VITROS CHEMISTRY PRODUCTS OP REAGENT, CALIBRATOR KIT 26 AND DAT PERFORMANCE VERIFIERS I, II AND III
K062460 · Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. · DJG · Dec 15, 2006 · Clinical Toxicology
Device Facts
Record ID
K062460
Device Name
VITROS CHEMISTRY PRODUCTS OP REAGENT, CALIBRATOR KIT 26 AND DAT PERFORMANCE VERIFIERS I, II AND III
Applicant
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.
Product Code
DJG · Clinical Toxicology
Decision Date
Dec 15, 2006
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 862.3650
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
VITROS Chemistry Products OP Reagent: For in vitro diagnostic use only. VITROS Chemistry Products OP Reagent is used on VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry Systems for the semi-quantitative or qualitative determination of opiates (OP) in human urine using a cutoff of either 300 ng/mL or 2000 ng/mL. Measurements obtained with the VITROS OP method are used in the diagnosis and treatment of opiate use or overdose. The VITROS Chemistry Products OP assay is intended for use by professional laboratory personnel. It provides only a preliminary test result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used to confirm a result with this assay. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any drug-of-abuse test result, particularly when evaluating a preliminary positive result. VITROS Chemistry Products Calibrator Kit 26: For in vitro diagnostic use only. VITROS Chemistry Products Calibrator Kit 26 is used to calibrate VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry Systems for the qualitative or semi-quantitative measurement of drugs of abuse. VITROS Chemistry Products DAT Performance Verifiers I, II, III, IV & V: For in vitro diagnostic use only. VITROS Chemistry Products DAT Performance Verifiers are assayed controls used to monitor performance of urine drugs of abuse screening assays on VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry Systems.
Device Story
VITROS Chemistry Products OP Reagent is a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay for opiate detection in human urine. Input: human urine sample. Principle: competition between morphine in sample and morphine labeled with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6P-DH) for sheep polyclonal antibody binding sites. Enzyme activity is inversely proportional to morphine concentration; active enzyme converts NAD+ to NADH, causing spectrophotometric absorbance change. Used on VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry Systems by professional laboratory personnel. Output: qualitative or semi-quantitative opiate concentration. Results are preliminary; require GC/MS confirmation. Clinical utility: aids diagnosis/treatment of opiate use or overdose.
Clinical Evidence
No clinical data. Performance established via bench testing including precision (CLSI EP5-A), linearity (CLSI EP6-A), analytical specificity (CLSI EP7-A2), and method comparison against GC/MS and predicate device. Method comparison showed high agreement (93.2-96.8% overall) with predicate and reference methods across 300 ng/mL and 2000 ng/mL cutoffs.
Indicated for professional laboratory use in the qualitative or semi-quantitative determination of opiates in human urine to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of opiate use or overdose. Applicable to patients requiring drug-of-abuse screening at 300 ng/mL or 2000 ng/mL cutoffs. Provides preliminary results requiring GC/MS confirmation.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
An opiate test system is a device intended to measure any of the addictive narcotic pain-relieving opiate drugs in blood, serum, urine, gastric contents, and saliva. An opiate is any natural or synthetic drug that has morphine-like pharmocological actions. The opiates include drugs such as morphine, morphine glucoronide, heroin, codeine, nalorphine, and meperedine. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of opiate use or overdose and in monitoring the levels of opiate administration to ensure appropriate therapy.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). An opiate 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).
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
k062460
B. Purpose for Submission:
New device
C. Measurand:
Opiates
D. Type of Test:
Qualitative and semi-quantitative enzyme immunoassay
E. Applicant:
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
VITROS Chemistry Products OP Reagent
VITROS Chemistry Products Calibrator 26
VITROS Chemistry Products FS Calibrator 1
VITROS Chemistry Products DAT Performance Verifiers I, II, III, IV and V
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 862.3650 Opiate test system
21 CFR 862.3200, Clinical Toxicology Calibrator
21 CFR 862.3180, Clinical Toxicology Control
2. Classification:
II (reagent, calibrator)
I, reserved (control)
3. Product code:
DJG, DKB and DIF
{1}
4. Panel:
Toxicology (91)
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
See Indications for use.
