Performance was compared against reference laboratory diagnostic algorithms (PCR, HAI, IgG titers, and PRNT).
197 subjects displaying signs and symptoms of Dengue infection; Sample Size: 394 samples (two draws per subject); Number of Sites: 1
Reference laboratory diagnostic algorithm (IgM test, PCR, IgG titer, or HAI titer)
Positive and negative percent agreement
Retrospective study; Study Period: 2008-2009
212 symptomatic individuals; Sample Size: 212; Number of Sites: 1
PRNT and CDC Dengue MAC ELISA
Positive and negative percent agreement
Retrospective study; Study Period: 2005-2008
289 symptomatic subjects with and without other diseases; Sample Size: 289; Number of Sites: 1
PRNT
Negative percent agreement
Retrospective study; Study Period: 2004-2008
199 symptomatic subjects presumed to be DENV negative; Sample Size: 199; Number of Sites: 1
CDC Dengue IgM (MAC) ELISA and PRNT
Negative percent agreement
Indications for Use
The DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA is for the qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to DEN recombinant antigens (DENRA) in serum for the presumptive clinical laboratory diagnosis of Dengue virus infection. The assay is intended for use only in patients with clinical symptoms consistent with either dengue fever or dengue hemorrhagic fever. Positive results must be confirmed by Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT), or by using the current CDC guidelines for diagnosis of this disease.
Device Story
The DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA is a sandwich-type immunoassay used in clinical laboratories to detect IgM antibodies to Dengue virus in human serum. The device utilizes microtiter wells coated with anti-human IgM antibodies. Patient serum is incubated in these wells, followed by separate incubations with Dengue-derived recombinant antigens (DENRA) and normal cell antigens (NCA). An HRP-labeled DEN-specific monoclonal antibody and TMB substrate are added to produce a colorimetric signal. The degree of enzymatic turnover is measured via absorbance at 450 nm. The ratio of absorbance between DENRA and control antigen wells determines the presence of Dengue IgM antibodies. Results are interpreted by laboratory personnel to aid in the diagnosis of Dengue infection. Positive results require confirmation via Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT) or current CDC guidelines. The device assists clinicians in identifying Dengue virus infection in symptomatic patients, facilitating appropriate clinical management.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical performance was evaluated across five studies (retrospective and prospective) using serum samples from symptomatic individuals. Performance varied by days post-fever onset. In one prospective study (n=55), sensitivity increased from 33.3% at the first visit to 79.5% at the second visit (4-14 days later). Specificity was generally high (93.8%-100% in various cohorts), though significant cross-reactivity (50%) was observed with West Nile Virus IgM positive samples. Bench testing included precision/reproducibility studies across three sites and analytical specificity testing against various infectious agents and autoimmune markers.
Indicated for patients with clinical symptoms consistent with dengue fever or dengue hemorrhagic fever for the presumptive diagnosis of Dengue virus infection.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
Dengue virus serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antibodies for the detection of dengue virus and dengue antibodies in individuals who have signs and symptoms of dengue fever or dengue hemorrhagic fever. The detection aids in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of dengue fever or dengue hemorrhagic fever caused by dengue virus.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control is FDA's guideline entitled “Class II Special Controls Guideline: Dengue Virus Serological Reagents.” For availability of the guideline document, see § 866.1(e).
Reference Devices
CDC Dengue MAC ELISA
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}------------------------------------------------
### 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY
# A. 510(k) Number:
K100534
い
### B. Purpose for Submission:
De novo authorization for marketing
### C. Measurand:
Dengue IgM antibodies
## D. Type of Test:
IgM Capture ELISA assay
# E. Applicant:
InBios International, Inc.
# F. Proprietary and Established Names:
DENV Detect™ IgM Capture ELISA
### G. Regulatory Information:
- 1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 866.3945 - Dengue virus serological reagents
- 2. Classification:
Class II
- 3. Product code:
OSU
- 4. Panel:
83 Microbiology
{1}------------------------------------------------
# H. Intended Use:
- Intended use(s): 1.
The DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA is for the qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to DEN recombinant antigens (DENRA) in serum for the presumptive clinical laboratory diagnosis of Dengue virus infection. The assay is intended for use only in patients with clinical symptoms consistent with either dengue fever or dengue hemorrhagic fever. Positive results must be confirmed by Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT), or by using the current CDC guidelines for diagnosis of this disease.
