QUICKPROFILE SINGLE DRUG OF ABUSE DEVICE AND QUICK PROFILE MULTI-DRUGS OF ABUSE SCREEN DEVICE
K130213 · Lumiquick Diagnostics, Inc. · LDJ · Oct 18, 2013 · Clinical Toxicology
Device Facts
Record ID
K130213
Device Name
QUICKPROFILE SINGLE DRUG OF ABUSE DEVICE AND QUICK PROFILE MULTI-DRUGS OF ABUSE SCREEN DEVICE
Applicant
Lumiquick Diagnostics, Inc.
Product Code
LDJ · Clinical Toxicology
Decision Date
Oct 18, 2013
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 862.3870
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
LumiQuick’s QuickProfile Single Drugs of Abuse and QuickProfile Multi-Drugs of Abuse Screen Devices are rapid chromatographic immunoassays for the qualitative and simultaneous detection of one to nine of the following drugs in a variety of combinations in human urine. Both devices are available in test strip, dip panel, cassette panel and cup formats. The designed cutoff concentrations and direct calibrator for these drugs are as follows: AMP (Amphetamine) 1000 ng/ml, BAR (Secobarbital) 300 ng/ml, BZO (Oxazepam) 300 ng/ml, COC (Benzoylecgonine) 300 ng/ml, MTD (Methadone) 300 ng/ml, MAMP (Methamphetamine) 1000 ng/ml, OPI (Morphine) 300 ng/ml, PCP (Phencyclidine) 25 ng/ml, THC (THC 11-nor-Δ⁹-THC-9-COOH) 50 ng/ml. These devices are intended for prescription use only. These assays provide only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) or Liquid Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS) are the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test result, particularly when preliminary positive results are indicated.
Device Story
Rapid, one-step, colloidal gold-based chromatographic immunoassay for qualitative detection of drugs of abuse in human urine. Available in test strip, dip panel, cassette panel, and cup formats. Operates via competitive binding: drug-protein conjugates on membrane compete with urine drug for limited antibody-colloidal gold binding sites. Absence of color band at test region indicates positive result; presence of color band indicates negative result. Control band confirms proper test performance. Used in clinical settings; operated by healthcare professionals. Provides preliminary analytical results; requires confirmatory testing via GC/MS or LC/MS. Assists clinicians in drug screening decisions.
Clinical Evidence
Bench testing only. Precision/reproducibility studies conducted using GC/MS-confirmed urine controls across all formats (strip, dip panel, cassette, cup) over 10 days. Method comparison study performed against GC/MS/LC/MS reference methods using clinical urine specimens (minimum 41 negative and 43 positive samples per analyte). Results demonstrated 100% agreement with reference methods. Analytical specificity and cross-reactivity evaluated against various compounds; pH and specific gravity interference testing showed no impact.
Technological Characteristics
One-step chromatographic immunoassay; colloidal gold-labeled antibody-drug conjugate; drug-protein conjugate immobilized on membrane. Formats: test strip, dip panel, cassette panel, cup. Storage: 2-30°C. Visual result interpretation. No electronic components or software.
Indications for Use
Indicated for qualitative, simultaneous detection of 1-9 drugs of abuse (Amphetamine, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepines, Cocaine, Methadone, Methamphetamine, Opiates, Phencyclidine, Marijuana) in human urine. For prescription use only. Provides preliminary results requiring confirmation by GC/MS or LC/MS.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A cannabinoid test system is a device intended to measure any of the cannabinoids, hallucinogenic compounds endogenous to marihuana, in serum, plasma, saliva, and urine. Cannabinoid compounds include delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol, cannabinol, and cannabichromene. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of cannabinoid use or abuse and in monitoring levels of cannabinoids during clinical investigational use.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). A cannabinoid test system is not exempt if it is intended for any use other than employment or insurance testing or is intended for Federal drug testing programs. The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 862.9, provided the test system is intended for employment and insurance testing and includes a statement in the labeling that the device is intended solely for use in employment and insurance testing, and does not include devices intended for Federal drug testing programs (*e.g.,* programs run by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. military).