2. Indication(s) for use:
VITROS Chemistry Products OP Reagent: For in vitro diagnostic use only.
VITROS Chemistry Products OP Reagent is used on VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry Systems for the semi-quantitative or qualitative determination of opiates (OP) in human urine using a cutoff of either 300 ng/mL or 2000 ng/mL. Measurements obtained with the VITROS OP method are used in the diagnosis and treatment of opiate use or overdose.
The VITROS Chemistry Products OP assay is intended for use by professional laboratory personnel. It provides only a preliminary test result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used to confirm a result with this assay. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any drug-of-abuse test result, particularly when evaluating a preliminary positive result.
VITROS Chemistry Products Calibrator Kit 26: For in vitro diagnostic use only.
VITROS Chemistry Products Calibrator Kit 26 is used to calibrate VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry Systems for the qualitative or semi-quantitative measurement of drugs of abuse.
VITROS Chemistry Products DAT Performance Verifiers I, II, III, IV & V: For in vitro diagnostic use only. VITROS Chemistry Products DAT Performance Verifiers are assayed controls used to monitor performance of urine drugs of abuse screening assays on VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry Systems.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For use by professional laboratory personnel. For in vitro diagnostic use only.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry System
I. Device Description:
The VITROS Chemistry Products OP Reagent is a dual chambered reagent pack containing two ready-to-use liquid reagents. The reactive ingredients in Reagent 1 include sheep polyclonal antibodies reactive to morphine, Glucose 6-phosphate and
2
{2}
Nicotinamide adenine nucleotide (NAD). The other ingredients in Reagent 1 include inorganic salt, organic salt, proteins, inorganic polymer, protease inhibitor, stabilizer, surfactant and preservative. The reactive ingredients in Reagent 2 include morphine labeled with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase. The other ingredients in Reagent 2 include buffers, organic salt, inorganic salt, proteins, inorganic polymer, protease inhibitor, biological material, surfactant and preservatives.
VITROS Chemistry Products Calibrator Kit 26 is prepared from human urine to which drugs of abuse, metabolites of drugs of abuse, organic salts, surfactants and preservative have been added.
VITROS DAT Performance Verifiers I, II, III, IV & V are prepared from a human urine pool to which analytes, surfactant and preservative have been added. These are assayed controls used to monitor performance of the VITROS PCP Reagent on VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry Systems.
The product labeling for Calibrator Kit 26 and Performance Verifiers contain warnings regarding the presence of human source materials and recommend the use of Universal Precautions when handling these products.
## J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
Syva EMIT II Plus Opiate assay
Bio-Rad Liquicheck Urine Toxicology Controls
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k011289
k022707
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Intended Use | For use in the qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis of opiates in human urine. | Same |
| Reagent | Liquid, ready to use | Same |
| Principle | Homogeneous enzyme immunoassay | Same |
| Matrix | Urine | Same |
| Antibody | Sheep polyclonal | Same |
{3}
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Instrumentation | VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry Systems | Multiple automated clinical chemistry analyzers |
| Calibrators | Six levels | Qualitative: two levels
Semi-quantitative: four levels |
| Controls | Five levels | Two levels |
## K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
CSLI EP9-A2: Method Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples
CLSI EP5-A: Evaluation of Precision Performance of Clinical Chemistry Devices
CLSI EP6-A: Evaluation of the Linearity of Quantitative Measurement Procedures, A Statistical Approach
CLSI EP7-P: Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry
CLSI EP17-A: Protocols for Demonstration, Verification and Evaluation of Limits of Detection and Quantitation
CLSI EP12-A: User Protocols for Evaluation of Qualitative Test Performance
## L. Test Principle:
The VITROS OP assay is a homogenous immunoassay based on the competition between morphine in the treated urine sample and morphine labeled with the enzyme glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6P-DH) for antibody binding sites. Enzyme activity decreases upon binding to the antibody, therefore the concentration of morphine in the urine sample is directly proportional to measured enzyme activity. Active enzyme converts oxidized nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide $(\mathrm{NAD}^{+})$ to NADH, resulting in an absorbance change that is measured spectrophotometrically.
