Native human serum samples from patients undergoing routine vancomycin therapy
The sponsor used patient samples collected during routine clinical care to perform method comparison studies, evaluating the candidate device's performance against a predicate device and LC/MS reference method.
Method comparison; Patient samples; Routine clinical care
Clinical Evidence
Study Design
Population
Comparator
Key Endpoints
Method comparison study using native patient samples
Predicate device (ONLINE TDM Vancomycin) and LC/MS
Method agreement and bias estimation
Indications for Use
In vitro test for the quantitative determination of vancomycin in serum and plasma on Roche/Hitachi cobas c systems. A vancomycin test system is a device intended to measure vancomycin, an antibiotic drug, in serum and plasma. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring the level of vancomycin to ensure appropriate therapy.
Device Story
ONLINE TDM Vancomycin Gen.3 is a two-reagent competitive immunoassay for quantitative vancomycin measurement in human serum/plasma; used on Roche/Hitachi cobas c 501 analyzers. Reagents include vancomycin-conjugated macromolecule and anti-vancomycin antibody-coupled latex microparticles. Principle: kinetic interaction (aggregation) of microparticles is inhibited by vancomycin in patient sample; absorbance change is inversely proportional to drug concentration. Operated by laboratory personnel in clinical chemistry settings. Output provides quantitative vancomycin concentration (μg/mL) to clinicians for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and overdose management; helps optimize dosing to balance therapeutic efficacy against risks of nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity.
Clinical Evidence
Bench testing only. Performance validated via precision (CLSI EP5-A2), linearity (CLSI EP6-A), and detection limits (CLSI EP17-A2). Method comparison study (n=125) vs. predicate yielded y = 0.993x + 0.641 (r=0.994). Comparison vs. LC-MS/MS (n=134) yielded y = 0.992x + 0.841 (r=0.991). Interference testing confirmed no significant impact from endogenous substances (hemoglobin, bilirubin, lipids, HAMA, etc.) or common therapeutic drugs.
Indicated for patients requiring quantitative measurement of vancomycin in serum or plasma to monitor therapeutic levels or diagnose overdose.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A vancomycin test system is a device intended to measure vancomycin, an antibiotic drug, in serum. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring the level of vancomycin to ensure appropriate therapy.
Predicate Devices
ONLINE TDM Vancomycin (k060586)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION
DECISION SUMMARY
ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
k152245
B. Purpose for Submission:
New device
C. Measurand:
Vancomycin
D. Type of Test:
Quantitative Immunoassay
E. Applicant:
Roche Diagnostics Operations Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
ONLINE TDM Vancomycin Gen.3
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 862.3950; Vancomycin test system
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
LEH
4. Panel:
Toxicology (91)
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
See Indications for Use below
2. Indication(s) for use:
In vitro test for the quantitative determination of vancomycin in serum and plasma on Roche/Hitachi cobas c systems.
A vancomycin test system is a device intended to measure vancomycin, an antibiotic
{1}
drug, in serum and plasma. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring the level of vancomycin to ensure appropriate therapy
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For in vitro diagnostic use only.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Roche/Hitachi cobas c 501 analyzer
I. Device Description:
The ONLINE TDM Vancomycin Gen.3 is a two reagent assay for the in vitro quantitative determination of vancomycin in human serum or plasma on automated clinical chemistry analyzers. The assay consists of 2 wet reagents, one of which contains a Vancomycin conjugate, piperazine- N,N'-bis (2 ethanesulfonic acid) (PIPES) buffer, preservative and a stabilizer; the other reagent contains an Anti-Vancomycin antibody (mouse Mono-clonal); latex microparticles, 3-(Nmorpholino) propane sulfonic acid (MOPS) buffer, and a stabilizer. The two reagents are sold together and available in kits of either 100 or 200 tests.