- 2. Indication(s) for use:
Same as intended use
- 3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
The device is for prescription use only
- 4. Special instrument requirements:
Not applicable
# I. Device Description:
The DENV Detect™ IgM Capture ELISA is a sandwich-type immunoassay. The test kit includes microtiter wells coated with anti-human IgM antibodies, DEN IgM Negative, and IgM Positive controls, DENV Sample Dilution Buffer, Dengue-derived recombinant antigens (DENRA) and normal cell antigens (NCA). The test kit also contains a HRPlabeled DEN-specific monoclonal antibody and tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) substrate which are used to detect DEN IgM antibodies in the wells.
# J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
- 1. Predicate device name(s):
Not applicable
- 2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
Not applicable
- 3. Comparison with predicate:
Not applicable
# K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
{2}------------------------------------------------
1. CLSI EP5: Evaluation of Precision Performance of Clinical Chemistry Devices-Second Edition, Villanova PA
2. CLSI EP7-A2: Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry; Approved Guideline, 2nd Ed.
#### L. Test Principle:
The DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA consists of one enzymatically amplified sandwichtype immunoassay. In this assay, Dengue IgM Negative Control, Dengue IgM Positive Control and unknown serum samples are diluted with DENV Sample Dilution Buffer, then incubated in microtiter wells which have been coated with anti-human IgM antibodies, followed by incubation with Dengue-derived recombinant antigens (DENRA) and normal cell antigen (NCA) separately. After incubation and washing, the wells are treated with a DEN-specific monoclonal antibody labeled with the enzyme horseradish peroxidase (HRP). After a second incubation and washing step, the wells are incubated with the tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) substrate. An acidic stopping solution is then added and the degree of enzymatic turnover of the substrate is determined by absorbance measurement at 450 nanometers. Above a certain threshold, the ratio of the absorbencies of the DENRA and the control antigen wells determines whether antibodies to Dengue are present.
#### M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
- 1. Analytical performance:
- a. Precision/Reproducibility:
The reproducibility of the DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA was evaluated at three sites and by two different operators at each site for five days. All samples (including controls) were run in triplicate. The study was conducted at a Public Health Lab in Florida, at InBios, and at a reference laboratory in the central U.S. Four serum specimens using clinical specimens diluted into an analyte-negative matrix, plus a positive and a negative control, were used. The four serum specimens (not including positive and negative controls) included a negative specimen, a specimen just below the equivocal range, a specimen within the equivocal range, and a positive specimen. The serum dilutions selected also ensured that the analyte concentration in the specimens represented a clinically relevant range. The results are shown in the following table.
{3}------------------------------------------------
| Sample<br>ID | n | Mean<br>ISR | Intra-Assay<br>(within-run) | | Day-to-Day | | Operator-to-<br>Operator | | Site-to-Site | | Total | |
|---------------------|----|-------------|-----------------------------|-------|------------|-------|--------------------------|-------|--------------|-------|-------|------|
| | | | Swr | %CVwr | SDD | %CVDD | SOO | %CVOO | SSS | %CVSS | ST | %CVT |
| Panel A | 90 | 1.133 | | | | | | | | | | (b) |
| Panel B | 90 | 1.587 | | | | | | | | | | |
| Panel C | 90 | 2.433 | | | | | | | | | | |
| Panel D | 90 | 5.821 | | | | | | | | | | |
| Positive<br>Control | 90 | 11.944 | | | | | | | | | | |
| Negative<br>Control | 90 | 1.148 | | | | | | | | | | |
InBios DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA Reproducibility
All values are calculated as DENRA/NCA ratios
Sy = Standard Deviation of "x" (wr or DD) wr: within run, DD: between day, OO: between operator, SS: between site
%CV: = % Coefficient of Variation
- b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
NA
- Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods): C.
NA
- d. Detection limit:
NA
- e. Analytical specificity:
The DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA assay was screened against a number of serum samples containing IgM antibodies to several different diseases (see the following table). Samples were initially tested in duplicate. Any equivocal and positive samples were retested in triplicate. Samples that tested positive were evaluated for Dengue virus exposure using the plaque reduction neutralization test. Significant cross-reactivity was only observed with West Nile Virus.