## M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
### 1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
Precision was evaluated with quality control materials on the VITROS 5,1 FS Chemistry System following CLSI EP5-A. The samples were run in duplicate, twice a day for twenty-two days using two reagent lots and four instruments. The results are presented in the table below.
{4}
| Semi-quantitative-LO (300) | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mean Conc. ng/mL | Within-Day SD | Within-Lab SD | Within-Lab %CV | No. Observations | No. Days |
| 213 | 5.1 | 10.5 | 4.9 | 88 | 22 |
| 294 | 5.4 | 12.4 | 4.2 | 88 | 22 |
| 371 | 5.5 | 14.5 | 3.9 | 88 | 22 |
| Semi-quantitative-HI (2000) | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mean Conc. ng/mL | Within-Day SD | Within-Lab SD | Within-Lab %CV | No. Observations | No. Days |
| 1459 | 24.1 | 65.2 | 4.5 | 88 | 22 |
| 1995 | 37.3 | 88.0 | 4.4 | 80 | 20 |
| 2441 | 46.4 | 112.9 | 4.6 | 88 | 22 |
| 2901 | 62.7 | 139.2 | 4.8 | 88 | 22 |
Qualitative imprecision was assessed using drug-spiked human urine pools with concentrations targeted at approximately $\pm 25\%$ of the 300 and $2000~\mathrm{ng/mL}$ cutoff concentrations. The concentrations of the targeted test fluids were confirmed by GC/MS. The sponsor performed two runs per day with two replicates per run for 22 days using a single lot of reagent on one analyzer. The results are presented below:
| Qualitative | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cutoff ng/mL | Test Fluid Concentration ng/mL | Test Fluid % of Cutoff | No. Observations | No. of Correct Results |
| 300 | 213 | -25% of the cutoff | 88 | 88 |
| 300 | 371 | +25% of the cutoff | 88 | 88 |
{5}
| Qualitative | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cutoff ng/mL | Test Fluid Concentration ng/mL | Test Fluid % of Cutoff | No. Observations | No. of Correct Results |
| 2000 | 1459 | -25% of the cutoff | 88 | 88 |
| 2000 | 2441 | +25% of the cutoff | 88 | 88 |
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
The sponsor followed CLSI EP6-A in determining the linear range of their device.
Number of reagent lots: 3
Replicates of each solution: 3
OP-LO (300 ng/mL)
Two urine pools were prepared with a high urine based morphine pool (4000 ng/mL) and a negative urine based pool (0 ng/mL). The two pools were mixed to give 16 admixtures of intermediate concentrations. Linearity was evaluated using three assay reagent lots and comparing the measured results against the expected results from 16 pooled samples. A linear regression was performed and the results indicated acceptable linearity across the concentration range tested (69 to 1009 ng/mL). The claimed reportable range of the VITROS OP-LO assay is 100 - 900 ng/mL.
OP-HI (2000 ng/mL)
Two urine pools were prepared with a high urine based morphine pool (5000 ng/mL) and a negative urine based pool (0 ng/mL). The two pools were mixed to give 11 admixtures of intermediate concentrations. Linearity was evaluated using three assay reagent lots and comparing the measured results against the expected results from 11 pooled samples. A linear regression was performed and the results indicated acceptable linearity across the concentration range tested (503 to 4000 ng/mL). The claimed reportable range of the VITROS OP-HI assay is 700 - 4000 ng/mL.
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
The assigned values for the calibrators are traceable to the Cerilliant morphine standard catalogue M-109 and are verified by GC/MS.
The assigned values for the controls are traceable to USP 14447002 (Morphine Monohydrate CII). They are prepared through gravimetric addition to drug free urine and verified by GC/MS.