Calibrators for this assay include the Preciset TDM 1 Calibrator (k031856). The recommended control material for this assay is the TDM Control Set (k070200) or other commercially available suitable control material.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
ONLINE TDM Vancomycin
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k060586
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Candidate Device
ONLINE TDM Vancomycin Gen.3
(K152245) | Predicate Device
ONLINE TDM Vancomycin (k060586) |
| Intended Use | Intended for the quantitative determination of vancomycin in serum and plasma for the diagnosis and treatment of vancomycin overdose and in monitoring levels of vancomycin to ensure appropriate therapy | Same |
| Controls | TDM Control Set | Same |
| Calibrator | Preciset TDM 1 Calibrator | Same |
| Reagent Shelf Life | 2-8 °C until expiration date | Same |
{2}
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Candidate Device ONLINE TDM Vancomycin Gen.3 (K152245) | Predicate Device ONLINE TDM Vancomycin (k060586) |
| Traceability | Traceable to USP reference standards | Same |
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Candidate Device ONLINE TDM Vancomycin Gen.3 (K152245) | Predicate Device ONLINE TDM Vancomycin (k060586) |
| Methodology | Competitive interaction of microparticles in solution immunoassay | Homogeneous enzyme immunoassay |
| Instrumentation | Roche/ Hitachi cobas c 501 | Roche/Hitachi 911, 912, 917, and MODULAR P analyzers |
| Specimen Type | Serum, plasma collected in K2- or K3-EDTA, or lithium heparin | Serum, plasma collected in K2- or K3-EDTA, sodium citrate, or fluoride oxalate |
| Reagent Composition | Reagent 1: Vancomycin conjugate, piperazine- N,N'-bis (2 ethanesulfonic acid) (PIPES) buffer, pH 7.2; preservative; stabilizer
Reagent 2: Anti-Vancomycin antibody (mouse Mono-clonal); latex microparticle; 3-(Nmorpholino) propane sulfonic acid (MOPS) buffer, pH 7.2; stabilizer | Reagent 1: G6PHDH-labeled Vancomycin in buffer
Reagent 2: Anti-vancomycin antibody (mouse monoclonal), G6P and NAD in buffer |
| Lower Limits of Measurement | LoB = 1.0 μg/mL (0.69 μmol/L)
LoD = 1.5 μg/mL (1.04 μmol/L)
LoQ = 4.0 μg/mL (2.76 μmol/L) | Lower Detection Limit = 1.7 μg/mL (1.2 μmol/L) |
| Reagent On-Board Stability | 12 weeks on-board in use and refrigerated on the analyzer | 60 days opened and refrigerated on the analyzer |
| Measuring Range | 4.0 to 80 μg/mL | 1.7 to 80 μg/mL |
| Calibration Frequency | After lot change, after 6 weeks, and as required following quality control procedures | After reagent bottle change, after reagent lot change, and as required following quality control procedures |
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
- CLSI EP5-A2: Evaluation of Precision Performance of Quantitative Measurement Methods; Approved Guideline- Second Edition
- CLSI EP6-A: Evaluation of the Linearity of Quantitative Measurement Procedures: A
{3}
Statistical Approach; Approved Guideline.
- CLSI EP17-A: Protocol for Determination of Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation; Approved Guideline.
- CLSI EP7-A2: Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry: Approved Guideline-Second Edition
- CLSI EP9-A2: Method Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples: Approved Guideline- Second Edition
# L. Test Principle:
This is a two reagent assay for the in vitro quantitative determination of vancomycin in human serum or plasma on automated clinical chemistry analyzers. One reagent comprises vancomycin antibody covalently coupled to microparticles. The second reagent comprises a drug (vancomycin) conjugate linked to a macromolecule. The kinetic interaction (aggregation) of antibody-coupled microparticles in solution is induced by binding of the drug conjugate to the antibody and is inhibited by the presence of Vancomycin in the sample. The resulting kinetic interaction is measured by absorbance and is indirectly proportional to the amount of drug present in the sample.
# M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
# 1. Analytical performance:
# a. Precision/Reproducibility:
Precision (within-run precision) and intermediate precision (between-day precision) were assessed in accordance with CLSI Guideline EP5-A2 using three levels of control solutions (TDM Control set, k070200) and human serum spiked to five different Vancomycin levels. Samples were run in duplicate, twice per day per day, for 21 days, on a single analyzer using 3 lots of reagent.
