Retrospective clinical samples were used to evaluate the clinical sensitivity and specificity of the AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus Test System by comparing results against predicate devices and CDC-characterized panels.
Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Evaluation; Retrospective comparative study
Patients with syphilis tests ordered, pregnant women, and unselected hospitalized patients; Sample Size: Approximately 3,000+ total samples across various cohorts; Number of Sites: 3 (Zeus Scientific, Inc. and two hospital laboratories)
Predicate device (Trep-Chek Treponemal Antibody EIA) and CDC-characterized panels
Clinical sensitivity and specificity (PPA/NPA)
Indications for Use
The Zeus Scientific, Inc. AtheNA Multi-Lyte® Treponema pallidum IgG Plus Test System is a multiplex flow immunoassay intended for the qualitative detection of specific human IgG class antibodies to Treponema pallidum in human serum. The presence of antibodies to Treponema pallidum specific antigen, in conjunction with non treponemal laboratory tests and clinical findings, may aid in the diagnosis of syphilis infection. This test is for in vitro diagnostic use only. This test is not intended for screening blood or plasma donors.
Device Story
Multiplex flow immunoassay system; utilizes Luminex 200 IS xMAP platform. Input: human serum samples. Principle: sandwich immunoassay using polystyrene microspheres conjugated with T. pallidum antigen; patient antibodies bind to antigen; phycoerythrin-conjugated goat anti-human IgG added as reporter. Instrument: modified flow cytometer interprets reactions on microparticles. Software: AtheNA Multi-Lyte v3.0.9 converts raw fluorescence (MFI) to units (AU/mL) using Intra-Well Calibration Technology. Output: qualitative result (Negative, Equivocal, Positive). Used in clinical laboratories by technicians. Results assist clinicians in syphilis diagnosis when combined with non-treponemal tests and clinical findings.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical performance evaluated using 1000 banked serum samples (syphilis test ordered), 498 samples from pregnant women, 1000 unselected hospitalized patients, and various retrospective cohorts (HIV-1 positive, RPR/TPPA reactive). Comparison against predicate and CDC-characterized panels. PPA/NPA varied by cohort; e.g., 94.7% PPA and 95.9% NPA in hospitalized patients. CDC panel agreement ranged from 54.5% to 100% depending on syphilis stage. No clinical data for blood donor screening.
Indicated for qualitative detection of human IgG antibodies to Treponema pallidum in human serum to aid in syphilis diagnosis. For prescription use only. Not for blood or plasma donor screening.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
Treponema pallidum treponemal test reagents are devices that consist of the antigens, antisera and all control reagents (standardized reagents with which test results are compared) which are derived from treponemal sources and that are used in the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test (FTA-ABS), the Treponema pallidum immobilization test (T.P.I.), and other treponemal tests used to identify antibodies to Treponema pallidum directly from infecting treponemal organisms in serum. The identification aids in the diagnosis of syphilis caused by bacteria belonging to the genus Treponema and provides epidemiological information on syphilis.
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
K093837
B. Purpose for Submission:
To obtain a Substantial Equivalence determination for the AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus Test System
C. Measurand:
Antibodies to Treponema pallidum (T. pallidum)
D. Type of Test:
A multiplex flow qualitative immunoassay
E. Applicant:
Zeus Scientific, Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus Test System; Treponema pallidum treponemal test reagents
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR § 866.3830, Treponema pallidum treponemal test reagents
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
LIP - Enzyme linked immunoabsorption assay, Treponema pallidum
{1}
4. Panel:
Microbiology (83)
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use:
The Zeus Scientific, Inc. AtheNA Multi-Lyte® Treponema pallidum IgG Plus Test System is a multiplex flow immunoassay intended for the qualitative detection of specific human IgG class antibodies to Treponema pallidum in human serum.
The presence of antibodies to Treponema pallidum specific antigen, in conjunction with non treponemal laboratory tests and clinical findings, may aid in the diagnosis of syphilis infection.
