Routine clinical prenatal screening samples; Routine clinical diagnostic samples from males and non-pregnant females
Clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) was evaluated by comparing the Access Toxo IgG assay results against a reference method (Abbott AxSYM) using retrospective (frozen) and prospective (fresh) clinical samples obtained from routine patient care populations.
Prenatal screening; Routine clinical samples; Method comparison; Retrospective clinical data
Clinical Evidence
Study Design
Population
Comparator
Key Endpoints
Method Comparison Study; Retrospective and prospective method comparison
Prenatal screening population, males, and non-pregnant females; Sample Size: 1425 total samples (across sites); Number of Sites: 3
Abbott AxSYM Toxo IgG Antibody Assay
Positive and negative percent agreement
Indications for Use
The Access Toxo IgG assay is a paramagnetic-perticle, chemiluminescent immunoassay for the qualitative and quantitative determination of IgG antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii in human serum using the Access Immunoassay Systems. The Access Toxo IgG assay aids in the diagnosis of Toxoplasma gondii and may be used to assess the immune status of pregnant women. This product is not FDA cleared/approved for the screening of blood of plasma donors. Assay performance characteristics have not been established for immunocompromised or immunosuppressed patients, cord blood, neonatal specimens of infants.
Device Story
Device is an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay for detecting IgG antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii in human serum. Input: human serum sample. Operation: sample added to reaction vessel with paramagnetic particles coated with T. gondii membrane antigen; specific antibodies bind to antigen; unbound materials washed away via magnetic field; alkaline phosphatase-conjugated anti-human IgG added; second wash removes unbound conjugate; chemiluminescent substrate (Lumi-Phos 530) added; light output measured by luminometer. Output: quantitative/qualitative IgG concentration. Used in clinical laboratories on Beckman Coulter Access Immunoassay Systems. Healthcare providers use results to diagnose infection or assess immune status in pregnant patients. Benefits: aids in clinical management of T. gondii infection.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical performance evaluated via method comparison against Abbott AxSYM Toxo IgG assay across three sites (n=1427 total). Studies included prospective and retrospective collections from prenatal and diagnostic populations. Positive agreement ranged from 80.0% to 99.4%; negative agreement ranged from 94.7% to 100%. Additional validation performed using the 100-member CDC Toxoplasma 1998 Human Serum Panel, showing 100% sensitivity and specificity.
Technological Characteristics
Paramagnetic-particle, chemiluminescent immunoassay. Analyzers: Access, Access 2, Synchron LXi 725, UniCel DxC 600i, UniCel Dxl 600, UniCel Dxl 800. Quantitative/qualitative detection of IgG antibodies. Standardized against WHO International Standard for Anti-Toxoplasma Serum. Analytical sensitivity (LoQ) 3.2 IU/mL.
Indications for Use
Indicated for qualitative and quantitative determination of IgG antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii in human serum to aid in diagnosis of infection and assessment of immune status in pregnant women. Not for blood/plasma donor screening. Performance not established for immunocompromised/immunosuppressed patients, cord blood, neonates, or infants.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
Toxoplasma gondii serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera used in serological tests to identify antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii in serum. Additionally, some of these reagents consist of antisera conjugated with a fluorescent dye (immunofluorescent reagents) used to identify Toxoplasma gondii from clinical specimens. The identification aids in the diagnosis of toxoplasmosis caused by the parasitic protozoan Toxoplasma gondii and provides epidemiological information on this disease. Congenital toxoplasmosis is characterized by lesions of the central nervous system, which if undetected and untreated may lead to brain defects, blindness, and death of an unborn fetus. The disease is characterized in children by inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY
A. 510(k) Number: K080869
B. Purpose for Submission: Initial Premarket Notification
C. Measurand: Human IgG class antibodies to *Toxoplasma gondii* (Toxo IgG) in serum
D. Type of Test: Chemiluminescent immunoassay for qualitative and quantitative determination of *Toxo IgG* in diagnosis of *Toxoplasma gondii* infection
E. Applicant: Beckman Coulter, Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names: Access Toxo IgG Assay, Access Toxo IgG Calibrators, Access Toxo IgG QC
G. Regulatory Information:
| Product Code | Classification | Regulation Section | Panel |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| LGD | Class II | 866.3780 | Microbiology (83) |
## H. Intended Use:
The Access Toxo IgG assay is a paramagnetic-perticle, chemiluminescent immunoassay for the qualitative and quantitative determination of IgG antibodies to *Toxoplasma gondii* in human serum using the Access Immunoassay Systems. The Access Toxo IgG assay aids in the diagnosis of *Toxoplasma gondii* and may be used to assess the immune status of pregnant women.