The within-run precision data are summarized in the table below.
| Specimen | Reagent Lot | N | Mean (μg/mL) | SD (μg/mL) | CV (%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Control 1 | 1 | 84 | 7.85 | 0.28 | 3.5 |
| | 2 | 84 | 7.45 | 0.39 | 5.2 |
| | 3 | 84 | 7.68 | 0.33 | 4.2 |
| Control 2 | 1 | 84 | 22.1 | 0.4 | 1.7 |
| | 2 | 84 | 21.5 | 0.5 | 2.3 |
| | 3 | 84 | 21.3 | 0.4 | 2.1 |
| Control 3 | 1 | 84 | 35.9 | 0.6 | 1.8 |
| | 2 | 84 | 36.2 | 0.9 | 2.4 |
| | 3 | 84 | 35.5 | 0.8 | 2.3 |
| Serum 1 | 1 | 84 | 5.33 | 0.26 | 4.8 |
| | 2 | 84 | 4.82 | 0.40 | 8.2 |
| | 3 | 84 | 4.93 | 0.32 | 6.5 |
| Serum 2 | 1 | 84 | 8.49 | 0.23 | 2.7 |
| | 2 | 84 | 7.95 | 0.41 | 5.2 |
| | 3 | 84 | 8.17 | 0.33 | 4.0 |
| Serum 3 | 1 | 84 | 31.8 | 0.6 | 1.8 |
| | 2 | 84 | 32.1 | 0.8 | 2.5 |
{4}
The intermediate precision (between-day) precision data are summarized in the table below:
| Specimen | Reagent Lot | N | Mean (μg/mL) | SD (μg/mL) | CV (%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Control 1 | 1 | 84 | 7.85 | 0.31 | 3.9 |
| | 2 | 84 | 7.45 | 0.46 | 6.2 |
| | 3 | 84 | 7.68 | 0.39 | 5.1 |
| Control 2 | 1 | 84 | 22.1 | 0.4 | 2.0 |
| | 2 | 84 | 21.5 | 0.8 | 3.7 |
| | 3 | 84 | 21.3 | 0.8 | 3.5 |
| Control 3 | 1 | 84 | 35.9 | 0.8 | 2.3 |
| | 2 | 84 | 36.2 | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| | 3 | 84 | 35.5 | 1.1 | 3.2 |
| Serum 1 | 1 | 84 | 5.33 | 0.29 | 5.4 |
| | 2 | 84 | 4.82 | 0.51 | 10.6 |
| | 3 | 84 | 4.93 | 0.52 | 10.5 |
| Serum 2 | 1 | 84 | 8.49 | 0.27 | 3.1 |
| | 2 | 84 | 7.95 | 0.47 | 5.9 |
| | 3 | 84 | 8.17 | 0.46 | 5.6 |
| Serum 3 | 1 | 84 | 31.8 | 0.7 | 2.1 |
| | 2 | 84 | 32.1 | 1.1 | 3.4 |
| | 3 | 84 | 31.1 | 1.0 | 3.2 |
| Serum 4 | 1 | 84 | 40.0 | 1.1 | 2.8 |
| | 2 | 84 | 39.5 | 1.1 | 2.9 |
| | 3 | 84 | 38.5 | 1.1 | 2.9 |
| Serum 5 | 1 | 84 | 72.5 | 2.0 | 2.8 |
| | 2 | 84 | 71.4 | 2.2 | 3.1 |
| | 3 | 84 | 72.9 | 1.9 | 2.7 |
# b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
To assess linearity of the assay, the sponsor conducted a linearity study according to CLSI EP-6A. A sixteen level dilution series was prepared for serum and plasma samples using spiked human serum and plasma pools. Concentrations of each sample in the dilution series (serum: 0, 2.97, 3.96, 4.95, 5.94, 6.93, 7.92, 8.91, 9.90, 19.80, 29.70, 39.6, 49.5, 59.4, 69.3, 79.2, 89.1, $99.0~\mu \mathrm{g / mL}$ ; plasma: 0, 3.07, 4.09, 5.11, 6.14, 7.16, 8.18, 9.2, 0, 10.2, 20.5, 30.7, 40.9, 51.1, 61.4, 71.6, 81.8, 92.0, 102.3 $\mu \mathrm{g / mL}$ ) were calculated based on measurement of a sample at the mid-point of the claimed measuring range. Each sample was measured in triplicate, measured results were compared to calculated sample concentrations, and percent relative recovery calculated.
{5}
Percent recovery for serum samples ranged from 85.6 to 109.2%. Percent recovery for plasma samples ranged from 80.8 to 105.6%. The results support the claimed measuring range of 4.0 to 80.0 µg/mL vancomycin in serum and plasma.
