K061842 · Inova Diagnostics, Inc. · NRI · Oct 18, 2006 · Immunology
Device Facts
Record ID
K061842
Device Name
QUANTA LITE PBC SCREEN IGG/IGA ELISA
Applicant
Inova Diagnostics, Inc.
Product Code
NRI · Immunology
Decision Date
Oct 18, 2006
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 866.5090
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
The QUANTA Lite™ PBC Screen IgG/IgA ELISA is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the semi-quantitative detection of anti-mitochondrial antibodies, gp210 antibodies, and sp100 antibodies of the IgG and/or IgA class in human serum. The presence of mitochondrial, gp210, and sp100 antibodies can be used in conjunction with clinical findings as an aid in the diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis.
Device Story
QUANTA Lite™ PBC Screen IgG/IgA ELISA is an in vitro diagnostic assay for human serum samples. It utilizes enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technology to detect specific autoantibodies (anti-mitochondrial, gp210, and sp100) associated with primary biliary cirrhosis. Performed in clinical laboratories by trained technicians; results are interpreted by physicians in conjunction with clinical findings to support diagnosis. The assay provides semi-quantitative data, assisting clinicians in identifying autoimmune markers indicative of liver disease.
Clinical Evidence
No clinical data provided in the document; substantial equivalence is based on bench testing and performance characteristics typical of ELISA-based immunological assays.
Indicated for use in patients suspected of having primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) to aid in diagnosis via detection of anti-mitochondrial, anti-gp210, and anti-sp100 antibodies in human serum.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
An antimitochondrial antibody immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the antimitochondrial antibodies in human serum. The measurements aid in the diagnosis of diseases that produce a spectrum of autoantibodies (antibodies produced against the body's own tissue), such as primary biliary cirrhosis (degeneration of liver tissue) and chronic active hepatitis (inflammation of the liver).
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY
A. 510(k) Number:
k061842
B. Purpose for Submission:
New Device
C. Measurand:
Anti-Mitochondrial (MIT3) Antibodies
Anti-gp210 Antibodies
Anti-sp100 Antibodies
D. Type of Test:
Semi-quantitative ELISA
E. Applicant:
INOVA Diagnostics, Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
QUANTA LITE™ PBC Screen IgG/ IgA ELISA
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR §866.5090 Antimitochondrial antibody immunological test system
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
DBM, Antimitochondrial Antibody
NRI, Autoantibodies, Nuclear Pore Glycoprotein (gp210)
NUM Autoantibodies, nuclear body protein, sp100
4. Panel:
Immunology 82
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
The QUANTA LITE™ PBC Screen IgG/IgA ELISA is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the semi-quantitative detection of mitochondrial antibodies, gp210, and sp100 antibodies of the IgG and/or IgA class in human serum. The presence of mitochondrial, gp210, and sp100 antibodies can be used in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests to aid in the diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis.
2. Indication(s) for use:
Same as intended use.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For prescription use only.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Microplate reader capable of measuring OD at 450 nm (or 620 for dual wavelength readings).
I. Device Description:
Each device contains the following: polystyrene microplate strips with breakaway (12x8) microwells coated with PBC Screen antigen (mixture of purified MIT3, sp100
{1}
and gp210 antigens); high positive, low positive, and negative controls (human serum); horseradish peroxidase (HRP) wash concentrate; HRP sample diluent; HRP Anti-human IgG/IgA conjugate (goat); TMB chromogen; and 0.344M sulfuric acid stop solution.
