K061005 · Applied Dna Technologies, Inc. · DKZ · Oct 4, 2006 · Clinical Toxicology
Device Facts
Record ID
K061005
Device Name
ACCUSTEP DOA SINGLE AND MULTI-STRIP SCREEN PANELS
Applicant
Applied Dna Technologies, Inc.
Product Code
DKZ · Clinical Toxicology
Decision Date
Oct 4, 2006
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 862.3100
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
The Applied DNA Technologies ACCUSTEP DOA Panels are rapid chromatographic immunoassays for the qualitative and simultaneous detection of one to ten of the following drugs in a variety of combinations in human urine. The designed cutoff concentrations and direct calibrator for these drugs are as follows: [Table of analytes: Amphetamine, Barbiturate, Benzodiazepines, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methamphetamine, Methadone, Morphine, Phencyclidine, Nortriptyline]. These test kits are intended for health care professional use only. This assay provided only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) or Liquid Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS) are the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test result, particularly when preliminary positive results are indicated.
Device Story
ACCUSTEP DOA Screen Panels are rapid, one-step, colloidal gold-based chromatographic immunoassays; designed for qualitative detection of drugs of abuse in human urine. Device utilizes lateral flow technology; drug-specific antibodies conjugated to colloidal gold particles react with target analytes in urine samples. Results appear as visual lines on cassette or dipstick format. Intended for use by healthcare professionals in clinical settings to provide preliminary screening results. Positive results require confirmation via GC/MS or LC/MS. Device assists clinicians in identifying potential drug presence; supports clinical decision-making when combined with professional judgment.
Clinical Evidence
Performance evaluated using blind-labeled spiked control studies and clinical specimen correlation studies. Correlation with GC/MS methodology exceeded 92% across all analytes. Specificity and sensitivity demonstrated through comparison of presumptive positive/negative results against GC/MS reference method. Overall agreement ranged from 93.9% to 98.9% depending on the analyte.
Technological Characteristics
Lateral flow immunochromatographic assay; competitive binding principle. Formats: cassette (plastic housing with specimen well/window) and dipstick. Qualitative readout. No instrumentation required (visually read). Internal procedural control line. Urine sample matrix.
Indications for Use
Indicated for health care professionals to perform qualitative, simultaneous detection of 1-10 drugs (AMP, BAR, BZO, COC, THC, MET, MTD, MOR, PCP, NOR) in human urine. For professional prescription use only. Provides preliminary analytical results requiring GC/MS or LC/MS confirmation.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
An amphetamine test system is a device intended to measure amphetamine, a central nervous system stimulating drug, in plasma and urine. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of amphetamine use or overdose and in monitoring levels of amphetamine to ensure appropriate therapy.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). An amphetamine test system is not exempt if it is intended for any use other than employment or insurance testing or is intended for Federal drug testing programs. The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 862.9, provided the test system is intended for employment and insurance testing and includes a statement in the labeling that the device is intended solely for use in employment and insurance testing, and does not include devices intended for Federal drug testing programs (*e.g.,* programs run by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. military).
Predicate Devices
ACON One Step Multi-Drug and Multi-Line Screen Test Card and Device (K023946)
ACON One Step Multi-Drug and Multi-Line Screen Test Card and Device (K020313)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
k061005
B. Purpose for Submission:
New product
C. Measurand:
Amphetamine, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepines, Cocaine, Marijuana, Morphine, Methamphetamine, Methadone, Phencyclidine, and Nortriptyline
D. Type of Test:
Qualitative lateral flow immunochromatographic test
E. Applicant:
Applied DNA Technologies Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
ACCUSTEP Single and Multi-Strip Cassette/Dipstick DOA Screen Panels
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR §862.3100: Test System, Amphetamine
21 CFR §862.3150: Test System, Barbiturate
21 CFR §862.3170: Enzyme Immunoassay, Benzodiazepine
21 CFR §862.3250: Enzyme Immunoassay, Cocaine and Cocaine Metabolites
21 CFR §862.3870: Enzyme Immunoassay, Cannabinoids
21 CFR §862.3640: Morphine test system
21 CFR §862.3610: Test System, Methamphetamine
21 CFR §862.3620: Methadone test system
21 CFR §862.3100: Test System, Amphetamine (Phencyclidine)
21 CFR §862.3910: Tricyclic Antidepressant Drugs Test System
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
DKZ, DIS, JXM, DIO, LDJ, DNK, DJC, DJR, LCM, LFG
4. Panel:
Toxicology (91)
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
See Indications for Use.