This test is for in vitro diagnostic use only.
This test is not intended for screening blood or plasma donors.
2. Indications for use:
The Zeus Scientific, Inc. AtheNA Multi-Lyte® Treponema pallidum IgG Plus Test System is a multiplex flow immunoassay intended for the qualitative detection of specific human IgG class antibodies to Treponema pallidum in human serum.
The presence of antibodies to Treponema pallidum specific antigen, in conjunction with non treponemal laboratory tests and clinical findings, may aid in the diagnosis of syphilis infection.
This test is for in vitro diagnostic use only.
This test is not intended for screening blood or plasma donors.
3. Special condition for use statement:
For prescription use only.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Luminex 200 IS xMAP instrument and AtheNA Multi-Lyte software version 3.0.9.
2
{2}
I. Device Description:
The AtheNA Multi-Lyte® Treponema pallidum IgG Plus Test System is an immunoassay system that employs traditional sandwich immunoassay techniques to measure antibody in human serum samples. The platform for this system is the Luminex 200 IS xMAP platform. This is an open platform consisting of solid phase microparticles on which the immunoassays are built and a modified flow cytometer used to interpret the reactions on the microparticles.
The system contains the AtheNA Multi-Lyte Software version 3.0.9. In this data analysis software, raw data ("output.csv" file) from a test performed on the Luminex is converted from the MFI per specimen/per analyte to a result based on the specific assay calibration data (from their Intra-Well Calibration Technology) and reported to the end user.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name:
- Trep-Chek Treponemal Antibody EIA
2. Predicate 510(k) number:
- K001552
1. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Intended Use | AtheNA Multi-Lyte® Treponema pallidum IgG Plus Test System is a multiplex flow immunoassay intended for the qualitative detection of specific human IgG class antibodies to treponema pallidum in human serum. The AtheNA Multi-Lyte® Treponema pallidum | The Phoenix Bio-Tech Corp. Syphilis Trep-Chek Test Kit is a confirmatory immunoassay for the qualitative detection of Treponema pallidum IgG antibodies in human serum or plasma. This product is not cleared (approved) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration |
{3}
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| | IgG Plus Test System is not intended for use in screening blood or plasma donors. | (FDA) for use in screening blood or plasma donors. |
| Assay type | Enzyme labeled, immunoassay | Enzyme labeled, immunoassay |
| Analyte Measured | Human IgG | Human IgG |
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Sample Dilution | 1:21 in SAVe Diluent | 1:20 in phosphate buffer based diluent |
| Detection Method | Fluorescent | Colorimetric |
| Scale | Intra-Well Calibration determines a unit value for each sample from the regression curve | Calculate the index value of unknown samples by comparing their OD to the cut off OD |
| Sample Dilution | 1:21 in SAVe Diluent | 1:20 in phosphate buffer based diluent |
| Specimen Tested | Human Serum | Human Serum or plasma |
| Calibration | Includes Intra-Well Calibration that provides a separate calibration curve for every sample | Includes Calibrator (human serum) |
| Cut-Offs | Negative is < 100, Positive is > 120 and Equivocal is 100-120 AU/mL | Negative is <= 0.90, Positive is >= 1.10 and Equivocal is 0.90 - 1.09 |
# K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced:
- CLSI EP07-A2: Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry
- CLSI EP5: Evaluation of Precision Performance of Clinical Chemistry Devices-Second Edition
- Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices, May 11, 2005
{4}
# L. Test Principle:
The test procedure involves two incubation steps where patient sera are diluted and the diluted test sera are incubated in a vessel containing a multiplexed mixture of the bead suspension. The multiplexed bead suspension contains a mixture of distinguishable sets of polystyrene microspheres; each set conjugated with Treponema pallidum antigen. The bead mix also contains one bead set designed to detect non-specific antibodies in the patient sample (if present) and four separate bead sets used for assay calibration. If present in patient sera, the individual antibodies will bind to the corresponding immobilized antigen bead set. The microspheres are rinsed to remove non-reactive serum proteins.