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
**Controls and Calibrators**
The Preciset TDM 1 Calibrators contain known quantities of vancomycin in normal human serum and are traceable to primary master calibrators; these calibrators were cleared under k031856. The TDM Control Set contains liquid controls based on human serum and is traceable to USP reference standards; the controls were cleared under k070200. Protocols and acceptance criteria for stability and value assignment of calibrators and controls were previously reviewed in k031856 and k070200 and found acceptable.
**Reagent Stability – closed vial**
Protocols and acceptance criteria for ongoing real-time closed-vial (shelf life) stability studies were reviewed and found acceptable to support storage of reagents between 2-8°C until the expiration date printed on the bottle. Real time closed-vial stability studies are ongoing.
**Reagent Stability – on board**
Protocols and acceptance criteria for on-board reagent stability were reviewed and found acceptable to support the claim that reagents are stable when refrigerated in use on board the analyzer for up to 12 weeks.
d. Detection limits:
Limit of Blank (LoB), Limit of Detection (LoD), and Limit of Quantitation (LoQ) studies were performed based on CLSI EP17-A2 and as described below:
**Limit of Blank (LoB):**
To determine LoB, 5 analyte-free samples was measured in duplicate on two instruments, with two runs per day, using three lots of reagent, over three days, for a total of 180 measurements. The sponsor defined LoB as the concentration below which analyte-free samples could be found with a probability of 95%. Results of the study support the sponsor’s claimed LoB of 1.0 µg/mL.
**Limit of Detection (LOD):**
To determine LoD, 5 low-analyte samples were measured in duplicate on two instruments, using three lots of reagent, over three days, for a total of 180 measurements. The sponsor defined LoD as the lowest analyte concentration which could be detected, with a value above the LoB, with a probability of 95%. Results of the study support the sponsor’s claimed LoB of 1.5 µg/mL.
**Limit of Quantitation (LoQ)**
To determine LoQ, fifteen human serum samples were spiked with vancomycin to cover the analyte concentration range between LoB and 2x the expected LoQ. These
6
{6}
samples were measured in duplicate in six runs over four days using three lots of reagent and one analyzer, for a total of 36 measurements per sample. Expected values for each sample were determined using LCMS/MS. Total Error (TE) was calculated based on precision and accuracy for each sample using the formula $\mathrm{TE} = \sqrt{\left(\mathrm{s}^2 + \mathrm{Bias}^2\right)}$ where $\mathrm{s} =$ standard deviation. LoQ was defined as the lowest vancomycin concentration with a total error less than $20\%$, and above which all samples also had a total error less than $20\%$. Results of the study support the sponsor's claimed LoQ of $4.0~\mu \mathrm{g / mL}$.
e. Analytical specificity:
Endogenous interferents
The sponsor evaluated the effects of known potential endogenous interferents (hemoglobin, triglycerides, bilirubin, rheumatoid factor, protein, and HAMA) on the ONLINE TDM Vancomycin Gen.3 assay using human serum pools prepared with low $(\approx 7.5\mu \mathrm{g} / \mathrm{mL})$ or intermediate $(\approx 30\mu \mathrm{g} / \mathrm{mL})$ vancomycin levels. The test ranges were: hemoglobin $>1000~\mathrm{mg / dL}$, triglycerides $\geq 1000~\mathrm{mg / dL}$, conjugated bilirubin $>60~\mathrm{mg / dL}$, unconjugated bilirubin $>60~\mathrm{mg / dL}$, rheumatoid factor $>1200~\mathrm{IU / mL}$, total protein 2-12 g/dL.
The sponsor tested potential interference from IgA, IgG, IgM and albumin using human serum samples spiked with low $(\approx 7.5\mu \mathrm{g} / \mathrm{mL})$, intermediate $(\approx 30\mu \mathrm{g} / \mathrm{mL})$ and high $(\approx 60\mu \mathrm{g} / \mathrm{mL})$ vancomycin levels.
Measurements from samples containing potential endogenous interferents were compared to measurements from sample containing no potential interferent and the percent recovery was calculated. The results demonstrated no interference from these potential endogenous interferents at the concentrations shown below:
Hemoglobin up to $1000\mathrm{mg / dL}$
Conjugated bilirubin up to $60~\mathrm{mg / dL}$
Unconjugated bilirubin up to $60~\mathrm{mg / dL}$
Triglycerides up to $1000\mathrm{mg / dL}$
Total Protein up to $12\mathrm{g / dL}$
Rheumatoid Factor up to 1200 IU/mL
IgA up to $16\mathrm{g / L}$
IgG up to $70~\mathrm{g / L}$
IgM up to $10~\mathrm{g / L}$
Albumin up to $70\mathrm{g / L}$
The sponsor included the following statements in their labeling regarding human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMA) and IgM interference:
As with any assay employing mouse antibodies, the possibility exists for interference by human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMA) in the sample, which could cause falsely lowered results.