{1}
2
2. Indication(s) for use:
The Applied DNA Technologies ACCUSTEP DOA Panels are rapid chromatographic immunoassays for the qualitative and simultaneous detection of one to ten of the following drugs in a variety of combinations in human urine. The designed cutoff concentrations and direct calibrator for these drugs are as follows:
| Analyte | Abbreviation | Calibrator | Cutoff Concentration |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Amphetamine | AMP | Amphetamine | 1000 ng/ml |
| Barbiturate | BAR | Secobarbital | 300 ng/ml |
| Benzodiazepines | BZO | Benzodiazepine | 300 ng/ml |
| Cocaine | COC | Benzoylecgonine | 300 ng/ml |
| Marijuana | THC | 11-nor-Δ⁹-THC9-COOH 50 ng/ml | |
| Methamphetamine | MET | Methamphetamine | 1000 ng/ml |
| Methadone | MTD | Methadone | 300 ng/ml |
| Morphine | MOR | Morphine | 2000 ng/ml |
| Phencyclidine | PCP | Phencyclidine | 25 ng/ml |
| Nortriptyline | NOR | Nortriptyline | 1000 ng/ml |
These test kits are intended for health care professional use only.
This assay provided only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) or Liquid Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS) are the preferred confirmatory method.
Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test result, particularly when preliminary positive results are indicated.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For professional prescription use only.
This assay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS or LC/MS are the preferred confirmatory methods.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Not applicable, as the devices are visually-read single-use devices.
I. Device Description:
The ACCUSTEP DOA test has two formats: cassette and dipstick. These two formats are manufactured with the same formulation, components, and manufacturing processes. The Cassette contains a testing in a plastic housing with a specimen well and a window to read the test results. A specimen pipette is included with the Test Device, but a specimen collection container is not included with either test format.
{2}
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
ACON One Step Multi-Drug Multi-Line Screen Test Card/Device
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k020313, k023946
3. Comparison with predicate:
The device is similar to or the same as to the previously cleared predicate(s) in the following ways: test principles, indication for use, cut-off concentration(s), use in a professional setting, sample matrix, endpoint, and test time.
The devices differ by manufacturer, specific monoclonal antibodies used, and the proposed device is not cleared for use in point-of-care settings.
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
None referenced by the manufacturer.
L. Test Principle:
The devices employ lateral flow immunochromatographic technology and are based on the principle of competitive binding. Drug, if present in concentrations below the cutoff level, will not saturate the binding sites of antibody-coated particles in the device. The antibody-coated particles will then be captured by immobilized drug-specific conjugate and a colored line will appear in the test line region. A line will not form if the sample contains drug in excess of the cutoff level because the drug will saturate all the binding sites of the drug-specific antibody. Each strip in the device contains a procedural control. Formation of a line in the control line region indicates that the proper volume of urine has been added and membrane wicking has occurred. If a line does not form in the control region then the test is not valid and users are cautioned to repeat the test. A ‘presumptive positive’ is determined by the appearance of a procedural control line AND no line appearing next to the test region.
M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
Drug-free urine was spiked with drug to concentrations of 50%, 75%, 125%, 150%, and 300% of the cutoff; test strips from one lot and cassettes from one lot were tested in duplicate for 15 or 19 days respectively (n = 30 or 38 per format; 60 or 76 total). Results were read by three observers after five minutes as ‘positive’ or as ‘negative’. There was no significant difference in precision between the two lots or between the readers:
{3}
| Drug/Test Conc | % Correct by Reader | | | | Drug/Test Conc | % Correct by Reader | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AMP (n = 60) | 1 | 2 | 3 | | MOR (n = 60) | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Negative | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Negative | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 50% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 50% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 75% c/o | 83 | 83 | 82 | | 75% c/o | 87 | 88 | 88 |
| 125% c/o | 83 | 83 | 83 | | 125% c/o | 88 | 92 | 97 |
| 150% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 150% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 300% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 300% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| BAR (n = 60) | 1 | 2 | 3 | | MTD (n = 76) | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Negative | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Negative | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 50% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 50% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 75% c/o | 88 | 88 | 87 | | 75% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 125% c/o | 82 | 80 | 82 | | 125% c/o | 100 | 100 | 99 |
| 150% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 150% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 300% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 300% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| BZO (n = 60) | 1 | 2 | 3 | | PCP (n = 76) | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Negative | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Negative | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 50% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 50% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 75% c/o | 85 | 87 | 85 | | 75% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 125% c/o | 83 | 83 | 85 | | 125% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 150% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 150% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 300% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 300% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| COC (n = 76) | 1 | 2 | 3 | | NOR (n = 60) | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Negative | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Negative | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 50% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 50% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 75% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 75% c/o | 88 | 88 | 85 |
| 125% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 125% c/o | 85 | 85 | 85 |
| 150% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 150% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 300% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 300% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| MET (n = 76) | 1 | 2 | 3 | | THC (n = 60) | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Negative | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Negative | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 50% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 50% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 75% c/o | 99 | 100 | 97 | | 75% c/o | 85 | 85 | 85 |
| 125% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 125% c/o | 87 | 83 | 87 |
| 150% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 150% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 300% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 300% c/o | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| | | | | | | | | |
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Not applicable. The assay is intended for qualitative use.