This product is not FDA cleared/approved for the screening of blood of plasma donors. Assay performance characteristics have not been established for immunocompromised or immunosuppressed patients, cord blood, neonatal specimens of infants.
3) Special conditions for use statement(s): For Prescription use only
4) Special instrument requirements: see I
I. Device Description: The device consists of three different components: Access Toxo IgG Assay reagents, Toxo IgG Calibrators, and Toxo IgG QC. The assay is performed for the quantitative and qualitative determination of anti-*Toxoplasma gondii* IgG in human serum and is read using the Access Immunoassay Analyzers (Access,
{1}
Access 2, Synchron LXi 725, UniCel DxC 600i, UniCel DxI 600 and UniCel DxI 800).
## J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
a) Predicate device name (s):
Beckman Coulter, Inc. - Access Toxo IgG Assay, Calibrators, QC (Part Numbers: 34450, 34455, 34459)
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. - Access Toxo IgG Assay on the Access Immuno Assay
Abbot Laboratories - AxSYM Toxo IgG Antibody Assay (Comparator)
b) Predicate K numbers (s):
Beckman Coulter, Inc. - K032162
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. - K951495
Abbot Laboratories - K954575 (Comparator)
Comparison with predicate: Three devices were listed as predicate devices. The AxSYM Toxo IgG Antibody Assay from Abbot Laboratories was used as a reference method for clinical data evaluation and calculation of positive and negative percent agreement. The following Table shows the similarities and differences between Beckman and Abbot Toxo IgG Assay
| Similarities | Predicate Device
Abbot Laboratories | Beckman Coulter, Inc. |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Attribute | AxSYM Toxo IgG - K954575 | New Access Toxo IgG (P/N A31588) |
| Assay Methodology | Microparticle solid-phase, two-step enzyme immunoassay. | Microparticle solid-phase, two-step enzyme immunoassay. |
| Intended Use | Qualitative and quantitative measurement of IgG antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii. | Qualitative and quantitative determination of IgG antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii. |
| Solid Phase | Microparticles coated with partially-purified T. gondii antigen (RH strain from HeLa culture). | Microparticles coated with partially-purified T. gondii antigen (RH strain). |
| Conjugate | Alkaline phosphatase-labeled anti-human IgG antibody. | Alkaline phosphatase-labeled anti-human IgG antibody. |
| Calibrators | Six liquid re-calcified plasma | Six liquid defibrinated plasma |
{2}
| | calibrators (one non-reactive, five reactive). | calibrators (one non-reactive, five reactive). |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Controls | Two liquid re-calcified plasma controls (one non-reactive, one reactive). | Two liquid defibrinated plasma controls (one non-reactive, one reactive). |
| Differences | Abbot Laboratories | Beckman Coulter Inc |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Attribute | AxSYM Toxo IgG - K954575 | Beckman New Access Toxo IgG (P/N A31588) |
| Reporting Methodology | Enzyme immunoassay employing fluorescent detection. | Enzyme immunoassay employing chemiluminescent detection. |
| Sample Type | Human serum or plasma (EDTA, heparin, sodium citrate). | Human serum. |
| Solid Phase Capture Mechanism | Microparticles captured onto glass fibers for washing and signal detection. | Paramagnetic microparticles retained in a magnetic field for washing and signal detection. |
| Conjugate Antibody | Goat polyclonal anti-human IgG antibody. | Mouse monoclonal anti-human IgG antibody. |