Predicate Devices
Innovacon Spectrum II Test Card (k061718)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
k130213
B. Purpose for Submission:
New Device
C. Measurand:
Amphetamine, Secobarbital, Oxazepam, Benzoylecgonine, Methadone, Methamphetamine, Opiates, Phencyclidine, Cannabinoid (THC)
D. Type of Test:
Qualitative chromatographic immunoassay
E. Applicant:
LumiQuick Diagnostics Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
QuickProfile Single Drugs of Abuse Screen Device
QuickProfile Multi-Drugs of Abuse Screen Device
G. Regulatory Information:
| Product Code | Classification | Regulation Section | Panel |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| DKZ | Class II | 21 CFR part 862.3100
Amphetamine test system | Toxicology (91) |
| DIS | Class II | 21 CFR part 862.3150
Barbiturate test system | Toxicology (91) |
| JXM | Class II | 21 CFR part 862.3170
Benzodiazepine test system | Toxicology (91) |
| DIO | Class II | 21 CFR part 862.3250
Cocaine and cocaine metabolite test system | Toxicology (91) |
| DJR | Class II | 21 CFR part 862.3620
Methadone test system | Toxicology (91) |
{1}
2
| DJC | Class II | 21 CFR part 862.3610
Methamphetamine test system | Toxicology (91) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| DJG | Class II | 21 CFR part 862.3650
Opiate test system | Toxicology (91) |
| LCM | Unclassified | Phencyclidine | Toxicology (91) |
| LDJ | Class II | 21 CFR part 862.3870
Cannabinoid test system. | Toxicology (91) |
## H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
Please see indications for use below.
2. Indication(s) for use:
LumiQuick’s QuickProfile Single Drugs of Abuse and QuickProfile Multi-Drugs of Abuse Screen Devices are rapid chromatographic immunoassays for the qualitative and simultaneous detection of one to nine of the following drugs in a variety of combinations in human urine. Both devices are available in test strip, dip panel, cassette panel and cup formats. The designed cutoff concentrations and direct calibrator for these drugs are as follows:
| AMP | Amphetamine | 1000 ng/ml |
| --- | --- | --- |
| BAR | Secobarbital | 300 ng/ml |
| BZO | Oxazepam | 300 ng/ml |
| COC | Benzoylecgonine | 300 ng/ml |
| MTD | Methadone | 300 ng/ml |
| MAMP | Methamphetamine | 1000 ng/ml |
| OPI | Morphine | 300 ng/ml |
| PCP | Phencyclidine | 25 ng/ml |
| THC | THC 11-nor-Δ⁹-THC-9-COOH | 50 ng/ml |
These devices are intended for prescription use only. These assays provide only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) or Liquid Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS) are the preferred confirmatory method.
Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test result, particularly when preliminary positive results are indicated.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For Prescription Use.
{2}
4. Special instrument requirements:
Not applicable; these are visually read single use devices
I. Device Description:
The QuickProfile Single Drugs of Abuse Device and Quick Profile Multi-Drugs of Abuse Screen Device are one-step, colloidal gold based chromatographic immunoassays for the rapid, qualitative detection of Amphetamine, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepines, Cocaine, Methadone, Methamphetamine, Opiates, Phencyclidine, and Marijuana in human urine. The single and multi-test devices contain one or more than one test strip. Both devices are available in test strip, dip panel, cassette panel and cup formats.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
Innovacon Spectrum II Test Card
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k061718
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Item | QuickProfile Single Drugs of Abuse and QuickProfile Multi-Drugs of Abuse Screen Devices (Candidate Device) | Innovacon Spectrum II Test Card (Predicate-k061718) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Intended Use | Rapid chromatographic immunoassays for the qualitative and simultaneous detection of one or more drugs of abuse in a variety of combinations in human urine. The devices are intended for prescription use only. | Same |
| Method of Measurement | Test strip, Dip panel, Cassette panel, and Cup | Test card; Cup |
| Test Principle | Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) | Same |
| Sample Matrix | Urine | Same |
| Time | 5 Minutes | Same |
| Cutoff Levels | Amphetamine 1000 ng/ml | Same |
{3}
| | Secobarbital 300 ng/ml |
| --- | --- |
| | Oxazepam 300 ng/ml |
| | Benzoylecgonine 300 ng/ml |
| | Methadone 300 ng/ml |
| | Methamphetamine 1000 ng/ml |
| | Opiates 300 ng/ml |
| | Phencyclidine 25 ng/ml |
| | THC 50 ng/ml |
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
None were referenced.