Phycoerythrin-conjugated goat anti-human IgG is added to the vessel and the plate is incubated. The conjugate will react with IgG antibody immobilized on the beads in step 1. The bead suspension is then analyzed by the AtheNA Multi-Lyte® instrument using software version 3.0.9. The bead set(s) are sorted (identified) and the amount of reporter molecule (PE conjugate) is determined for each bead set. Using the Intra-Well Calibration Technology®, internal calibration bead sets are used to convert raw fluorescence into outcome (units).
# M. Performance Characteristics:
# 1. Analytical performance:
# a. Precision/Reproducibility:
Precision was evaluated internally at the manufacturer's site. The study was conducted as follows: Nine samples (negative, high negative, near cut-off, low positive and high positive) were identified and/or prepared (by Zeus Scientific, Inc.) for use in the study based upon their activity on the AtheNA Multi-Lyte assay. To assess precision, on each day of testing, each sample was diluted twice and tested. This was repeated by a second technologist in a separate run and resulted in four results per day. The test results for negative samples, less than $20\mathrm{AU / mL}$ is consistent with a high $\% \mathrm{CV}$ which is acceptable. This was repeated for twenty days and the resulting data used to assess precision. Please see section M.1.f. for the assays interpretive criteria.
AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum Precision Study
| Panel Member | Sample N | Mean AU/mL | Within-Run | | Within-Day | | Between-Run | | Total | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV |
| High Positive 1 | 80 | 352.68 | 19.2 | 5.4% | 9.1 | 6.4% | 8.8 | 2.5% | 24.0 | 6.8% |
| High Positive 2 | 80 | 462.59 | 19.2 | 4.1% | 11.1 | 4.3% | 10.8 | 2.3% | 26.8 | 5.8% |
| High Positive 3 | 80 | 481.24 | 24.8 | 5.2% | 8.4 | 5.5% | 12.4 | 2.6% | 27.9 | 5.8% |
| Moderate Positive 1 | 80 | 210.11 | 16.2 | 7.4% | 6.5 | 6.0% | 12.3 | 5.5% | 22.3 | 10.6% |
{5}
Reproducibility was evaluated internally and at two external clinical sites. The study was conducted as follows: Nine samples (negative, high negative, near cut-off, low positive and high positive) were identified and/or prepared (by Zeus Scientific, Inc.) for use in the study based upon their activity on the AtheNA Multi-Lyte assay. To assess reproducibility, on each day of testing, each sample was diluted twice and each dilution was run in triplicate. This process was repeated by a second technologist resulting in twelve results per day. This was repeated for five days at each site and the resulting data used to assess reproducibility. The test results for negative samples, less than 20 AU/mL is consistent with a high $\% \mathrm{CV}$ which is acceptable.