Real time and accelerated stability studies were conducted; protocols and
{6}
acceptance criteria were described and found to be acceptable. These studies support the manufacturer's stability claims for the following products:
| Reagent | Storage | Stability* |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Unopened | 2-8°C | 5 months |
| Opened | On board analyzer, system turned off | ≤28 days |
| Opened | On board analyzer, system turned on | ≤30 minutes |
| Calibrator | Storage | Stability* |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Unopened | ≤18°C | 8 months |
| Opened | 2-8°C | 4 weeks |
| Controls | Storage | Stability* |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Unopened | 2-8°C | 6 months |
| Opened | 2-8°C | 4 weeks. |
*Note: Real time studies are ongoing.
d. Detection limit:
The detection limit was determined according to protocol recommendations in CLSI EP-17 on three different lots of reagent and one instrument platform. The claimed lowest detectable limit for VITROS OP-LO is $97\mathrm{ng / mL}$ . The claimed lowest detectable limit for VITROS OP-HI is $338\mathrm{ng / mL}$ .
e. Analytical specificity:
The sponsor conducted interference studies following CLSI EP7-A2. The substances listed in the table below were determined not to interfere in the concentration tested at $300\mathrm{ng / mL}$ morphine and $2000\mathrm{ng / mL}$ morphine cutoffs, up to the concentrations shown:
| Compound | Concentration Tested | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Conventional | SI |
| ammonia | 570 mg/dL | 316 mmol/L |
| ascorbic Acid | 500 mg/dL | 28.4 mmol/L |
| Bilirubin | 26 mg/dL | 444 μmol/L |
| buprenorphine | 5 mg/dL | 106 μmol/L |
| Calcium | 30 mg/dL | 7.5 mmol/L |
| ciprofloxacin | 10 mg/dL | 302 μmol/L |
{7}
| Compound | Concentration Tested | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Conventional | SI |
| citric acid | 100 mg/dL | 5.2 mmol/L |
| Cloxacillin | 10 mg/dL | 230 μmol/L |
| creatinine | 300 mg/dL | 26.5 mmol/L |
| Diethylpropione | 10 mg/dL | 487 μmol/L |
| ethacrylnic acid | 10 mg/dL | 330 μmol/L |
| Ethanol | 780 mg/dL | 169 mmol/L |
| Glucose | 4000 mg/dL | 222 mmol/L |
| Hemoglobin | 500 mg/dL | 5 g/L |
| Human IgG | 200 mg/dL | 2 g/L |
| Human serum albumin | 200 mg/dL | 2 g/L |
| Indomethacin | 10 mg/dL | 279 μmol/L |
| Iron | 0.1 mg/dL | 17.9 μmol/L |
| Magnesium | 60 mg/dL | 24.7 mmol/L |
| Methoxyphenamine | 10 mg/dL | 558 μmol/L |
| Metronidazole | 10 mg/dL | 584 μmol/L |
| Nylidrine | 10 mg/dL | 334 μmol/L |
| Oxalic acid | 300 mg/dL | 23.8 mmol/L |
| pH = 4 | | |
| pH = 9 | | |
| Phenylbutazone | 10 mg/dL | 324 μmol/L |
| Phosphate | 950 mg/dL | 100 mmol/L |
| Potassium | 587 mg/dL | 150 mmol/L |
| Propoxyphene | 10 mg/dL | 295 μmol/L |
| Propanolol | 10 mg/dL | 385 μmol/L |
| Pyruvate | 200 mg/dL | 22.8 mmol/L |
| Ranitidine | 10 mg/dL | 318 μmol/L |
| Riboflavin | 2 mg/dL | 53 μmol/L |
| Tolmetin/tolectin | 10 mg/dL | 390 μmol/L |
| Trihexylphenidyl | 10 mg/dL | 332 μmol/L |
| Trimethobenzamide | 10 mg/dL | 257 μmol/L |
| Tyramine | 10 mg/dL | 576 μmol/L |
| Urea | 3000 mg/dL | 499.5 mmol/L |
| Uric acid | 120 mg/dL | 7.14 mmol/L |
The sponsor determined that a high specific gravity does not interfere with the assay by evaluating the primary causes of high specific gravity: high concentrations of NaCl, protein, and glucose in urine.