| Substrate | 4-methyllumbelliferyl phosphate | Lumi-Phos 530 (dioxetane-based substrate) |
| System Wash Solution(s) | Matrix Cell Wash - TRIA-buffered saline with sodium azide and antimicrobials. Line Diluent-phosphate buffer with sodium azide and antimicrobials. | Access Wash Buffer II - TRIS-buffered saline, Tween 20 surfactant, sodium azide and ProClin 300. |
| Calibration method | Six-point calibration curve or two-point master curve. | Six-point calibration curve. |
| Calibrator Reference | WHO 2^{nd} International Standard Preparation for Anti-Toxoplasma Serum. | WHO 3rd International Standard Preparation for Anti-Toxoplasma Serum. |
| Calibration Validity | Indefinite (required with new reagent lot or upon quality control failure). | 28 Days |
| Reactive Cut-off | >or = 3 IU/mL | >or = 10.5 IU/mL |
| Gray Zone | 2 - 3 IU/mL | 7.5 - 10.5 IU/mL |
{3}
# K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable): NA
L. Test Principle: The Access Toxo IgG assay is an enzyme immunoassay using an indirect technique. A sample is added to a reaction vessel with paramagnetic particles coated with Toxoplasma gondii membrane antigen. Specific antibodies present in the sample bind to the antigen. After incubation in a reaction vessel, materials bound to the solid phase are held in a magnetic field while unbound materials are washed away. Alkaline phosphatase-conjugated monoclonal anti-human IgG antibody is then added and attaches to the IgG antibodies captured on the particles. A second separation and wash step removes unbound conjugate. Then, the chemiluminescent substrate Lumi-Phos* 530 is added to the vessel and light generated by the reaction is measured with a luminometer. The light production is directly proportional to the concentration of Toxo IgG antibody in the sample. The amount of analyte in the sample is determined from a stored, multi-point calibration curve.
# M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
# 1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility: Reproducibility/repeatability of the Access Toxo IgG Assay was estimated at one internal (Site 3) and two external sites (Sites 1 and 2). Each site performed one run per day over seven test days. Nine serum samples were run in replicates of five in each run. Combined results for each serum sample from all three sites are presented in the table below. The observed average total $\% \mathrm{CV}$ was $12.6\%$ with daily calibration and $15.3\%$ using a stored calibration.
Combined Results
| | | | Daily Calibration | | | | Stored Calibration | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sample | N | Mean Dose (IU/mL) | Intra-assay %CV | Inter-assay %CV | Inter-site %CV* | Total %CV* | Mean Dose (IU/mL) | Intra-assay %CV | Inter-assay %CV | Inter-site %CV* | Total %CV* |
| A001 | 105 | 3.70 | 13.5 | 6.9 | 13.0 | 20.0 | 3.73 | 12.1 | 5.7 | 6.9 | 15.1 |
| A002 | 105 | 8.88 | 7.7 | 2.5 | 9.4 | 12.5 | 8.73 | 6.9 | 2.7 | 15.6 | 17.3 |
| A010 | 105 | 12.7 | 8.1 | 2.4 | 10.5 | 13.5 | 12.4 | 6.3 | 0.3 | 15.2 | 16.4 |
| A003 | 105 | 13.6 | 8.1 | 3.1 | 9.8 | 13.1 | 13.4 | 6.6 | 0.7 | 15.6 | 17.0 |
| A004 | 105 | 18.7 | 7.6 | 3.1 | 6.3 | 10.3 | 18.3 | 7.8 | 1.8 | 11.8 | 14.3 |
| A009 | 105 | 43.8 | 6.1 | 1.6 | 8.6 | 10.7 | 43.0 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 12.6 | 13.7 |
| A005 | 105 | 89.4 | 7.2 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 9.5 | 88.9 | 7.1 | 3.9 | 12.3 | 14.8 |
| A006 | 105 | 246.4 | 7.2 | 3.2 | 7.7 | 11.0 | 250.0 | 7.9 | 3.5 | 10.6 | 13.7 |
| A007 | 105 | 286.7 | 7.0 | 1.3 | 10.6 | 12.7 | 292.5 | 8.8 | 2.9 | 12.8 | 15.8 |
*The inter-site and total estimates also include contributions from inter-lot variation.