{4}
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods): This device has internal process controls. A red line appearing in the control region confirms sufficient sample volume and adequate membrane wicking. Users are informed not to interpret the test if no line forms in the control region.
Control standards are not supplied with this device; however it is good laboratory practice to confirm the test procedure and to verify proper test performance. Users should follow all applicable guidelines for testing QC materials.
d. Detection limit:
To test the analytical sensitivity of the devices, drug-free urine was spiked with drug to concentrations of 50%, 75%, 125%, 150%, and 300% of the cutoff; 25 test strips from one lot and 25 cassettes from one lot were tested. Drug concentrations were confirmed by GC/MS:
| Amphetamine | | Strip | | | Cassette | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conc (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Reading | | % Correct | Reading | | % Correct |
| | | Neg | Pos | | Neg | Pos | |
| 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 1000 | Cutoff | 7 | 18 | 72 | 9 | 16 | 64 |
| 1250 | 125% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 3000 | 300% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| Barbiturates | | Strip | | | Cassette | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conc (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Reading | | % Correct | Reading | | % Correct |
| | | Neg | Pos | | Neg | Pos | |
| 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 1000 | Cutoff | 5 | 20 | 80 | 6 | 19 | 76 |
| 1250 | 125% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 3000 | 300% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| Benzodiazepines | | Strip | | | Cassette | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conc (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Reading | | % Correct | Reading | | % Correct |
| | | Neg | Pos | | Neg | Pos | |
| 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
{5}
| Benzodiazepines | | Strip | | | Cassette | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conc (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Reading | | % Correct | Reading | | % Correct |
| | | Neg | Pos | | Neg | Pos | |
| 750 | 75% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 1000 | Cutoff | 9 | 16 | 64 | 8 | 17 | 68 |
| 1250 | 125% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 3000 | 300% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| Cocaine | | Strip | | | Cassette | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conc (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Reading | | % Correct | Reading | | % Correct |
| | | Neg | Pos | | Neg | Pos | |
| 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 1000 | Cutoff | 5 | 20 | 80 | 6 | 19 | 76 |
| 1250 | 125% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 3000 | 300% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| Marijuana (THC) | | Strip | | | Cassette | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conc (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Reading | | % Correct | Reading | | % Correct |
| | | Neg | Pos | | Neg | Pos | |
| 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 1000 | Cutoff | 10 | 15 | 60 | 7 | 18 | 72 |
| 1250 | 125% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 3000 | 300% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| Methadone | | Strip | | | Cassette | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conc (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Reading | | % Correct | Reading | | % Correct |
| | | Neg | Pos | | Neg | Pos | |
| 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 1000 | Cutoff | 2 | 23 | 92 | 4 | 21 | 84 |
| 1250 | 125% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 3000 | 300% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
{6}
| Methamphetamine | | Strip | | | Cassette | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conc (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Reading | | % Correct | Reading | | % Correct |
| | | Neg | Pos | | Neg | Pos | |
| 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 1000 | Cutoff | 11 | 14 | 56 | 12 | 13 | 52 |
| 1250 | 125% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 3000 | 300% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| Morphine | | Strip | | | Cassette | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conc (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Reading | | % Correct | Reading | | % Correct |
| | | Neg | Pos | | Neg | Pos | |
| 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 1000 | Cutoff | 7 | 18 | 72 | 6 | 19 | 76 |
| 1250 | 125% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 3000 | 300% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| Phencyclidine | | Strip | | | Cassette | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conc (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Reading | | % Correct | Reading | | % Correct |
| | | Neg | Pos | | Neg | Pos | |
| 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 1000 | Cutoff | 4 | 21 | 84 | 5 | 20 | 80 |
| 1250 | 125% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 3000 | 300% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| Nortriptyline | | Strip | | | Cassette | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Conc (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | Reading | | % Correct | Reading | | % Correct |
| | | Neg | Pos | | Neg | Pos | |
| 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| 1000 | Cutoff | 4 | 21 | 84 | 5 | 20 | 80 |
| 1250 | 125% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
| 3000 | 300% | 0 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 100 |
{7}
# e. Analytical specificity:
The drugs tested for by these devices, their known metabolites, and related compounds were spiked into drug-free urine then serially diluted and tested until the concentrations which yielded a negative result were obtained. The following tables list the lowest concentration (ng/mL) which yields a positive result for the compound being tested.
