K050523 · Diadexus, Inc. · NOE · Jun 15, 2005 · Immunology
Device Facts
Record ID
K050523
Device Name
DIADEXUS PLAC TEST
Applicant
Diadexus, Inc.
Product Code
NOE · Immunology
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2005
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 866.5600
Device Class
Class 2
AI Performance
Output
Algorithm
Acceptance
Observed
Dev DS
Dev Readers
Test DS
Test Readers
Ischemic stroke risk prediction
—
—
Hazard ratio 1.81 (95% CI 1.22–2.69, p=0.0034) for highest tertile (>420 ng/mL) vs lowest tertile (<310 ng/mL) in multivariate model.
—
—
Case-cohort study of 956 patients (194 ischemic stroke cases, 762 controls) from a multi-center epidemiologic study.
—
Indications for Use
The diaDexus PLAC™ test is an enzyme immunoassay for the quantitative determination of Lp-PLA2 (lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2) in human plasma, to be used in conjunction with clinical evaluation and patient risk assessment as an aid in predicting risk for coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke associated with atherosclerosis.
Device Story
The diaDexus PLAC™ test is a sandwich enzyme immunoassay (EIA) used to quantify Lp-PLA2 levels in human plasma. The kit utilizes monoclonal anti-Lp-PLA2 antibodies (2C10 and 4B4) coated on microwell strips and conjugated to horseradish peroxidase. The device is operated by laboratory personnel in a clinical setting. Input consists of human plasma samples; the assay produces an absorbance signal measured via spectrophotometry. A standard curve is generated using provided calibrators, and sample concentrations are interpolated using point-to-point curve fitting software. Results assist clinicians in assessing patient risk for coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke associated with atherosclerosis, providing prognostic information beyond traditional risk factors.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical evidence provided via a case-cohort study of 956 patients (47-69 years old) from a multi-center epidemiologic study. Participants were followed for ~9 years for development of CHD or ischemic stroke. Analysis included 194 ischemic stroke cases and 762 controls. Cox regression models (univariate and multivariate adjusted for demographics, CHD, and other prognostic factors) demonstrated that Lp-PLA2 levels >420 ng/mL (highest tertile) are a predictor of risk for ischemic stroke associated with atherosclerosis compared to levels <310 ng/mL (lowest tertile). Hazard ratios ranged from 1.62 to 2.09 depending on the model.
Technological Characteristics
Sandwich-type enzyme immunoassay; mouse monoclonal antibody-coated microtiter stripwells; horseradish peroxidase-labeled antibody; colorimetric substrate; spectrophotometric detection at 450 nm; requires microtiter plate reader (bandwidth ≤10 nm, optical density range ≥3).
Indications for Use
Indicated for use in conjunction with clinical evaluation and patient risk assessment to aid in predicting risk for coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke associated with atherosclerosis in adult patients.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A low-density lipoprotein immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the low-density lipoprotein in serum and other body fluids. Measurement of low-density lipoprotein in serum may aid in the diagnosis of disorders of lipid (fat) metabolism and help to identify young persons at risk from cardiovascular diseases.
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
k050523
B. Purpose for Submission:
Clearance of new intended use for previously cleared device
C. Measurand:
Lipoprotein-Associated Phospholipase A₂ (Lp-PLA₂)
D. Type of Test:
Quantitative Enzyme Immunoassay
E. Applicant:
diaDexus, Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
diaDexus PLAC™ Test
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR §866.5600, Low-density lipoprotein immunological test system
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
NOE, test, system, immunoassay, lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A₂
4. Panel:
Immunology (82)
{1}
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
See indications for use below.
2. Indication(s) for use:
The diaDexus PLAC™ Test is an enzyme immunoassay for the quantitative determination of Lp-PLA2 (Lipoprotein-Associated Phospholipase A₂) in human plasma, to be used in conjunction with clinical evaluation and patient risk assessment as an aid in predicting risk for coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke associated with atherosclerosis.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For professional use only
To be used in conjunction with clinical evaluation and patient risk assessment.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Microtiter plate reader with a bandwidth of 10 nm or less and an optical density range of 3 or greater at 450nm
I. Device Description:
The diaDexus PLAC™ Test contains mouse monoclonal antibody coated microtiter stripwells (96), calibration materials (6), buffers, sample diluent, conjugate, substrate and stopping solution.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
diaDexus PLAC™ Test
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k030477, k040101
3. Comparison with predicate:
The device is exactly the same as the predicate device except that a new intended use has been included (prediction of the risk for ischemic stroke associated with atherosclerosis).