Summary Of Multi-Site Reproducibility - AtheNA T. pallidum IgG Plus
| Panel Member | Sample N | Mean AU/mL | Within-Run | | Within-Day | | Between-Run | | Between-Site | | Total | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV |
| High Positive 1 | 180 | 326 | 19.2 | 5.8% | 21.8 | 6.6% | 12.7 | 3.8% | 24.2 | 7.4% | 26.6 | 8.2% |
| High Positive 2 | 180 | 436 | 21.9 | 5.0% | 26.6 | 6.1% | 19.2 | 4.4% | 29.3 | 6.7% | 32.6 | 7.5% |
| High Positive 3 | 180 | 459 | 23.8 | 5.2% | 30.0 | 6.5% | 21.2 | 4.6% | 30.9 | 6.7% | 33.1 | 7.2% |
| Mod Positive 1 | 180 | 196 | 10.6 | 5.4% | 12.2 | 6.2% | 7.0 | 3.6% | 13.5 | 6.9% | 14.6 | 7.5% |
| Mod Positive 2 | 180 | 304 | 16.3 | 5.3% | 18.7 | 6.1% | 11.2 | 3.7% | 19.3 | 6.4% | 21.2 | 7.0% |
| Mod Positive 3 | 180 | 234 | 14.0 | 5.9% | 18.4 | 7.8% | 13.9 | 5.9% | 19.1 | 8.2% | 21.1 | 9.0% |
| Low Positive 1 | 180 | 170 | 10.1 | 5.9% | 12.1 | 7.1% | 8.2 | 4.8% | 13.0 | 7.7% | 15.5 | 9.1% |
| Low Positive 2 | 180 | 137 | 7.8 | 5.7% | 9.8 | 7.1% | 6.9 | 4.9% | 10.9 | 8.0% | 11.7 | 8.5% |
| Low Positive 3 | 180 | 156 | 8.7 | 5.5% | 11.2 | 7.1% | 8.0 | 5.1% | 12.3 | 7.9% | 14.5 | 9.3% |
| Near Cut-off 1 | 180 | 106 | 6.6 | 6.1% | 8.2 | 7.7% | 6.1 | 5.7% | 8.6 | 8.1% | 9.8 | 9.2% |
| Near Cut-off 2 | 180 | 103 | 5.9 | 5.7% | 7.2 | 6.9% | 4.9 | 4.7% | 7.5 | 7.3% | 8.9 | 8.6% |
| Near Cut-off 3 | 180 | 108 | 6.3 | 5.8% | 7.0 | 6.4% | 3.3 | 3.1% | 8.1 | 7.5% | 9.4 | 8.8% |
| High Negative 1 | 180 | 73 | 4.6 | 6.3% | 5.3 | 7.2% | 2.8 | 3.8% | 5.5 | 7.6% | 8.5 | 8.8% |
| High Negative 2 | 180 | 81 | 5.6 | 6.9% | 6.5 | 8.1% | 3.9 | 4.8% | 6.9 | 8.5% | 7.4 | 9.2% |
| High Negative 3 | 180 | 88 | 5.2 | 5.8% | 6.3 | 7.2% | 4.1 | 4.6% | 6.8 | 7.7% | 7.6 | 8.7% |
| Negative 1 | 180 | 11 | 2.1 | 19.3% | 2.2 | 20.1% | 0.8 | 7.0% | 2.2 | 20.1% | 2.5 | 22.8% |
| Negative 2 | 180 | 9 | 1.8 | 20.2% | 1.9 | 20.9% | 0.5 | 6.0% | 2.0 | 21.9% | 2.2 | 24.9% |
| Negative 3 | 180 | 17 | 2.3 | 13.7% | 2.4 | 14.0% | 0.9 | 5.0% | 2.4 | 13.8% | 2.5 | 14.7% |
| Non-Reactive Control | 90 | 12 | 2.3 | 18.7% | 2.4 | 19.9% | 1.2 | 9.7% | 2.5 | 20.2% | 2.8 | 23.3% |
| Reactive Control | 90 | 886 | 32.2 | 3.6% | 35.4 | 4.0% | 18.3 | 2.1% | 36.9 | 4.2% | 38.9 | 4.4% |
Results from the precision and reproducibility studies are acceptable.
{6}
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Three strong positive samples were evaluated using a FDA cleared test system to determine the samples' reactivity. A negative sample was used as the diluent to prepare serial dilutions of the positive samples. Each dilution was tested in duplicate, the mean calculated and the result plotted. The total %CV between the three samples was determined to be 0.3%. The linearity is acceptable if the coefficient of variation for each sample is greater than 0.95.
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
Not applicable.
d. Detection limit:
The Master Cutoff of the assay was determined by calibrating against a panel of confirmed syphilis positive and confirmed syphilis negative samples. A minimum of 25 samples were tested using the predicate ELISA test system and confirmed as negative and then tested with the investigational device. Using the mean and standard deviations of this negative population theoretical cut-off was calculated. Known positive samples, selected for their reactivity with the predicate devices, were tested with the investigational device and checked to ascertain that the results fell above the theoretical cut-off.
e. Analytical specificity:
Interference Testing
The effect of potential interfering substances on sample results generated using the AtheNA Multi-Lyte test system was evaluated with the following possible interfering substances based on the guidelines established in CLSI EP7-A2: albumin, bilirubin, cholesterol, hemoglobin, triglycerides and intralipids.