ACCUSTEP DOA Tests: Cross Reactivity of Compounds
| Amphetamine - related compounds | Conc | Methamphetamine - related compounds | Conc |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| d-Amphetamine | 1000 | d-Methamphetamine | 1000 |
| l-Amphetamine | >50,000 | d-Amphetamine | >40,000 |
| d-Methamphetamine | >20,000 | Chloroquine | 10,000 |
| l-Methamphetamine | >20,000 | (+/-) Ephedrine | >100,000 |
| 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) | 2,400 | l-Methamphetamine | 15,000 |
| 3,4-Methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) | >20,000 | 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) | >10,000 |
| 3,4-Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA) | >100,000 | 3,4-Methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) | 2,000 |
| Paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA) | 1000 | 3,4-Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA) | 20,000 |
| | | Procaine | 100,000 |
| Barbiturate-related compounds | Conc | Morphine-related compounds | Conc |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Secobarbital | 300 | Morphine | 2,000 |
| Allobarbital | 5000 | Codeine | 2,000 |
| Alphenal | 625 | Diacetyl Morphin (Heroin) | 2,000 |
| Amobarbital | 600 | Ethylmorphine | 600 |
| Aprobarbital | 600 | Hydromorphone | 15,000 |
| Butabarbital | 75 | Hydrocodone | 15,000 |
| Butalbital | 3000 | Oxymorphon | >20,000 |
| Hexobarbital | >100,000 | Oxycodone | >20,000 |
| Pentobarbital | 300 | Merperidine | >100,000 |
| Phenobarbital | 300 | 6-Monoacetylmorphine | 5,000 |
| | | Morphine-3-glucuronid | 10,000 |
| | | Rifampicin | >50,000 |
| | | Thebaine | 20,000 |
| Benzodiazepine - related compounds | Conc | Methadone - related compounds | Conc |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Oxazepam | 300 | Methadone | 300 |
| Alprazolam | 500 | Methadol | 1,000 |
| Bromazepam | 1,000 | Doxylamine | >40,000 |
| Chlordiazepoxide | ≥10,000 | EDDP | >40,000 |
{8}
9
| Benzodiazepine - related compounds | Conc | PCP - related compounds | Conc |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Clobazam | 300 | Phencyclidine | 25 |
| Clonazepam | 8,000 | TCP | 3000 |
| Clorazepate | 2000 | | |
| Delorazepam | 2400 | | |
| Desalkflurazepam | 2500 | | |
| Diazepam | 300 | NOR - related compounds | Conc |
| Estazolam | 2,000 | Nortriptyline | 1000 |
| Fentanyl | >100,000 | Amitriptyline | 1000 |
| Flunitrazepam | 1,200 | Chlorpromazine | 3500 |
| Flurazepam | >10,000 | Clomipramine | 10,000 |
| α-Hydroxyalprazolam | 100,000 | Cyclobenzaprine | 1500 |
| Lorazepam | 2,000 | Desipramine | 500 |
| Lormetazepam | 1,000 | Diphenyldramine | 20,000 |
| Medazepam | >100,000 | Doxepin | 1,000 |
| Midazolam | >50,000 | Imipramine | 800 |
| Nitrazepam | >50,000 | Nordoxepine | 1000 |
| Nordiazepam | 300 | Perphenazine | 2,500 |
| Prazepam | >100,000 | Promazine | 200 |
| Temazepam | 500 | Promethazine | 40,000 |
| Triazolam | 2,000 | Protryptyline | 3000 |
| | | Trimipramine | 2500 |
| Cocaine - Related Compounds | Conc | THC - related compounds | Conc |
| Benzoylecgonine | 300 | 11-nor-Δ⁹-THC-9-COOH | 50 |
| Cocaine | 1000 | 11-nor-Δ⁸-THC-9-COOH | 50 |
| Ecgonine | 40,000 | 11-hydroxy-Δ⁹-THC | 100,000 |
| Ecgonine methyl ester | 100,000 | Δ⁸-THC | 15,000 |
| | | Δ⁹-THC | 15,000 |
| | | Cannabinol | 20,000 |
| | | Cannabidiol | 100,000 |
The following unrelated compounds were found not to cross-react when tested spiked into drug-free urine at concentrations at 100 µg/ml:
| Acetaminophen | Furosemide |
| --- | --- |
| Acetone | Guaiacol Glyceryl Ether |
| Albumin | Hemoglobin |
| Amitriptyline | Ibuprofen |
| Ampicillin | Imipramine |
| Aspartame | (+/-)-Isoproterenol |
| Aspirin | Lidocaine |
| Atropine | N-Methyl-Ephedrine |
| Benzocaine | (+)-Naproxen |
| Bilirubin | Oxalic Acid |
| Caffeine | Penicillin-G |
| Chloroquine | Pheniramine |
| Chlorpheniramine | Phenothiazine |