{4}------------------------------------------------
| Disease or infectious<br>agent | Number<br>of<br>samples | Dengue<br>Detect ELISA | | Total # of<br>Positive and<br>Equivocal | %<br>Positive<br>or<br>Equivoc<br>al |
|----------------------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| | | Equivoca<br>l | Positive | | |
| Eastern Equine<br>Encephalitis (EEE)*a | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0/10 | 0% |
| Japanese Encephalitis<br>(JE) a | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0/2 | 0% |
| Saint Louis<br>encephalitis (SLE)a | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0/4 | 0% |
| Hepatitis B virus a | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0/10 | 0% |
| Epstein Barr Virus a | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0/15 | 0% |
| Rheumatoid Factor | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0/7 | 0% |
| Hepatitis C virus a | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0/10 | 0% |
| Cytomegalovirus a | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0/10 | 0% |
| Anti-nuclear<br>Antibodies (ANA) a | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0/10 | 0% |
| Varicella zoster virusa | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0/10 | 0% |
| Lyme Disease a | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0/5 | 0% |
| Leptospirosis a,b | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0/11 | 0% |
| West Nile Virus a | 24 | 4 | 8 | 12/24 | 50% |
| Total | 112 | 4 | 8 | 12/128 | 9.4%<br>(12/128) |
#### InBios DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA Cross-reactivity
a The screened samples contained specific IgM antibodies to their respective analyte. IgM cross-reactivity with Malaria has not been evaluated with the Dengue virus.
b One leptospirosis sample that screened reactive with the InBios dengue IgM assay was tested in PRNT and was found to be positive in the PRNT assay (it is not included in this table as it is considered a true positive sample). The total number of samples tested for cross-reactivity sera is 128 after removing three sera (one WNV positive, one JEV positive and one Lepto positive sample) that were also confirmed positive for Dengue Virus by PRNT. Twelve West Nile IgM positive samples out of 24 screened as positive
{5}------------------------------------------------
or equivocal after retesting in the DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA. The overall percent cross-reactivity with West Nile IgM was 50%.
## f. Assay cut-off:
Selection of the Cut-off and Equivocal Range Determination: One hundred and nine true Positive and 97 True Negative serum samples were used for the determination of the optimal ISR cut-off and for establishing an equivocal range. All testing was performed according to this package insert. Two-graph ROC analysis was used to determine the optimal cut-off for the ISR values, giving equal weighting to Sensitivity and Specificity. optimal cut-off of ISR = = """was found. An equivocal range was established and specialist (b) (4) corresponding to a test specificity of 99% with a sensitivity of 91%. ISR values determined test negativity, corresponding to a test sensitivity of 96% and a test (b)(4) are considered equivocal. specificity of 94%. Values between
- 2. Comparison studies:
- a. Method comparison with predicate device:
NA
- b. Matrix comparison:
NA
- 3. Clinical studies:
- a. Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity:
Five different clinical studies were conducted using the InBios DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA to test prospectively and retrospectively collected serum samples to establish assay performance.
### Study Site 1:
This retrospective study utilized serially collected archived samples from individuals displaying signs and symptoms of Dengue infection. Samples were collected from a select date onwards until a predetermined number of reactive samples were reached. The study was conducted using 197 subjects' sera obtained from a reference laboratory in Southeast Asia. Two sample draws (394 total samples collected 1-2 weeks apart) were available and confirmation of DENV was assessed by different methods in the reference laboratory. The final diagnosis for each subject was determined by the reference laboratory using a diagnostic algorithm (validated in-house IgM test result and/or PCR result, and/or a rising IgG titer, and/or a four-fold rise of HAI titer between acute and
{6}------------------------------------------------
convalescent blood draw). Any one test was used to confirm a positive diagnosis.
All the above samples were sequentially collected and tested by the InBios DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA kit. Positive and negative percent agreements with the reference laboratory final diagnosis are tabulated below as a function of the number of days post onset of fever.
| Days post<br>onset fever | Positive Percent<br>Agreement | Negative Percent<br>Agreement | # Equivocal<br>samples with<br>final diagnosis<br>of Positive | # Equivocal<br>samples with<br>final diagnosis<br>of Negative |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2-3 days | 28.6% (2/7) | 100.0% (4/4) | 1 | 0 |
| 4-5 days | 40.3% (27/67) | 78.8% (26/33) | 19 | 7 |
| 6-7 days | 75.9% (63/83) | 88.6% (31/35) | 14 | 3 |
| 8-10 days | 88.8% (71/80) | 97.1% (33/34) | 7 | 1 |
| 11-15 days | 91.7% (22/24) | 100.0% (21/21) | 2 | 0 |
| 16-19 days | 100.0% (5/5) | 100.0% (1/1) | 0 | 0 |
DENV Detect IgM Performance from Study Site 1
The positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) are tabulated throughout by considering the "worst-case scenario." That is, equivocal samples are considered false negative for the PPA and equivocal samples are considered false positive for the NPA.