The samples were exposed to the possible interfering substances and tested. An increase or reduction of signal equal to or less than 20% is considered acceptable. The negative sample may have a signal change greater than 20% if there is no change in the qualitative result of the sample.
All samples showed less than a 20% recovery of signal with the following exceptions:
{7}
- The positive sample showed a recovery of signal of 76% with the low spike of triglycerides, 60% with the high spike of hemoglobin and 74% with the high spike of intralipids.
- The borderline sample showed a recovery of signal of 74% with the low spike of albumin and 77% with the high spike of albumin.
- The high spikes of triglycerides and hemoglobin resulted in a recovery of signal of 76% for both substances.
The negative sample showed a change of signal with several of the potential interfering substance at both the high and low spikes. The negative samples stayed below the cut-off of 100 AU/ml.
All signal changes greater than 20% was specified in the Limitations section of the package insert.
## Cross-Reactivity Study
To test for possible cross-reactivity, multiple patient samples containing different concentrations of potentially cross-reactive antibodies were analyzed with the AtheNA Multi-Lyte® Treponema pallidum IgG Plus Test System that were sero-positive to EBV, ANA, RF IgM, Rubella, HIV, HSV 1, HSV 2, pregnancy, Hepatitis B, VZV IgG, VZV IgM, CMV, Toxoplasma, Lyme G/M and Hepatitis C. No cross-reactivity was exhibited.
8
{8}
| Organism | Total # Samples | # Reactive/ Total # Samples |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Cytomegalovirus IgG | 10 | 0/10 |
| Epstein-Barr Virus | 10 | 0/10 |
| Anti-Nuclear Antibodies | 10 | 0/10 |
| Herpes Simplex Virus 1 | 10 | 0/10 |
| Herpes Simplex Virus 2 | 10 | 0/10 |
| Rubella IgG | 10 | 0/10 |
| Toxoplasma IgG | 10 | 0/10 |
| Rheumatoid Factor | 10 | 0/10 |
| Borrelia burgdorferi IgG/ IgM (US strain) | 10 | 0/10 |
| Anti-Hepatitis B Surface Antigen | 10 | 0/10 |
| Hepatitis C Virus | 10 | 0/10 |
| Hepatitis B Surface Antigen | 10 | 0/10 |
| HIV | 10 | 0/10 |
| HCG | 10 | 0/10 |
| VZV | 10 | 0/10 |
| VZV IgM | 10 | 0/10 |
f. Assay cut-off:
The cut-off for each assay was established using a negative population for each marker. The AtheNA Multi-Lyte results were determined for this population, and the cut-off was set at approximately the mean plus three times the standard deviation.
$\geq 100 \mathrm{AU} / \mathrm{mL}$ Negative
100 to 120 AU/mL Equivocal
<120 AU/mL Positive
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method Comparison with Predicate:
Not applicable.
b. Matrix comparison:
Not applicable.
{9}
10
3. Clinical Studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity:
A total of 1000 serum samples were collected and tested in the study. The samples were tested at a hospital laboratory located in the Mid-Atlantic, the Northeast and at Zeus Scientific, Inc.