L. Test Principle:
The QuickProfile Single Drugs of Abuse and QuickProfile Multi-Drugs of Abuse Screen Device are one-step immunoassays in which chemically labeled drugs (drug-protein conjugates) compete for limited antibody binding sites with drugs that may be present in urine. The single and multi-test devices contain one or more than one test strips (single drug or 2 drugs per test strip) in the dip panel, cassette panel and cup formats. The drug-protein conjugates are pre-coated on the test band of the membrane and the drug mouse antibody-colloidal gold conjugate pads are placed at one end of the membrane. In the absence of drugs in the urine, the solution of the colored antibody-colloidal gold conjugates move along with the sample solution by capillary action to the immobilized drug-protein conjugate zones on the test band region. The colored antibody-gold conjugates then attach to the drug-protein conjugates to form visible lines as the antibodies complex with the drug conjugates. Therefore, the formation of the visible precipitant in the test band occurs when the test urine is negative for the drug. When drug is present in the urine, the drug/metabolite antigen competes with drug-protein conjugates on the test band region for the limited antibody on the colored drug antibody-colloidal gold conjugate pad. When a sufficient concentration of the drug is present, it will fill the limited antibody binding sites. This will prevent attachment of the colored antibody (drug-protein conjugate)-colloidal gold conjugate to the drug-protein conjugate zone on the test band region. Therefore, absence of the color band on the test region indicates a positive result.
A control band is added to the immunochromatographic membrane strip at the control region (C) to indicate that the test has performed properly. This control line should always appear regardless of the presence of drug or metabolite.
M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
1. Intra-assay precision around the cutoff
{4}
A commercially available panel (blinded) of GC/MS confirmed urine-based control samples containing multiple drugs were used for the study. These samples contained the following concentrations: Negative, 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, 150%, and 200% of the cutoff level of drug analytes. Two additional concentrations were prepared using these controls to generate samples at 25% and 175% of the cut off level. Test Strip, Dip Panel, Cassette Panel and Cup formats, for 9 target drugs were tested. Each control level was tested in duplicates for ten consecutive days, 3 lots per format, one device lot per professional (3 professionals). Results were consistent between lots. Representative lot results are presented in the tables below:
## Amphetamine (AMP):
### Test Strip
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 250 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 1000 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1250 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1750 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 2000 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
### Dip Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 250 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 1000 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1250 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1750 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 2000 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
### Cassette Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 250 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
{5}
6
| 1000 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1250 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1750 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 2000 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cup
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 250 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 1000 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1250 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1750 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 2000 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Opiates 300 (OPI):
Test Strip
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Dip Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
{6}
Cassette Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cup
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Benzodiazepines (BZO):
Test Strip
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Dip Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
{7}
8
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cassette Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cup
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cocaine (COC):
Test Strip
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
{8}
9
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
## Dip Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
## Cassette Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
## Cup
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
{9}
Methamphetamine (MAMP):
Test Strip
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 250 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 1000 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1250 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1750 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 2000 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Dip Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 250 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 1000 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1250 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1750 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 2000 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cassette Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 250 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 500 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 750 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 1000 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1250 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1500 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 1750 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 2000 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cup