Note: The above summary compares the InBios assay test results to the final diagnosis determined by the reference lab using PCR, HAI, rise in IgG titer and the in-house IgM ELISA.
# Study Site 2:
A retrospective study of 212 serially collected archived samples from individuals displaying symptoms of Dengue infection were evaluated in a reference lab in the Western United States. Samples from 2008-2009) were collected from a select date onwards until a predetermined number of reactive samples was reached. The majority of the samples originated from the Caribbean and the southern and southeastern regions of the United States (Texas and Florida): however a minority of the samples may also have originated from Africa and Asia. Of the 212 samples tested. 116 were negative, 67 were positive. Twenty nine specimens fell in the equivocal range and were repeated according to the package insert specifications. Upon retest, 13 equivocal samples were subsequently categorized as negative. 11 were again equivocal, and 5 were categorized as positive.
Due to lack of sample volume or access, confirmatory PRNT was conducted on only 5 of the 11 equivocal samples (with 3/5 or 60% being confirmed as DENV positive) and 70 of the 72 positive samples (with 62/70 or 88.6% being confirmed as DENV positive). A total of 130 samples were not screened by PRNT. All 130 samples that were not screened by PRNT were screened by the CDC Dengue MAC ELISA at the CDC and
{7}------------------------------------------------
categorized as negative, equivocal, indeterminate or positive as determined by the CDC MAC ELISA protocol. Thirteen of the samples screened by the CDC MAC ELISA were categorized as indeterminate (n=9) or equivocal (n=4) and were subsequently tested by PRNT to clarify the sample status. Only 3 of the 9 (33.3%) indeterminate samples screened PRNT positive and 2 of the 4 (50%) of the equivocal samples screened PRNT positive.
| | | Final Diagnosis by PRNT | | |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------|------------------------------|------------------------------|----------------------|
| | | DENV Positive<br>(# samples) | DENV Negative<br>(# samples) | Total<br>(# samples) |
| | Positive | 62 | 8 | 70 |
| DENV Detect<br>IgM Capture<br>ELISA Result | Equivocal | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| | Negative | 4 | 3 | 7 |
| | Total | 69 | 13 | 82 |
#### Reactivity of Study Site 2 Samples - Confirmed by CDC MAC ELISA2
| | | CDC MAC ELISA Resulta | | |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------|------------------------------|------------------------------|----------------------|
| | | DENV Positive<br>(# samples) | DENV Negative<br>(# samples) | Total<br>(# samples) |
| DENV Detect<br>IgM Capture<br>ELISA Result | Positive | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| | Equivocal | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| | Negative | 4 | 118 | 122 |
| | Total | 6 | 124 | 130 |
13 samples were CDC MAC Indeterminate or Equivocal and were tested by PRNT to ultimately classify sample status. Positive and negative percent agreements are calculated by tabulating the results from both PRNT Table and CDC MAC ELISA Tables
Positive Percent Agreement: (63/75) 84.0% (73.9-90.8%).
Negative Percent Agreement: (121/137) 88.3% (81.8-92.8%).
In the above calculations, the percent agreements incorporate both the data from the
{8}------------------------------------------------
PRNT and CDC MAC ELISA tables. CDC MAC ELISA equivocal and indeterminate samples (n = 13) were classified by PRNT.