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
# Dilution Recovery (Linearity)
Recovery with WHO Standard: To calibrate the Access Toxo IgG assay to the $3^{\mathrm{rd}}$
{4}
International Standard for Anti-Toxoplasma serum (TOXM 1-85), five dilutions of the Third International Standard for Anti-Toxoplasma Serum (TOXM) were tested in duplicate in a single run. The recovery performance is presented in the following Table. The average recovery for all dilutions is $93.5\%$ .
WHO Standard Recovery
| Expected Dose (IU/mL) | Observed Dose (IU/mL) | Mean Observed Dose (IU/mL) | Recovery |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.0 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 98.3% |
| | 6.0 | | |
| 30.0 | 26.6 | 25.9 | 86.3% |
| | 25.2 | | |
| 60.0 | 65.4 | 65.1 | 108.5% |
| | 64.8 | | |
| 120.0 | 117.0 | 115.7 | 96.4% |
| | 114.4 | | |
| 240.0 | 183.6 | 187.4 | 78.1% |
| | 191.1 | | |
Linearity with High Patient Samples: Four highly reactive sera were diluted from 1/1.5 to 1/32 in Access Toxo IgG Calibrator, S0. These dilutions were tested in quadruplicate and the results were compared to expected values based on the neat sample determination (eight replicates). The mean recovery for the four sera was $100\%$ and ranged from $93.8\%$ to $109.1\%$ .
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
Access Toxo Calibrators(A31589): The Access Toxo calibrators are traceable to the WHO $3^{\mathrm{rd}}$ Internationable Standard Preparation for Anti-Toxoplasma Serum (TOXM) based on EN ISO 17511. The calibrators are provided at six levels- zero(S0), and approximately 10.5 (S1), 50 (S2), 120(S3), 240(S4), and 450(S5) IU/mL. The recommended open use life of the Calibrators is 90 days.
Access Toxo Quality Controls(A31590): There are two controls: 1) QC1- Pooled human defibrinated plasma negative (non-reactive) for anti- $T$ . gondii IgG; 2) QC2-Spiked human defibrinated plasma containing high levels of anti- $T$ . gondii IgG positive (reactive). The target range for QC1 is $< 2$ IU/mL; the target range for QC2 is 20-30 IU/mL. The recommended open use life of the Controls is 90 days.
d. Analytical sensitivity:
(i) Limit of Blank (LoB): The LoB was determined with three serum samples in 60 replicates (level of anti-Toxoplasma IgG approaching $0\mathrm{IU / mL}$ in each serum sample) and one lot of the S0 calibrator with two lots of Access Toxo IgG reagents (P1 and P2). The testing was conducted with one Access and one Access 2 Analyzer. The
{5}
LoB for the Access Toxo IgG is estimated at 0.10 IU/mL.
(ii) Limit of Detection (LoD): Four low level (non-reactive) serum samples were tested in 60 replicates with two reagent lots. The testing was conducted with one Access and one Access 2 Analyzer. The LoD for the Access Toxo IgG is estimated at $0.40\mathrm{IU / mL}$ .