The hospital laboratories tested 400 samples from patients with a syphilis test ordered and 400 vendor purchased samples from pregnant women with syphilis test ordered. Zeus Scientific, Inc. tested 100 samples from patients with a syphilis tests ordered and 100 samples from pregnant women.
| | AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus
Comparative Testing Result Summary Presented with 95% CI
Banked sera from patients with syphilis test ordered | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Predicate | | | | | |
| | | Positive | Equivocal | Negative | Site Total | PPA
NPA | 95% CI |
| AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus | | | | | | | |
| | Positive
Equivocal | 6 | | 13
4 | 19
4 | 100.0% | 60.7 - 100% |
| | Negative
Invalid | | | 477 | 477
0 | 96.6% | 94.6 - 98% |
| | Site Total | 6 | 0 | 494 | 500 | | |
{10}
11
| | AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus
Comparative Testing Result Summary Presented with 95% CI
Banked purchased sera from pregnant women with syphilis test ordered | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Predicate | | | | | |
| | | Positive | Equivocal | Negative | Site Total | PPA NPA | 95% CI |
| AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus | | | | | | | |
| | Positive
Equivocal | 1 | | 3 | 4 | 100.0% | 50 - 100% |
| | Negative
Invalid | | | 494 | 0 | 99.4% | 98.3 - 99.9% |
| Site Total | 1 | 0 | 497 | 498* | | | |
*Note that 500 specimens were originally obtained; however, two serum specimens did not meet the inclusion criteria for the study.
## Prospectively Collected Population of Unselected Hospitalized Patients:
Additional clinical performance was assessed in a population of 1000 hospitalized patients. These samples were pulled from a hospital laboratory routine workload of patient testing and were tested at the three sites.
| | AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus
Comparative Testing Result Summary Presented with 95% CI
Unselected hospitalized patients | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Predicate | | | | | |
| | | Positive | Equivocal | Negative | Site Total | PPA NPA | 95% CI |
| AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus | | | | | | | |
| | Positive
Equivocal | 18
1 | 1 | 32
8 | 50
10 | 94.7% | 74 - 99.9% |
| | Negative
Invalid | | | 932
4 | 932
4 | 95.9% | 94 - 96.7% |
| | Site Total | 19 | 1 | 976 | 996* | | |
*4 samples QNS for testing
{11}
Retrospective HIV-1 Positive Samples: A total of 223 banked known positive HIV-1 samples were acquired from a commercial vendor.
| | AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus
Comparative Testing Result Summary Presented with 95% CI
Banked purchased known HIV-1 positive serum samples | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Predicate | | | | | |
| | | Positive | Equivocal | Negative | Site Total | PPA NPA | 95% CI |
| AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus | | | | | | | |
| | Positive
Equivocal | 46 | 3
2 | 5
2 | 54
4 | 97.9% | 88.7 - 100% |
| | Negative
Invalid | | 1 | 164 | 165
0 | 94.3% | 91.8 - 98.3% |
| | Site Total | 46 | 6 | 171 | 223 | | |
Retrospective TPPA /RPR Positive: A total of 280 samples requested to be RPR/TPPA positive were purchased from a commercial vendor.
| | AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus
Comparative Testing Result Summary Presented with 95% CI
Banked purchased sera requested to be RPR/TPPA reactive | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Predicate | | | | | |
| | | Positive | Equivocal | Negative | Site Total | PPA NPA | 95% CI |
| AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus | | | | | | | |
| | Positive
Equivocal | 275
1 | | | 275
1 | 96.3% | 81 - 99.9% |
| | Negative
Invalid | | | 1 | 1
0 | 96.0% | 92.8 - 98.1% |
| | Site Total | 276 | 0 | 1 | 277* | | |
*Three of the original 300 specimens were QNS for testing.
Retrospective TPPA Negative and TPPA Positive Samples Collected from Pregnant Women: A total of 250 samples requested to be collected from pregnant women and requested to be syphilis antibody negative were purchased from a commercial vendor. Only 27 samples requested to be collected from pregnant women and requested to be RPR/TPPA positive
{12}
were available. These samples were purchased from a vendor.
| | AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus Comparative Testing Result Summary Presented with 95% CI Banked purchased sera from pregnant women requested to be TPPA positive (27) RPR/TPPA non-reactive (250) | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Predicate | | | | | |
| | | Positive | Equivocal | Negative | Site Total | PPA NPA | 95% CI |
| AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus | | | | | | | |
| | Positive Equivocal | 26 | | 9 1 | 35 1 | 96.3% | 81 – 99.9% |
| | Negative Invalid | 1 | | 240 | 241 0 | 96.0% | 92.8 – 98.1% |
| | Site Total | 27 | 0 | 1 | 277 | | |
CDC Syphilis Panel: A total of 164 categorized samples with various reactivity to syphilis were evaluated.