## Study Site 3:
The specificity of the DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA was evaluated at a public health (b) (4) This retrospective study used 289 lab archived samples (collected 2005-2008) from symptomatic subjects with and without other diseases (including 136 individuals with West Nile Virus, Hepatitis A, B or C, HIV, Legionnaire's Disease, RMSF, and Lyme disease). All testing and diagnosis was performed at the public health laboratory. All samples were collected from individuals (0)(4) state, which has never had an outbreak of Dengue virus. from the same Therefore these samples were assumed to be Dengue virus negative based on the history of dengue incidences in this general area (http://doh.sd.gov/ID/AnnualReport/1997-2007.pdf). After initial testing and re-screening of equivocal samples tested negative, 22 samples repeatedly tested equivocal and 52 samples tested positive. Samples that were either test positive or equivocal in the initial screening were included for PRNT testing (74 samples). It was observed that virtually all of the cross-reactivity was due to West Nile Virus.
| | | Final Diagnosis | | |
|--------------------------------------------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| | | DENV<br>Negative, no<br>other disease<br>present (# of<br>samples) | DENV Negative,<br>other disease<br>present<br>(# of samples) | DENV PRNT<br>Positivea |
| DENV<br>Detect IgM<br>Capture<br>ELISA<br>Result | Positive | 1 | 40b | 11 |
| | Equivocal | 0 | 16b | 6 |
| | Negative | 100 | 115 | 0 |
| | Total | 101 | 171 | 17 |
### Reactivity of Retrospective Samples from Dengue Non-Endemic Area Study Site 3 in the US
4 Virtually all observed DENV PRNT positive samples had low PRNT titers and were identified as West Nile positive serum samples, indicative of WNV cross-reactivity with DENV PRNT (15).
Note: All of the observed false positives and the high number of equivocal samples are due solely to the cross-reactivity observed with West Nile positive samples (see Table 5).
The samples may be further subdivided by the disease status of the individual. For instance, individuals who are West Nile Virus (WNV) positive may cross-react with the DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA. The results for Study Site 3 are shown in the following tables.
{9}------------------------------------------------
#### Cross-reactivity of the DENV Detect IgM ELISA Using Samples from Study Site 3
| | | Sample Status | |
|--------------------------------------------------|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| | | WNV Negative, other<br>disease present (# of<br>samples) | WNV Positive (# of<br>samples) |
| DENV<br>Detect IgM<br>Capture<br>ELISA<br>Result | Positive | 0 | 40 |
| | Equivocal | 0 | 16 |
| | Negative | 35 | 80 |
| | Total | 35 | 136 |
Negative Percent Agreement for samples with no disease detected: (100/101) 99.0% (94.1-100%). [See table above].
Negative Percent Agreement for samples with diseases other than West Nile Virus: (35/35) 100% (88.2-100%).
Negative Percent Agreement for samples with West Nile Virus: (80/136) 58.8% (50.4-66.7%).
None of the 35 samples from subjects without DENV but with RMSF (n = 5), Legionnaires' Disease (n=2), Lyme Disease (n=2), HIV (n=8), Hep A(n=2), Hep B (n=5) or Hep C (n=11) were equivocal or positive by the InBios DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA.
In the 136 subjects without DENV but who had West Nile Virus, 80 were DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA test negative, 16 were in the equivocal range and 40 were test positive.
### Study Site 4:
The specificity of the DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA was evaluated at a State Dept. of Health located in Southern US using 199 archived samples (collected from 2004-2008) from symptomatic subjects presumed to be DENV negative. Most patients displayed symptoms of headache and fever while others also displayed neurological symptoms. In initial testing. 183 samples were test negative. 10 fell in the equivocal range and were repeated according to the package insert specifications, and 6 were test positive. Upon retest, all 10 samples in the equivocal range were subsequently categorized as test negative.
All 199 samples were further screened at the CDC Dengue IgM (MAC) ELISA to classify the specimens as Dengue negative, equivocal, positive or uninterpretable (non-specific background too high). Please note these classifications are the CDC classifications for their kit. 16 samples were considered uninterpretable by the CDC Dengue IgM (MAC) ELISA but were confirmed negative using PRNT testing. These samples are considered negative in the tables below. One sample tested equivocal and one sample tested positive with the CDC Dengue IgM ELISA.
{10}------------------------------------------------
| Reactivity of Retrospective Samples from Dengue Non-Endemic Area (Study Site 4) | | |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|
| | | |
| | | CDC Dengue IgM (MAC) ELISA | | |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------------|
| | | DENV<br>Positive<br>(# samples) | DENV<br>Equivocal<br>(# samples) | DENV<br>Negative<br>(# samples) |
| | Positive | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| DENV Detect<br>IgM Capture<br>ELISA Result | Equivocal | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | Negative | 1 | 1 | 191 |
| | Total | 1 | 1 | 197 |
Negative Percent Agreement: (191/197) 97.0% (93.4-98.7%).