(iii) Limit of Quantitation (LoQ): To estimate the LoQ for the Access Toxo IgG, two samples with established levels of anti-Toxoplasma IgG reactivity was tested over 5 days in one run of 5 replicates per day. The testing was conducted with two reagent lots on a single Access Analyzer. The mean LoQ for the Access Toxo IgG is 3.2 IU/mL.
e. Analytical specificity/Interference: A study was conducted to investigate potential cross-reactivity with immunoglobulins resulting from exposure to other infectious agents that can produce symptoms similar to Toxoplasma infection (CMV, Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, HSV-1, HSV-2, malaria, measles, rubella VZV, mumps and Treponema). In addition, interference due to heterophilic antibodies (HAMA), abnormal immune system conditions (myeloma, rheumatoid factor, ANA) and influenza vaccine was evaluated. A total of 311 samples were tested. Nine samples $(2.9\%)$ , including HIV, HSV-2 IgG, HAMA, mumps, syphilis) that were non-reactive by another commercially available assay were equivocal or reactive in the Access Toxo IgG Assay. The observed performance with each condition is presented in the following Table:
| Condition | Number tested | Equivocal or Reactive in Access Toxo IgG |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ANA | 14 | 0 |
| CMV IgG | 8 | 0 |
| EBV IgG | 13 | 0 |
| HAV Ab | 10 | 0 |
| HBV (HBsAg) | 11 | 0 |
| HCV Ab | 14 | 0 |
| HIV | 43 | 2 |
| HSV-1 IgG | 3 | 0 |
| HSV-2 IgG | 8 | 2 |
| Malaria | 7 | 0 |
| Measles IgG | 13 | 0 |
| Myeloma IgG | 12 | 0 |
| Rheumatoid Factor | 15 | 0 |
| Rubella IgG | 12 | 0 |
| VZV IgG | 11 | 0 |
| HAMA/Heterophilic Antibody | 20 | 2 |
| Mumps IgG | 65 | 2 |
| Influenza (vaccine recipients) | 23 | 0 |
| Syphilis | 43 | 1 |
{6}
The Access Toxo IgG Assay was not significantly affected by the presence of 300 mg/L bilirubin (100 mg/L free + 200 mg/L conjugated), 30 g/L triolein (triglycerides), 90 g/L albumin or 20 g/L hemoglobin.
f. Assay cut-off: The assay cutoff was established by an evaluation of 959 non-reactive and 1091 reactive samples characterized by another enzyme immunoassay method. Cutoff for the Access Toxo IgG assay was determined to be 10.5 IU/mL based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
- All test samples < 7.5 IU/mL are considered non-reactive for the presence of Toxoplasma gondii IgG antibodies.
- Sample results ≥ 7.5 IU/mL and < 10.5 IU/mL are considered equivocal for the presence of Toxoplasma gondii IgG antibodies.
- All test samples ≥ 10.5 IU/mL are considered reactive for the presence of T. gondii IgG antibodies.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with reference method:
Abbot AxSYM Toxo IgG Antibody Assay
b. Matrix comparison: NA
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity: see below
b. Clinical specificity: see below
Performance Characteristics
Summary of Clinical Studies
Method Comparison: Studies comparing the performance of the Access Toxo IgG assay with the Abbott AxSYM Toxo IgG method were conducted at one external site in south-central France (Site 1), one external site in the northeastern United States (Site 2) and at the manufacturer's site (Site 3). The external sites tested samples collected from their own routine prenatal screening population as well as specimens from males and non-pregnant females that had Toxo IgG testing ordered. Two clinical sample suppliers provided the routine Toxo IgG test specimens for the U.S. site. The manufacturer tested prenatal specimens collected at three hospitals in north-central France.
Method agreement results for the prospective (fresh) and retrospective (frozen) collections by test site are presented in the following two Tables.