# J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
QUANTA LITE™ M2 EP (MIT3)
QUANTA LITE™ gp210 ELISA
QUANTA LITE™ sp100 ELISA
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k052262 (MIT3)
k040885 (gp210)
k050662 (sp100)
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | New Device | Predicate Devices |
| | QUANTA LITE™ PBC Screen IgG/IgA | Individual devices: QUANTA LITE™ M2 EP (MIT3); QUANTA LITE™ gp210; and QUANTA LITE™ sp100 |
| Intended use | To aid in the diagnosis of Primary Biliary Cirrhosis (PBC). | Same |
| Technology | ELISA | Same |
| Assay Format | Semi-quantitative | Same |
| Platform | 96 well microtiter plates | Same |
| Controls | 3 levels: negative, low positive and high positive Pre-diluted human serum. Ready to use. | Same |
| Sample type and dilution | Serum at 1:101 | Same |
| Sample volume required | 5 μL | Same |
| Wash Concentrate | 40X Tris-buffered saline and Tween 20 | Same |
| HRP Sample Diluent | Tris-buffered saline, Tween 20, protein stabilizer, preservative | Same |
| Substrate | TMB Chromogen | Same |
| Stop solution | 0.344M Sulphuric acid | Same |
| Incubation times | 30-30-30 minutes | Same |
| OD reading | 450 nm (or 620 for dual wavelength readings) | Same |
| Cut-off | 25.0 Units | Same |
{2}
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Antigen | Mixture of three antigens in one assay: purified recombinant M2 EP MIT3, highly purified synthetic gp210 peptide, and highly purified synthetic sp100 peptide | Individual antigens in three separate assays: purified recombinant M2 EP MIT3; highly purified synthetic gp210 peptide; and highly purified synthetic sp100 peptide |
| Enzyme-Conjugate | Horseradish Peroxidase, Goat Anti-human IgG/IgA | Horseradish Peroxidase, Goat Anti-human IgG |
# K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
CLSI (NCCLS) H18-A3, Vol. 24(38), 2004: Processing Blood Specimens
CLSI (NCCLS) C24-A2, Vol. 19(5), 2006: Statistical quality control
# L. Test Principle:
A mixture containing affinity-purified recombinant antigen MIT3 which includes immunodominant portions of PDC-E2, BCOADC-E2, and OGDC-E2, a purified fragment of the sp100 protein, and a purified fragment of the gp100 protein is bound to the wells of a polystyrene microwell plate under conditions that will preserve the antigen in their native state. Pre-diluted controls and diluted patient sera are added to separate wells, allowing any mitochondrial antibodies present to bind to the immobilized antigen. Unbound sample antibodies are washed away and an enzyme labeled anti-human IgG/IgA conjugate is added to each well. A second incubation allows the enzyme labeled anti-human IgG/IgA to bind to any patient antibodies, which have become attached to the microwells. After washing away any unbound enzyme labeled anti-human IgG/IgA, the remaining enzyme activity is measured by adding a chromogenic substrate and measuring the intensity of the color that develops. The assay can be evaluated spectrophotometrically by measuring and comparing the color intensity that develops in the patient wells with the color in the control wells.
# M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
# 1. Analytical performance:
# a. Precision/Reproducibility:
The intra-assay precision was determined using seven serum samples, with PBC Screen concentration levels ranged from 13.6 to 61.6 Units/mL. These seven samples were tested five times. The positive samples had $\leq 3.7\%$ CV, and the negative samples had $\leq 2.4\%$ CV as listed below.
| Specimen | A | B | C | D | E | F | G |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mean units | 61.6 | 39.8 | 27.9 | 13.6 | 27.5 | 26.5 | 23.6 |
| SD | 2.3 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| CV (%) | 3.7 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 |
{3}
The inter-assay precision was determined using eight serum samples in duplicate, assayed twice daily (once in the morning and once in the afternoon) for three days. The positive samples had ≤ 6.1% CV, and the negative samples had ≤ 9.2% CV as listed below.
| Specimen | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mean units | 67.5 | 8.4 | 29.7 | 35.2 | 6.3 | 31.5 | 29.8 | 25.2 |
| SD | 1.7 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 0.25 |
| CV % | 2.6 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 9.2 | 6.1 | 4.5 | 1.0 |
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
No claims were made regarding linearity for the assay. It is a semi-quantitative assay with results reported out as negative (0.0 – 20.0 Units), positive (≥ 25 Units), or equivocal (20.1 – 24.9 Units), when results are interpreted by comparison to the low positive control value of 25 Units. Specimens with positive results may be tested for the presence of individual MIT3, gp210, and sp100 antibodies with MIT3, gp100, and sp100 specific ELISA assays.
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods): There is no recognized standard or reference material for antibodies to the PBC Screen multi-antigen mixture. The positive and negative controls are prepared in house and arbitrary units are assigned during the development process.
d. Detection limit:
Not applicable.
e. Analytical specificity:
Interference by endogenous substances: No data provided. The package insert states that grossly hemolyzed, lipemic, microbially contaminated, heat-treated, or specimens containing visible particulate should be avoided in this assay.