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 250 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
{10}
Marijuana (THC):
Test Strip
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 12.5 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 25 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 37.5 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 50 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 62.5 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 75 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 87.5 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 100 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Dip Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 12.5 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 25 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 37.5 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 50 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 62.5 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 75 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 87.5 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cassette Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 12.5 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 25 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 37.5 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 50 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 62.5 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 75 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
{11}
12
| 87.5 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 100 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
## Cup
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 12.5 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 25 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 37.5 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 50 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 62.5 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 75 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 87.5 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 100 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
## Barbiturate (BAR):
### Test Strip
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
## Dip Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
{12}
Cassette Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cup
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Phencyclidine (PCP):
Test Strip
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 6.25 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 12.5 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 18.75 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 25 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 31.25 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 37.5 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 43.75 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 50 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Dip Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 6.25 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
{13}
14
| 12.5 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 18.75 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 25 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 31.25 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 37.5 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 43.75 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 50 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cassette Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 6.25 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 12.5 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 18.75 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 25 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 31.25 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 37.5 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 43.75 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 50 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cup
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 6.25 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 12.5 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 18.75 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 25 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 31.25 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 37.5 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 43.75 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 50 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Methadone (MTD):
Test Strip
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
{14}
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Dip Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cassette Panel
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
Cup
| Conc (ng/ml) | Cut-off % | No. of Tested | No. of Negative | No. of Preliminary | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Negative | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 75 | 25% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 150 | 50% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 225 | 75% | 20 | 20 | | 100 |
| 300 | 100% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 375 | 125% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 450 | 150% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 525 | 175% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
| 600 | 200% | 20 | | 20 | 100 |
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Not Applicable.
{15}