In very rare cases, gammopathy, in particular type IgM (Waldenström's
{7}
macroglobulinemia), may cause unreliable results.
## Interference from common therapeutic substances
The sponsor evaluated interference from therapeutic substances using human serum pools prepared to low (≈7.5 μg/mL) or intermediate (≈30μg/mL) vancomycin levels and spiked with concentrations of potential therapeutic interferents at concentrations identified in CLSI EP7-A2 or higher. Measurements from samples containing potential interferent were compared to measurements from sample containing no potential interferent. The sponsor defined significant interference as recovery relative to the no-interferent sample of within ±1.0μg/mL for the low vancomycin concentration and within ±10% for the intermediate vancomycin concentration. These criteria were met for the following substances at the concentrations indicated in the table below:
| Therapeutic Substance | Highest concentration tested at which no significant interference was observed. |
| --- | --- |
| Acetylsalicylic acid | 1000 mg/L |
| Acetaminophen | 200 mg/L |
| Acetylcysteine | 1660 mg/L |
| Ampicillin-sodium | 1000 mg/L |
| Ascorbic acid | 300 mg/L |
| Cefoxitin | 2500 mg/L |
| Cyclosporine | 5 mg/L |
| Doxycycline | 50 mg/L |
| Heparin | 5000 U/L |
| Ibuprofen | 500 mg/L |
| Levodopa | 20 mg/L |
| Methotrexate | 455 μg/mL |
| Methyldopa | 20 mg/L |
| Metronidazole | 200 μg/mL |
| Phenylbutazone | 400 mg/L |
| Rifampicin | 60 mg/L |
| Theophylline | 100 mg/L |
## Cross Reactivity
The sponsor tested for cross reactivity using human serum pools prepared to low (≈7.5 μg/mL) or intermediate (≈30μg/mL) vancomycin levels and spiked with concentrations of potential cross-reacting substance at typical or higher than expected therapeutic serum concentrations. Measurements from samples containing potential cross reactant were compared to measurements from samples containing no potential cross reactant. Absolute difference in measured vancomycin levels between samples with and without cross reactant and percent cross reactivity (100x absolute difference / concentration of cross reactant) were calculated. The following potential cross-reacting substances showed no significant cross reaction, defined by the sponsor as a difference of <1.5μg/mL in the presence and absence of potential cross reactant at the
{8}
indicated levels:
| Drug | Highest concentration tested at which no significant cross-reaction was observed |
| --- | --- |
| CDP-I (crystallization degradation product) | 20 μg/mL |
| Acyclovir | 50 μg/mL |
| Amikacin | 100 μg/mL |
| Amphotericin B | 10 μg/mL |
| Aztreonam | 450 μg/mL |
| Caffeine | 60 μg/mL |
| Cefazolin | 500 μg/mL |
| Cefotaxine | 300 μg/mL |
| Chloramphenicol | 60 μg/mL |
| Ciprofloxacin | 12 μg/mL |
| Cisplatin | 15 μg/mL |
| Clindamycin | 50 μg/mL |
| Cyclosporine | 50 μg/mL |
| Digoxin | 50 μg/mL |
| Epinephrine | 25 μg/mL |
| Erythromycin | 60 μg/mL |
| Ethacrynic acid | 50 μg/mL |
| Flucytosine | 300 μg/mL |
| Furosemide | 60 μg/mL |
| Fusidic acid | 600 μg/mL |
| Gentamicin | 30 μg/mL |
| Imipenem | 250 μg/mL |
| Methicillin | 250 μg/mL |
| Metronidazole | 150 μg/mL |
| Netilmicin | 30 μg/mL |
| Nitroprusside | 90 μg/mL |
| Penicillin G | 36 μg/mL |
| Pentamidine | 50 μg/mL |
| Phenobarbital | 150 μg/mL |
| Rifampin | 60 μg/mL |
| Salicylate | 750 μg/mL |
| Sulfamethoxazol | 400 μg/mL |
| Theophylline | 60 μg/mL |
| Tobramycin | 30 μg/mL |
| Trimethoprim | 40 μg/mL |
f. Assay cut-off:
Not applicable.