7
{7}
Retrospective/Prospective Patient Population
| Comparison EIA | | | + | + | + | EQV | EQV | EQV | - | - | - |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| n | Access | | + | EQV | - | + | EQV | - | + | EQV | - |
| Site 1 | 406 | Frozen | 154 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 235 |
| Site 2 | 28 | Fresh | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 |
| Site 2 | 433 | Frozen | 190 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 230 |
| Site 3 | 558 | Frozen | 356 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 196 |
Agreement Table for Retrospective/Prospective Patient Population
| | | | Positive Agreement (%) | 95% Conf. Int. | Negative-Agreement (%) | 95% Conf. Int. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Site 1 | 406 | Frozen | 94.5 | 89.8 - 97.4 | 97.9 | 95.2 - 99.3 |
| Site 2 | 28 | Fresh | 80.0 | 28.5 - 99.5 | 100 | 85.3 - 100 |
| Site 2 | 433 | Frozen | 99.0 | 96.3 - 99.9 | 97.9 | 95.1 - 99.3 |
| Site 3 | 558 | Frozen | 99.4 | 98.0 - 99.9 | 98.0 | 94.9 - 99.4 |
Method agreement results for the prenatal and diagnostic populations (male and female) by test site are presented in the following two Tables.
Pregnant/Non-Pregnant Population
| Comparison EIA | | | + | + | + | EQV | EQV | EQV | - | - | - |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| n | Access | | + | EQV | - | + | EQV | - | + | EQV | - |
| Site 1 | 229 | Pregnant | 37 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 182 |
| Site 2 | 173 | Pregnant | 13 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 158 |
| Site 3 | 558 | Pregnant | 356 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 196 |
| Site 1 | 76 | Female | 47 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 24 |
| Site 1 | 101 | Male | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 29 |
| Site 2 | 180 | Female | 97 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 71 |
| Site 2 | 108 | Male | 84 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 |
Agreement Table for Pregnant/Non-Pregnant Population
| | | | Positive Agreement (%) | 95% Conf. Int. | Negative Agreement (%) | 95% Conf. Int. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Site 1 | 229 | Pregnant | 88.1 | 74.4 – 96.0 | 98.4 | 95.3 – 99.7 |
| Site 2 | 173 | Pregnant | 92.9 | 66.3 – 99.8 | 99.4 | 96.5 – 100 |
| Site 3 | 558 | Pregnant | 99.4 | 98.0 – 99.9 | 98.0 | 94.9 – 99.4 |
| Site 1 | 76 | Female | 92.2 | 81.1 – 97.8 | 96.0 | 79.7 – 99.9 |
| Site 1 | 101 | Male | 100 | 94.9 – 100 | 96.7 | 82.8 – 99.9 |
| Site 2 | 180 | Female | 98.0 | 92.9 – 99.8 | 94.7 | 86.9 – 98.5 |
| Site 2 | 108 | Male | 100 | 95.7 - 100 | 100 | 85.8 - 100 |
{8}
9
# CDC Toxoplasma 1998 Human Serum Panel
The Access Toxo IgG Assay exhibited 100% positive and negative agreement with the 100-member CDC Toxoplasma 1998 Human Serum Panel.
4. Clinical cut-off: As described in Assay cut-off.
5. Expected values/Reference range: The worldwide prevalence of Toxoplasma infection varies widely, influenced by such factors as environmental conditions, sanitation, dietary practices and companion and farm animal contact. Local prevalence is also influenced by population age and immigration patterns. Published estimates of seroprevalence for selected population in Europe, Asia, Africa and south America range from <5 -90% while a recent study estimate the overall United States prevalence to be approximately 22%.
Due to this substantial variability, it was recommended to establish prevalence expectations based on its own specific patient population.
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. The Access Toxo IgG Assay, Calibrators and QC (Part numbers: A31588, A31589, A31590) on the Access Immunoassay Systems are substantially equivalent to the AxSYM Toxo IgG Assay and the Access Toxo IgG Assay, Calibrators and QC (Part numbers: 34450, 34455, 34459) for the quantitative and qualitative determination of IgG antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii in human serum.
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.