{2}
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
None were referenced.
L. Test Principle:
The diaDexus PLAC™ Test is a sandwich-type enzyme immunoassay that uses two anti-Lp-PLA₂ monoclonal antibodies. One antibody is immobilized on the bottom of microtiter wells. Sample and buffer are incubated in the wells and the unbound fractions are washed off. The second antibody (labeled with horseradish peroxidase) is added and incubated to bind with the Lp-PLA₂ bound to the surface of the well. The excess is washed away, and a colorimetric substrate is added and allowed to react with the peroxidase to form a blue color. A stop solution converts the resulting color from blue to yellow which is measure spectrophotometrically at 450 nm. The measured absorbance is directly proportional to the amount of Lp-PLA₂ in the sample.
M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
Analytical performance was established under k030477.
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Analytical performance was established under k030477.
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
Analytical performance was established under k030477.
d. Detection limit:
Analytical performance was established under k030477.
e. Analytical specificity:
Analytical performance was established under k030477.
f. Assay cut-off:
See clinical studies in 3 c. below.
{3}
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
Not applicable.
b. Matrix comparison:
Not applicable.
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity:
Not applicable. See clinical information below.
b. Clinical specificity:
Not applicable. See clinical information below.
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a. and b. are not applicable):
A study was conducted by the manufacturer using 956 samples from patients who were part of a large multi-center epidemiologic study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Patients, 47 to 69 years of age, were free from coronary heart disease or stroke at the start of the study and followed for the development of coronary heart disease (CHD) or stroke for ~9 years. This was a case-cohort study where samples from all the ischemic stroke cases associated with atherosclerosis (194) were tested together with 762 appropriately matched participants without CHD or stroke (controls).
Cox regression models were used to evaluate the association of Lp-PLA2 and ischemic stroke associated with atherosclerosis, using a univariate analysis (Model 1), a univariate analysis adjusted for demographics (Model 2), and a multivariate model adjusted for demographics and other prognostic factors (Model 3). The same cutpoints of Lp-PLA2 as were used in the original CHD risk indication were investigated in this study (420 and 310 ng/mL, the 67th and 33rd percentiles, respectively) to divide study participants into tertiles. The hazard ratios of the Cox regression analyses demonstrated that Lp-PLA2 may be used as a predictor of risk for ischemic stroke associated with atherosclerosis for the highest tertile when compared to the lowest tertile of Lp-PLA2. See tables below for additional information.
4
{4}
Results of Cox Regression Models – Ischemic Stroke Associated with Atherosclerosis Analysis Population
| Lp-PLA_{2} (ng/mL) | Lp-PLA_{2} Risk Ratio (95 % CI, p-value)* | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | < 310 | 310 - 420 | < 420 |
| # ischemic stroke cases associated with atherosclerosis / total subjects | 47 / 283 (16.6 %) | 44 / 305 (14.4 %) | 103 / 368 (28 %) |
| Model 1 | 1.0 | 0.85 (0.57 – 1.29, p=0.45) | 1.79 (1.27 – 2.52, p=0.0010) |
| Model 2 | 1.0 | 0.89 (0.59 – 1.35, p=0.58) | 2.09 (1.46 – 3.01, p=0.0001) |
| Model 3 | 1.0 | 0.89 (0.58 – 1.36, p=0.59) | 1.81 (1.22 – 2.69, p=0.0034) |
*the lowest tertile with Lp-PLA<sub>2</sub> values <310 ng/mL is used as a reference group
Model 1: univariate analysis
Model 2: adjusted for age, race, and gender
Model 3: adjusted for age, race, gender, diabetes, LDL, HDL, blood pressure, smoking, BMI, and CRP
Further analyses were performed to determine if Lp-PLA<sub>2</sub> was predictive of ischemic stroke associated with atherosclerosis across the complete range of systolic blood pressure (SBP) in the population, and to determine whether blood pressure and Lp-PLA<sub>2</sub> were additive in assessing risk for ischemic stroke. Systolic blood pressure tertile cutpoints were assigned by the 33rd and 67th percentiles of the population (113 and 130 mm Hg, respectively). The study population was divided into the low, mid, and high range (1st, 2nd, and 3rd tertile) of SBP and the low, mid, and high range of Lp-PLA<sub>2</sub>. The relative risk of each group was compared to the risk of events associated with the group in the 1st tertile of the two variables.