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, , calibrators, or methods): External controls are not supplied with this device. The labeling states that users should follow the appropriate federal, state, and local guidelines concerning the running of external quality controls.
## Stability
Accelerated and real time studies have been conducted for the QuickProfile Single Drug of Abuse and QuickProfile Multi-Drugs of Abuse Screen Devices. Protocols and acceptance criteria were reviewed and found to be acceptable. The manufacturer claims the following expiration date for the unopened (shelf-life) stability: 18 months for all formats (test strip, cassette panel, cup and dip panel).
For open pouch stability the user is instructed in the labeling as follows: “Do not open pouches until ready to perform the assay.”
## d. Detection limit:
Not applicable.
## e. Analytical specificity:
Interference was evaluated by spiking various concentrations of each substance into GC/MS confirmed urine-based control material at the following levels: Negative, 50% and 150% of cutoff. Compounds chemically related to each drug were tested to determine possible interference. Each compound was tested in three replicates. The highest concentration at which each substance does not interfere is presented below for each substance:
| Compound | Concentration (μg/mL) |
| --- | --- |
| Acetaminophen | 100 |
| Acetone | 200 |
| Albumin | 50,000 |
| Amitriptyline | 100 |
| Ampicillin | 100 |
| Aspartame | 100 |
| Aspirin | 100 |
| Atropine | 100 |
| Benzocaine | 100 |
| Bilirubin | 150 |
| Caffeine | 100 |
| Chloroquine | 100 |
| Chlorpheniramine | 100 |
| Creatinine | 100 |
| Dextromethorphan | 100 |
| Dextrorphan tartrate | 100 |
| 4-Dimethyllaminoantiyrine | 100 |
{16}
Cross-reactivity was tested by adding various drugs, drug metabolites, and other structure-similar compounds that are likely to be present in the urine. All compounds were prepared in a drug-free pool of human urine. Each compound that indicated positive results was diluted until negative results were observed and the minimum level of cross reactivity was identified. Each compound was tested in replicates of three. Results are provided below:
| Amphetamine related compounds | Concentration (ng/ml) | % Cross Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| d-Amphetamine | 1000 | 100 |
| l-Amphetamine | 30,000 | 3.33 |
| d-Methamphetamine | >100,000 | < 1 |
| l-Methamphetamine | >100,000 | < 1 |
| 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) | 2,500 | 40 |
| 3,4-Methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) | >100,000 | < 1 |
{17}
18
3,4-Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA) >100,000 < 1
Opiates 300 related compounds
| Concentration (ng/ml) | % Cross Reactivity |
| --- | --- |
| Morphine | 300 |
| Codeine | 300 |
| Diacetyl Morphin (Heroin) | 1,250 |
| Ethylmorphine | 300 |
| Hydromorphone | 1,000 |
| Hydrocodone | 1,250 |
| Oxymorphon | 10,000 |
| Oxycodone | >100,000 |
| Merperidine | >100,000 |
| 6-Acetylmorphine | 100 |
| Morphine-3-glucuronid | 300 |
| Nalbupine | >100,000 |
| Nalorphine | 750 |
| Naloxone | 25,000 |
| Natrexone | 100,000 |
| Normorphone | 2,000 |
| Procaine | >100,000 |
Benzodiazepines related compounds
| Concentration (ng/ml) | % Cross Reactivity |
| --- | --- |
| Oxazepam | 300 |
| Alprazolam | 300 |
| Bromazepam | 1,000 |
| Chlordiazepoxide | 300 |
| Clobazam | 300 |
| Clonazepam | 2,000 |
| Diazepam | 300 |
| Estazolam | 500 |
| Fentanyl | >100,000 |
| Flunitrazepam | 300 |
| Flurazepam | >100,000 |
| Lorazepam | 1,000 |
| Lormetazepam | 1,000 |
| Midazolam | >100,000 |
| Nitrazepam | 100 |
| Nordiazepam | 500 |
| Prazepam | >100,000 |
| Temazepam | 300 |
| Triazolam | 1,000 |
{18}
| Cocaine related compounds | Concentration (ng/ml) | % Cross Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Benzoylecgonine | 300 | 100 |
| Cocaine | 300 | 100 |
| Ecgonine | >100,000 | < 0.3 |
| Ecgonine Methyl Ester | >100,000 | < 0.3 |
| Methamphetamine related compounds | Concentration (ng/ml) | % Cross Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (+)-Methamphetamine | 1,000 | 100 |
| d-Amphetamine | 100,000 | 1.00 |
| Chloroquine | >100,000 | < 1 |
| (+/-) Ephedrine | >100,000 | < 1 |
| (-)-Methamphetamine | 10,000 | 10 |
| 3,4-Methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) | 1,000 | < 1 |
| 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) | >100,000 | 100 |
| 3,4-Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA) | 10,000 | 10 |
| (+/-) N-Methyl-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-butanamine (MBDB) | 50,000 | 2 |
| THC related compounds | Concentration (ng/ml) | % Cross Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 11-nor-Δ9-THC-9-COOH | 50 | 100 |
| Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol | 50,000 | 0.10 |
| Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol | 500 | 10 |
| 11-hydroxy-Δ9-THC | 50,000 | 0.10 |
| Cannabinol | >100,000 | < 0.05 |
| Cannabidiol | >100,000 | < 0.05 |
| Barbiturates related compounds | Concentration (ng/ml) | % Cross Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Secobarbital | 300 | 100 |
| Amobarbital | 150 | 200 |
| Butalbital | 2,000 | 15 |
| Pentobarbital | 300 | 100 |
| Phenobarbital | 300 | 100 |
| PCP related compounds | Concentration (ng/ml) | % Cross Reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Phencyclidine | 25 | 100 |
| Cis-Tramadol | 10,000 | 0.25 |
19
{19}
| Dextromethorphan | 50,000 | 0.05 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| N-Desmethyl-cis-tramadol | 10,000 | 0.25 |
| Methadone related compounds | Concentration (ng/ml) | % Cross Reactivity |
| Methadone | 300 | 100 |
| Doxylamine | >100,000 | < 0.3 |
| EDDP | >100,000 | < 0.3 |
pH and Specific Gravity
To test for possible positive and/or negative interference from pH, urine samples containing drug concentrations of $0\%$ , $75\%$ , $125\%$ and $150\%$ of cutoff and with a $\mathrm{pH}$ of 3.0, 5.0, 6.5, 7.5 and 8.5 were used. Three replicates per sample were tested. No positive or negative interference due to $\mathrm{pH}$ was observed.