Crossreactivity study to other autoantibodies was performed. Results were under in section for 'Clinical specificity'.
f. Assay cut-off:
The cut-off value of 25 units/mL for the PBC Screen IgG/ IgA assay was established from a combined panel of 1012 specimens collected from 520 asymptomatic healthy individuals and 492 patients with a variety of non-PBC diseases, i.e. 29 autoimmune and infectious diseases: 3 anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae (ASCA), 4 antinuclear antibody (ANA), 3 tissue transglutaminase antibody (tTg), 2 gastric parietal antibody (GPA), 2 glomerular basement membrane antibody (GBM), 7 Helicobacter pylori, and 8 cytomegalovirus (CMV); 213 autoimmune hepatitis (AIH); 48 Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC); 10 AIH/PSC; 8 autoimmune cholangitis (AIC); 9 cryptogenic hepatitis; 1 drug-induced hepatitis; 11 vanishing bile duct syndrome (VBDS); 71 HBV; 78 HCV; 3 autoimmune hepatitis type 2; 11 alcoholic liver disease. Using the 25 units/mL cut-off, 98.1% (510/520) of the normal samples were
{4}
negative. Of the non-PBC samples, 89% (438/492) were negative. If the possible undiagnosed overlap syndromes (AIH/PCS, VBDS, AIC, cryptogenic hepatitis, AIH, and AMA-negative PBC) were excluded from the non-PBC group, 92% (229/249) of the samples were negative.
## 2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate:
A total of 1209 specimens from seven clinical sites, were tested on PBC Screen IgG/IgA ELISA assay and the individual MIT3, gp210 and sp100 ELISA assays. The samples consisted of 440 PBC (426 definite PBC and 14 AIH/PBC overlap); 48 PSC; 149 viral hepatitis (HBV or HCV); 23 non-PBC liver diseases; 29 infectious or other autoimmune diseases, and 520 healthy individuals. Equivocals were excluded from the percent agreement calculations. Results are summarized below.
| | Individual QUANTA LITE™ MIT3, gp210, or sp100 ELISA assay | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Positive | Equivocal* | Negative | Total |
| QUANTA Lite™ PBC Screen IgG/IgA | Positive | 437 | 6 | 8 | 445 |
| | Equivocal* | 10 | 5 | 8 | 23 |
| | Negative | 2 | 3 | 730 | 732 |
| | Total | 439 | 14 | 738 | 1177 |
*Equivocal results were excluded from the analysis
Positive percent agreement = 99.5% (437/439)
Negative Percent Agreement = 98.9% (730/738)
Overall Agreement = 99.2% (1167/1177)
The 14 Equivocal samples with the individual assays had the following diagnosis: 2 normal, 2 AMA+ PBC, 2 PSC, 2 PBC, 3 HBV, 2 HCV, 1 Alc. Liver Dis. The 23 Equivocal samples with the PBS Screen assay had the following diagnosis: 20 non-PBC samples and 3 PBC samples.
b. Matrix comparison:
All assay use serum as matrix.
## 3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity:
The same samples in the method comparison study were used for the determination of clinical sensitivity and specificity. Equivocal results were included as negative. The sensitivity was 95.9% (422/440) and the specificity was 96.1% (739/769).
| N=1209 | | Quanta Lite™ PBC Screen IgG/ IgA | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Patient Group | n | Positive | Equivocal* | Negative |
| PBC | 440 | 422 | 3 | 15 |
| Non-PBC (769): healthy controls (520); other disease controls (249) | 769 | 30 | 20 | 719 |
| Total | 1209 | 452 | 23 | 734 |
*Equivocal results were included as negative.
{5}
Sensitivity: 95.9% (422/440); (95% CI: 93.6% to 97.6%)
Specificity: 96.1% (739/769) (95% CI: 94.5% to 97.4%)
The 20 Equivocal samples with the PBC Screen assay had the following diagnosis: 12 AIH, 2 Alc. Liver Dis, 1 HBV, 2 HCV, 2 PSC, 1 Non-liver disease.
b. Other clinical supportive data (when a. is not applicable):
Not applicable.
4. Clinical cut-off:
Same as assay cut-off.
5. Expected values/Reference range:
Expected values in the normal population should be negative.
A panel of 520 asymptomatic, healthy individuals residing in the USA was tested with the PBC Screen IgG/IgA assay and with the three individual MIT3, gp210, sp100 ELISA assays. Age and gender data were available for 307 specimens and unavailable for the remaining specimens. The samples were from 150 male and 157 female subjects with age ranging from 18-78 years. The average PBC Screen value for this population was 6.6 units with a median value of 4.6 units. The PBC Screen IgG/IgA assay had a specificity of 98.1% (510/520). The 10 positive samples with PBC Screen assay had the following results: one sample had 105 units and showed a classic AMA staining on HEp-2 cells by IFA whereas the other 9 positive had values ranging from 28-46 units. On further testing, one of these 10 specimen did not have sufficient serum, 6 were positive and 1 equivocal with the MIT3 IgG assay, one sample was negative with all three individual assays, and one was negative with the gp210 and sp100 assays but positive with the MIT3 assay only. Since these were donor samples, it is not possible to verify the true clinical status of the reactive specimens.
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.
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.