Risk Ratios of Ischemic Stroke Associated with Atherosclerosis: Additive Effects of Lp-PLA<sub>2</sub> and Systolic Blood Pressure
| Lp-PLA_{2} (ng/mL) | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | <310 | 310-420 | >420 |
| SBP (mm Hg) | # ischemic stroke cases associated with atherosclerosis/total subjects in category | 47/283 (16.6%) | 44/305 (14.4%) | 103/368 (28.0%) |
| <113 | 29/270 (10.7%) | 1.00 | 1.00 (0.34-2.99, p=0.99) | 2.45 (0.96-6.25, p=0.06) |
| 113-130 | 60/337 (17.8%) | 2.49 (0.98-6.31, p=0.05) | 1.42 (0.53-3.84, p=0.49) | 3.72 (1.56-8.91, p=0.003) |
| >130 | 105/349 (30.1%) | 3.67 (1.50-8.99, p=0.004) | 3.99 (1.64-9.69, p=0.002) | 6.40 (2.75-14.86, p<0.0001) |
{5}
CHD was a strong predictor of ischemic stroke associated with atherosclerosis in all three models (see Tables below). However, the third tertile of $\mathrm{Lp - PLA_2}$ remained a predictor even when CHD was incorporated in all three models with risk ratios decreasing by less than 0.2 units in all cases.
Results of Cox Regression Models – Ischemic Stroke Associated with Atherosclerosis Analysis Population (additional adjustment for CHD included in all 3 models)
| Lp-PLA2 (ng/mL) | Lp-PLA2 Risk Ratio (95% CI, p-value)* | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | <310 | 310-420 | >420 |
| # ischemic stroke cases associated with atherosclerosis / total subjects | 47/283 (16.6%) | 44/305 (14.4%) | 103/368 (28.0%) |
| Model 1 | 1.0 | 0.82 (0.55-1.24, p=0.36) | 1.62 (1.14-2.29, p=0.0069) |
| Model 2 | 1.0 | 0.89 (0.59-1.34, p=0.57) | 2.03 (1.41-2.93, p=0.0001) |
| Model 3 | 1.0 | 0.86 (0.56-1.31, p=0.48) | 1.75 (1.18-2.60, p=0.0057) |
* The lowest tertile with Lp-PLA2 values $< {310}\mathrm{\;{ng}}/\mathrm{{mL}}$ is used as the reference group
Model 1: adjusted for CHD
Model 2: adjusted for age, race, gender, CHD
Model 3: adjusted for age, race, gender, diabetes, LDL, HDL, blood pressure, smoking, BMI, CRP, CHD
Results of Cox Regression Models –Ischemic Stroke Associated with Atherosclerosis Analysis Population Predictive power of CHD diagnosis
| | CHD Risk Ratio (95% CI, p-value)* | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| CHD Status | No CHD | CHD |
| # ischemic stroke cases associated with atherosclerosis / total subjects | 146/849 (17.2%) | 48/107 (44.9%) |
| Model 1 | 1.0 | 2.94 (2.11-4.09, p<0.0001) |
| Model 2 | 1.0 | 2.90 (2.07-4.06, p<0.0001) |
| Model 3 | 1.0 | 2.26 (1.58-3.23, p<0.0001) |
* "No CHD" is used as the reference group
Model 1: adjusted for Lp-PLA2
Model 2: adjusted for age, race, gender, Lp-PLA2
Model 3: adjusted for age, race, gender, diabetes, LDL, HDL, blood pressure, smoking, BMI, CRP, Lp-PLA2
{6}
4. Clinical cut-off:
The hazard ratios of the Cox regression analyses demonstrated that Lp-PLA2 may be used as a predictor of risk for ischemic stroke associated with atherosclerosis for the highest tertile (>420 ng/mL) when compared to the lowest tertile (<310 ng/mL) of Lp-PLA2. See tables above for additional information.
5. Expected values/Reference range:
See k030477.
N. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Part 809.10.
O. Conclusion:
The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
7
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.