The specificity of VITROS OP assay for morphine and structurally similar compounds was determined by generating a dose response curve for each of the compounds and determining the approximate quantity of each compound that is equivalent in assay reactivity to the $300\mathrm{ng / mL}$ and $2000\mathrm{ng / mL}$
{8}
cutoffs.
| Compound | Quantity equivalent to 300 ng/mL | Approx. % Cross-reactivity | Quantity equivalent to 2000 ng/mL | Approx. % Cross-reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ethylmorphine | 165 | 181.8% | 1175 | 170.2% |
| Codeine | 190 | 157.9% | 950 | 210.5% |
| Hydrocodone | 240 | 125% | 1510 | 132.5% |
| Dihydrocodeine | 250 | 120% | 1420 | 140.8% |
| Morphine | 300 | 100% | 2000 | 100% |
| Thebaine | 400 | 75% | 2900 | 69% |
| Hydromorphone | 420 | 71.4% | 4100 | 48.8% |
| 6-acetyl morphine | 430 | 69.8% | 3920 | 51% |
| Heroin (diacetylmorphine) | 490 | 61.2% | 3850 | 51.9% |
| Dihydromorphone | 535 | 56.1% | 6025 | 33.2% |
| Levorphanol | 550 | 54.5% | 10800 | 18.5% |
| Morphine-3-glucuronide | 700 | 42.9% | 11100 | 18% |
| Oxycodone | 2175 | 13.8% | 56500 | 3.5% |
| Norcodeine | 2840 | 10.6% | 50000 | 4% |
| Nalorphine | 10025 | 3% | 290000 | 0.7% |
| Oxymorphone | 12600 | 2.4% | >200000 | <1% |
| Normorphine | 24000 | 1.3% | 458000 | 0.4% |
| Meperidine | 33500 | 0.9% | 459000 | 0.4% |
| Naloxone | 466000 | 0.1% | >1000000 | <0.2% |
| Fluphenazine | >100,000 | <0.3% | >1000000 | >0.2% |
f. Assay cut-off:
There are two cutoffs for this assay: 300 ng/mL and 2000 ng/mL. The 2000 ng/mL cutoff concentration is currently recommended by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
Characterization of how the device performs analytically around the claimed cutoff concentrations appear in the precision section, above.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison to the predicate device
The results obtained on the new device were compared to the reference method, Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, and a commercially marketed (predicate) device. Results are summarized below:
{9}
10
# OP-LO 300 ng/mL cutoff
One hundred and eighteen unaltered human urine samples were assayed on the device and the results were compared to GC/MS. The results are corrected for cross-reactivity.
## Comparison of VITROS OP-LO to GC/MS is presented in the following table.
| Cutoff ng/mL | | <50% <150 ng/mL | -50% to cutoff 150-300 ng/mL | Cutoff to +50% 300-450 ng/mL | >+50% >450 ng/mL | % Agreement Negative | % Agreement Positive | % Agreement Overall |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 300 | VITROS + | 0 | 2* | 9 | 55 | 95.8 | 91.4 | 93.2 |
| | VITROS - | 29 | 17 | 5* | 1* | | | |
*The summary of discordant results is presented in the table below:
| Discordant Results | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Cutoff ng/mL | VITROS OP-LO ng/mL | GC/MS ng/mL |
| 300 | 333 | 268 Morphine |
| | 303 | 277 Morphine |
| | 295 | 311 Morphine |
| | 277 | 331 Morphine |
| | 270 | 368 Morphine |
| | 282 | 376 Morphine |
| | 296 | 313 Morphine
69 Hydromorphone |
| | 280 | 463 Morphine |
# OP-HI 2000 ng/mL cutoff
One hundred and fifty three unaltered human urine samples were assayed on the device and the results were compared to GC/MS. The results are corrected for cross-reactivity.