{9}
10
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
The sponsor tested 125 native human serum samples from patients taking Vancomycin, ranging in concentration from 4.8 to 76 µg/mL as measured with the candidate device. Eight samples were altered at the upper end of the measuring range (above ≈60 µg/mL vancomycin). The samples were tested in singlicate using the candidate and predicate device and analyzed using Passing Bablok regression which yielded the following regression equation: y = 0.993x + 0.641, r = 0.994. A mean bias of 4.4% was observed across all data points.
The sponsor conducted an additional method comparison of 134 native human serum samples from patients taking Vancomycin, ranging from 4.1 to 76 µg/mL as measured with the candidate device. Thirty four samples were altered across the measuring range. The samples were tested in singlicate using the candidate device and by liquid-chromatography/mass-spectrometry (LC/MS) and analyzed using weighted Deming regression, with a weighting of 1/concentration². This analysis yielded the following regression equation: y = 0.992 x + 0.841, r = 0.991. A mean bias of 5.7% was observed across all data points.
b. Matrix comparison:
A matrix comparison study was performed using 77 or 78 matched samples (serum and K₂-EDTA, serum and K₃-EDTA, serum and Li-Heparin). Each sample set comprised 67 full tubes and 9 or 10 half-filled tubes. Only samples within the measuring range of 4-80 µg/mL were used. In each case, serum was used as the comparator matrix. Results of linear regression analyses are summarized below:
1. K₂-EDTA plasma vs. serum: y = 0.998x + 0.00194, r = 0.996
2. K₃-EDTA vs. serum: y = 0.995x - 0.128, r = 0.995
3. Li-Heparin plasma vs. serum: y = 1.01x - 0.224, r = 0.996
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.
{10}
5. Expected values/Reference range:
In the labeling, the sponsor states:
The practice of routine monitoring and adjustment of serum vancomycin concentrations has been the subject of intense debate for many years.¹ Historically trough concentrations between 5 to 10 µg/mL and peak concentrations between 20 to 40 µg/mL were generally accepted for therapeutic effectiveness.¹⁻³ The increased prevalence of resistant organisms, increasing vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations in target pathogens (particularly MRSA) and vancomycin failures have prompted more aggressive vancomycin dosing practices and recommendations.¹,⁴ Therefore, current guidelines recommend higher trough concentrations in the range of 10–15 µg/mL for uncomplicated MRSA bacteremia and even 15–20 µg/mL in cases of sustained MRSA bacteremia or endocarditis and other severe invasive MRSA infections (i.e. prosthetic joint infections, hospital-acquired pneumonia or central nervous system infections).¹,⁵
However, higher doses of vancomycin used have been associated with significantly higher vancomycin trough levels, resulting in acute renal failure and ototoxicity.⁴,⁶⁻⁸ The decision to target increased vancomycin trough concentrations should be based on an assessment of the severity of the infection and must consider the toxic risk associated with increased vancomycin levels.
Each laboratory should investigate the transferability of the expected values to its own patient population and if necessary determine its own reference ranges.
¹ Rybak M, Lomaestro B, Rotschafer JC, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adult patients: a consensus review of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009;66(1):82-98.
² Hammett-Stabler CA, Johns T. Laboratory guidelines for monitoring of antimicrobial drugs. Clin Chem 1998;44(5):1129-1140.
³ Burtis CA, Ashwood ER, Bruns DE, eds. Tietz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics, 5th edition (Elsevier) 2006;2186.
⁴ Pritchard L, Baker C, Leggett J, et al. Increasing Vancomycin in Serum Trough Concentrations and Incidence of Nephrotoxicity. Am J Med 2010;123:1143-1149.
⁵ Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(3):285-292.
⁶ Hidayat LK, Hsu DI, Quist R, et al. High-dose vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: efficacy and toxicity. Arch Intern Med 2006;166(19):2138-2144.
⁷ Jeffres MN, Isakow W, Doherty JA, et al. A retrospective analysis of possible renal toxicity associated with vancomycin in patients with health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
11
{11}
pneumonia. Clin Ther 2007;29(6):1107-1115.
8 Lodise TP, Lomaestro B, Graves J, et al. Larger vancomycin does (at least four grams per day) are associated with an increased incidence of nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52(4):1330-1336.
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.
12
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.