# Study Site 5:
In a prospective study of 55 symptomatic subjects (mean age, 35.1 years - samples collected in 2009) from a Dengue endemic region in South America), each subject had samples collected at presentation as well as at a second visit 4-14 (mean 9) days later and both samples were tested with the DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA. Equivocal samples at both visits were re-tested using the DENV Detect IgM Capture ELISA. Confirmatory PRNT testing was performed on samples at visit 1 and at visit 2. PRNT changes of 4-fold or greater between visits 1 and 2. indicative of current Dengue infection (11), were present in 39 subjects. Samples are considered to have a 4-fold increase in PRNT levels if the PRNT value increases from, for instance, PRNT = 10 on the first visit to PRNT = 40 by the second visit for a given Dengue subtype. Samples that demonstrated a PRNT value of <10 that only increased to a PRNT = 10 (n = 4 samples) were not considered to have a 4-fold increase.
# Reactivity of Prospective Samples from Dengue Endemic Area (Site 5) at First Visitê
| DENV<br>Detect IgM<br>Capture<br>ELISA<br>Result | | Final Diagnosis | |
|--------------------------------------------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| | | Recent Dengue<br>infectionb<br>(# samples) | No signs of recent<br>Dengue infectionc<br>(# samples) |
| DENV<br>Detect IgM<br>Capture<br>ELISA<br>Result | Positive | 13 | 0 |
| | Equivocal | 4 | 1 |
| | Negative | 22 | 15 |
{11}------------------------------------------------
| | Total: | 39 | 16 |
|--|--------|----|----|
|--|--------|----|----|
a Positive Percent Agreement: (13/39) 33.3% (20.6-49.1%).
Negative Percent Agreement: (15/16) 93.8% (69.7-100%).
6 PRNT positive and ≥ 4-fold increase in PRNT between first and second visits
6 PRNT positive and <4-fold PRNT increase between first and second visits
The results for serum samples from the second visit by the patients (4-14 days later) are shown in the following tables. As can be readily noted below, the sensitivity of the assav increases by this second visit time point.
### Reactivity of Prospective Samples from Dengue Endemic Area (Site 5) at Second Visitª
| | | Final Diagnosis | |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| | | Recent Dengue<br>infectionb<br>(# samples) | No signs of recent<br>Dengue infectionc<br>(# samples) |
| DENV Detect<br>IgM Capture<br>ELISA Result | Positive | 31 | 1 |
| | Equivocal | 2 | 0 |
| | Negative | 6 | 15 |
| | Total | 39 | 16 |
aPositive Percent Agreement: (31/39) 79.5% (64.2-89.5%).
b Negative Percent Agreement: (15/16) 93.8% (69.7-100%).
"PRNT positive and ≥ 4-fold increase in PRNT between first and second visits
It should be recalled, as noted in the "Interpretation of Results" section, that equivocal samples should be repeated and sent for confirmatory testing if they remain equivocal.
# 4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable.
- 5. Expected values/Reference range:
Not applicable.
{12}------------------------------------------------
### N. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Part 809.10.
# O. Conclusion:
1. The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
2. The petition for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation for this device is accepted. The device is classified as Class II under regulation 21 CFR § 866.3945. The special control guidance document Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: For "In Vitro" Diagnostic Devices for the Detection of Dengue Virus Antigen and Antibody will shortly be available shortly.
Predicate graph will load when search results are available.
Embedding visualization will load when search results are available.
PDF viewer will load when search results are available.
Loading panels...
Select an item from Submissions
Click any panel, subpart, regulation, product code, or device to see details here.
Section Matches
Results will appear here.
Product Code Matches
Results will appear here.
Special Control Matches
Results will appear here.
Loading collections...
Loading
My Alerts
You will receive email notifications based on the filters and frequency you set for each alert.
Sort by:
Create Alert
Search Filters
Agent Token
Create a read-only bearer token for Claude, ChatGPT, or other agents that can call HTTP APIs.
Copy this now. It will not be shown again.
Connected apps
Apps you authorized through browser sign-in. Disconnecting revokes their access immediately.
Learn the FDA Browser
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.