To test for possible positive and/or negative interference from specific gravity, urine samples having specific gravity of 1.000-1.009, 1.010-1.020, 1.021-1.029 and $\geq 1.030$ were used. The samples were spiked to negative, $75\%$ , $125\%$ , and $150\%$ of cutoff of all drug analytes. No positive or negative interference due to specific gravity was observed.
f. Assay cut-off:
A separate cut-off study was conducted similarly to the precision study above, with similar results obtained. See precision studies above in section M.1.a.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
The study was performed using commercially available blinded-level and unaltered clinical urine specimens confirmed by GC/MS or LC/MS methodology. Tests were performed by 3 lab technicians. A minimum of 41 negative urine and 43 positive urine samples for each analyte (drug) were tested in duplicate in the following formats: Cup, Dip Panel, Test Strip and Cassette Panel. The results are presented below:
Amphetamine comparison with GC/MS value:
| AMP | | Drug-Free Urine | < -50% of the cut-off | -50% of the cut-off to the cut-off | Cut-off to +50% of the cutoff | > +50% of the cut-off | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cup | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 40 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Dip Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 40 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
{20}
Barbiturates (BAR) comparison with GC/MS value:
| BAR | | Drug-Free Urine | < -50% of the cut-off | -50% of the cut-off to the cut-off | Cut-off to +50% of the cutoff | > +50% of the cut-off | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cup | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 41 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 16 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Dip Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 41 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 16 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Test Strip | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 41 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 16 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Cassette Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 41 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 16 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
Benzodiazepines (BZO) comparison with GC/MS value:
| BZO | | Drug-Free Urine | < -50% of the cut-off | -50% of the cut-off to the cut-off | Cut-off to +50% of the cutoff | > +50% of the cut-off | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cup | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 59 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 8 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Dip Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 59 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 8 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Test Strip | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 59 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 8 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Cassette Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 59 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 8 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
Cocaine (COC) comparison with GC/MS value:
| COC | | Drug-Free Urine | < -50% of the cut-off | -50% of the cut-off to the cut-off | Cut-off to +50% of the cutoff | > +50% of the cut-off | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cup | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 39 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Dip Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 39 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Test Strip | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 39 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Cassette Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 39 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
{21}
Methadone (MTD) comparison with GC/MS value:
| MTD | | Drug-Free Urine | < -50% of the cut-off | -50% of the cut-off to the cut-off | Cut-off to +50% of the cutoff | > +50% of the cut-off | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cup | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 35 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Dip Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 35 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Test Strip | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 35 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Cassette Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 35 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
Methamphetamine (MAMP) comparison with GC/MS value:
| MAMP | | Drug-Free Urine | < -50% of the cut-off | -50% of the cut-off to the cut-off | Cut-off to +50% of the cutoff | > +50% of the cut-off | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cup | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 40 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Dip Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 40 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Test Strip | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 40 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Cassette Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 40 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
Opiates 300 (OPI) comparison with GC/MS value:
| OPI 300 | | Drug-Free Urine | < -50% of the cut-off | -50% of the cut-off to the cut-off | Cut-off to +50% of the cutoff | > +50% of the cut-off | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cup | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 39 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Dip Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 39 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Test Strip | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 39 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Cassette Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 39 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
Phencyclidine (PCP) comparison with GC/MS value:
| PCP | | Drug-Free Urine | < -50% of the cut-off | -50% of the cut-off to the cut-off | Cut-off to +50% of the cutoff | > +50% of the cut-off | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cup | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 42 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Dip Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 42 | 100.0 |
{22}
Marijuana (THC) comparison with GC/MS value:
| THC | | Drug-Free Urine | < -50% of the cut-off | -50% of the cut-off to the cut-off | Cut-off to +50% of the cutoff | > +50% of the cut-off | % Agreement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cup | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 37 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Dip Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 37 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Test Strip | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 37 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Cassette Panel | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 37 | 100.0 |
| | - | 34 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 |
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.
{23}
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.
24
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.