{9}
10
Creatine
L-Phenylephrine
Dextrorphan tartrate
β-Phenylethylamine
4-Dimethylaminoantipyrine
Procaine
Dopamine
Quinidine
(+/-)-Ephedrine
Ranitidine
(-)-Ephedrine
Sulindac
Erythromycin
Tyramine
Ethanol
Vitamin C
The pH of an aliquoted negative urine pool was adjusted to pH 3, pH 5, pH 6.5, pH 7.5, or pH 8.5; three of the four aliquots at each pH were spiked with a drug to 75%, 125%, and 300% of the cutoff concentration. The spiked, pH-adjusted urine was tested in duplicate. Altering the pH of the urine sample did not affect the accuracy of any of the test results.
Four (4) urine samples with specific gravities of 1.00, 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 were aliquoted into four samples each; one sample remained neat while the other three aliquots were spiked with each drug to the concentration of 75%, 125%, and 300% of the cutoff respectively. Each sample was tested in duplicate. Variations in specific gravity did not affect the accuracy of any of the test results.
f. Assay cut-off:
Analytical performance of the device around the cutoff is described in Section 1.M.d above.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
The ACCUSTEP Multi-Strip Drugs of Abuse Cassette and Dipstick Card were evaluated in comparison to GC/MS and the predicate. Specimens, including at least 48 negative and 38 positive samples, were obtained from commercial reference laboratories. All samples were confirmed by GC/MS but no clinical information was available:
Agreement between Individual ACCUSTEP Tests and GC/MS
| | | Drug Concentration by GC/MS | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ACCU STEP Drug | Result | Neg | <25% C/O | 25% to C/O | C/O to +125% | >125% C/O | Agrmnt w/ GC |
| AMP | Pos | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 41 | 98% |
| | Neg | 36 | 12 | 7 | 2 | 0 | |
| | | | | | | | |
| BAR | Pos | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 42 | 98% |
| | Neg | 35 | 10 | 6 | 1 | 0 | |
| | | | | | | | |
{10}
| | | Drug Concentration by GC/MS | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ACCU STEP Drug | Result | Neg | <25% C/O | 25% to C/O | C/O to +125% | >125% C/O | Agrmnt w/ GC |
| BZO | Pos | 0 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 36 | 94% |
| | Neg | 35 | 12 | 5 | 2 | 0 | |
| | | | | | | | |
| COC | Pos | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 51 | 98% |
| | Neg | 35 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 0 | |
| | | | | | | | |
| MTD | Pos | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 45 | 98% |
| | Neg | 35 | 11 | 8 | 2 | 0 | |
| | | | | | | | |
| MET | Pos | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 57 | 98% |
| | Neg | 35 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 0 | |
| | | | | | | | |
| MOR | Pos | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 33 | 98% |
| | Neg | 35 | 21 | 7 | 1 | 0 | |
| | | | | | | | |
| PCP | Pos | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 40 | 99% |
| | Neg | 35 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| | | | | | | | |
| NOR | Pos | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 29 | 97% |
| | Neg | 35 | 15 | 7 | 3 | 0 | |
| | | | | | | | |
| THC | Pos | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 53 | 98% |
| | Neg | 35 | 10 | 14 | 2 | 0 | |
b. Matrix comparison:
Not applicable; these devices are for use with urine only.
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity:
Not applicable.
b. Clinical specificity:
Not applicable.
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a. and b. are not applicable):
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable.
5. Expected values/Reference range:
Not applicable.
N. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Part 809.10.
{11}
O. Conclusion:
The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
12
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.