## Comparison of VITROS OP-HI to GC/MS is presented in the following table.
| Cutoff ng/mL | | <50% <1000 ng/mL | -50% to cutoff 1000-2000 ng/mL | Cutoff to +50% 2000-3000 ng/mL | >+50% >3000 ng/mL | % Agreement Negative | % Agreement Positive | % Agreement Overall |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
{10}
| Cutoff ng/mL | | <50% <1000 ng/mL | -50% to cutoff 1000-2000 ng/mL | Cutoff to +50% 2000-3000 ng/mL | >+50% >3000 ng/mL | % Agreement Negative | % Agreement Positive | % Agreement Overall |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2000 | VITROS + | 1* | 1* | 5 | 35 | 98.1 | 81.6 | 92.8 |
| | VITROS - | 87 | 15 | 8* | 1* | | | |
*The summary of the discordant results is presented in the table below:
| Discordant Results | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Cutoff ng/mL | VITROS OP-HI ng/mL | GC/MS ng/mL |
| 2000 | 2669 | 421 Morphine |
| | 3986 | 720 Hydrocodone
971 Hydromorphone |
| | 1296 | 2090 Morphine |
| | 1428 | 2330 Morphine |
| | 1668 | 2373 Morphine |
| | 1292 | 2425 Morphine |
| | 1270 | 2612 Morphine |
| | 1898 | 2593 Morphine
113 Hydromorphone |
| | 1797 | 2690 Morphine |
| | 1605 | 2826 Morphine |
| | 1653 | 3440 Morphine |
The sponsor notes that the primary form of morphine in urine is morphine-3-glucuronide, a morphine conjugate. The VITROS Chemistry Product OP Assay has lower recovery with morphine conjugates than with free morphine. As part of sample preparation for GC/MS analysis, morphine conjugates are commonly hydrolyzed to morphine. This may lead to an apparent under-recovery of opiates when comparing VITROS OP Assay results to GC/MS.
## OPI-LO 300 ng/mL cutoff
One hundred and twenty one human urine samples were assayed on the device and were compared to results from the predicate device.
{11}
Comparison of VITROS OP-LO to the Predicate Device is presented in the following table.
| Cutoff ng/mL | | <50% <150 ng/mL | -50% to cutoff 150-300 ng/mL | Cutoff to +50% 300-450 ng/mL | >+50% >450 ng/mL | % Agreement Negative | % Agreement Positive | % Agreement Overall |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 300 | VITROS + | 0 | 0 | 5 | 63 | 100 | 93.2 | 95.9 |
| | VITROS - | 27 | 21 | 5* | 0 | | | |
*The summary of discordant results is presented in the table below.
| Discordant Results | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Cutoff ng/mL | VITROS OP-LO ng/mL | Predicate Assay ng/mL |
| 300 | 251 | 321 |
| | 261 | 304 |
| | 284 | 333 |
| | 295 | 399 |
| | 296 | 414 |
OPI-HI: 2000 ng/mL cutoff
One hundred and fifty five human urine samples were assayed on the device and were compared to results from the predicate device.
Comparison of VITROS OP-HI to the Predicate Device are presented in the following table.
| Cutoff ng/mL | | <50% <1000 ng/mL | -50% to cutoff 1000-2000 ng/mL | Cutoff to +50% 2000-3000 ng/mL | >+50% >3000 ng/mL | % Agreement Negative | % Agreement Positive | % Agreement Overall |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2000 | VITROS | 0 | 1* | 8 | 34 | 99.1 | 91.3 | 96.8 |
| | VITROS | 77 | 31 | 4* | 0 | | | |
{12}
The summary of the discordant results is presented in the table below.
| Discordant Results | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Cutoff ng/mL | VITROS OP-HI ng/mL | Predicate ng/mL |
| 2000 | 1653 | 2107 |
| | 1797 | 2135 |
| | 1898 | 2472 |
| | 1993 | 2098 |
| | 2005 | 1966 |
b. Matrix comparison:
Not applicable
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):
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.
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.