Performance with CDC Characterized Serum Panel.
| Clinical Diagnosis | AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum Results | | | | % Agreement with Clinical Diagnosis Presented with 95% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Positive | Equivocal | Negative | Total | |
| Primary Treated | 10 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 90.9% 58.7-99.8% |
| Secondary Untreated | 40 | 0 | 3 | 43 | 93.0% 80.8-98.5% |
| Secondary Treated | 39 | 0 | 0 | 39 | 100.0% 92.6-100% |
| Latent Untreated | 6 | 0 | 5 | 11 | 54.5% 23.4-83.3% |
| Latent Treated | 45 | 1 | 6 | 52 | 86.5% 74.2-94.4% |
{13}
14
| Congenital | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 66.7% | 9.4-99.2% |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Total | 141 | 1 | 17 | 159 | 88.7% | 93.2% |
*Only 159 of the original 164 specimens were available for testing by AtheNA Multi-Lyte.
Performance of AtheNA Multi-Lyte versus Panel of Sera obtained from the CDC: A total of 359 uncharacterized serum samples obtained from the CDC were evaluated.
Performance of AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum vs. Panel of Samples from the CDC
| | AtheNA Multi-Lyte Treponema pallidum IgG Plus
Comparative Testing Result Summary Presented with 95% CI
CDC Syphilis Panel Results | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | TPPA | | | | | |
| | | Positive | Equivocal | Negative | Site Total | PPA NPA | 95% CI |
| AtheNA Multi-Lyte
Treponema pallidum
IgG Plus | | | | | | | |
| | Positive
Equivocal | 246 | 1 | 3 | 250 | 96.5% | 93.4 - 98.2% |
| | Negative
Invalid | 9 | | 94 | 103 | 93.1% | 86.2 - 97.2% |
| | Site Total | 255 | 1 | 100 | 356 | | |
*Three of the original 359 specimens to be included in this study were indeterminate by the CDC TPPA method and were therefore excluded from the study.
b. Clinical Specificity
See section M.3.a
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a. and b. are not applicable):
Not applicable.
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable
{14}
15
5. Expected Values/Reference Range:
To determine expected values in the populations tested, internal and external investigators assessed the device’s performance with 500 masked samples prospectively collected from patients with a syphilis test ordered and 498 samples from pregnant women with a syphilis test ordered. The samples were requested to be random, unselected sera submitted for syphilis antibody testing. Additional studies were conducted in a population of 1000 unselected hospitalized patients. Site 1 was Zeus Scientific. Site 2 was a hospital laboratory located in the northeast and site 3 was a hospital laboratory located in the mid-Atlantic region.
19/500 samples tested positive from the target population of patients with a syphilis test ordered ranging in age from <1 to >70 years old. The observed prevalence in this population was 3.8%. From this positive group of 19 individuals, 68.4% were females ranging in age from 30 to >70 (13/19, or 68.4%) and 31.6% were males ranging in age from 30 to >70 (6/19 or 31.6%).
In the target group of pregnant women ranging in age from 17 to 49, 4/498 samples tested positive. The positive samples were from women in the 30 to 49 age group. The observed prevalence in this group of 498 pregnant women is 0.8%.
In the population of unselected hospitalized patients ranging in age from <1 to >70 years old, 50/1000 samples tested positive. The observed prevalence in this population was 5.0%. From the group of fifty positive specimens, 22/50 positive samples were from females ranging in age of 20 to >70 (44%) and 28/50 positive samples were from males ranging in age from <1 to >70 (56%).
No additional studies or testing was done on any of the discrepant specimens to determine the definitive serological status of these patient sera.
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.