The Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA) test kit is intended for the qualitative or semi-quantitative determination of IgA class antibodies against tissue transglutaminase in human serum and EDTA plasma (K3-EDTA, Li+-heparin, Na+-citrate). It is used as an aid in the diagnosis of gluten-sensitive enteropathy (celiac disease) and dermatitis herpetiformis Duhring, in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. The Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG) test kit is intended for the qualitative determination of IgG class antibodies against tissue transglutaminase in human serum and EDTA plasma (K3-EDTA, Li+-heparin, Na+-citrate). It is used as an aid in the diagnosis of gluten-sensitive enteropathy (celiac disease), in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.
Device Story
The Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA/IgG) kits are in vitro diagnostic assays used to detect autoantibodies in human serum or plasma samples. The device utilizes enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technology to identify specific IgA or IgG class antibodies against tissue transglutaminase. The test is performed in a clinical laboratory setting by trained personnel. The output is a qualitative determination of antibody presence, which clinicians use in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings to support a diagnosis of gluten-sensitive enteropathy (celiac disease) or dermatitis herpetiformis Duhring. By identifying these specific autoantibodies, the device assists healthcare providers in confirming the presence of autoimmune conditions related to gluten sensitivity, facilitating timely clinical management and patient care.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical validation included 102 biopsy-confirmed celiac disease patients and 166 autoimmune disease controls. Anti-tTG IgA sensitivity: 99.0% (celiac), 77.8% (dermatitis herpetiformis); specificity: 97.6%. Anti-tTG IgG sensitivity: 37.3% (celiac), 82.4% (IgA-deficient celiac); specificity: 99.4%. Method comparison against predicates showed positive percent agreement of 90.9% (IgA) and 89.2% (IgG). Analytical performance included precision (total CVs 5.6-17.1%), linearity (2-200 RU/mL for IgA), and LoD (1.1 RU/mL for IgA).
Technological Characteristics
ELISA-based immunological test system for qualitative detection of autoantibodies. Analyte: tissue transglutaminase. Sample types: human serum and plasma (EDTA, heparin, citrate).
Indications for Use
Indicated for qualitative detection of IgA or IgG class antibodies against tissue transglutaminase in human serum and plasma to aid in the diagnosis of celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis Duhring. For prescription use only.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A multiple autoantibodies immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the autoantibodies (antibodies produced against the body's own tissues) in serum and other body fluids. Measurement of multiple autoantibodies aids in the diagnosis of autoimmune disorders (disease produced when the body's own tissues are injured by autoantibodies).
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION MEMORANDUM
A. 510(k) Number:
K183313
B. Purpose for Submission:
New devices
C. Measurands:
IgA autoantibodies specific for tissue transglutaminase (tTG)
IgG autoantibodies specific for tissue transglutaminase (tTG)
D. Type of Test:
Semi-quantitative and qualitative (anti-tTG IgA) and qualitative (anti-tTG IgG) manual immunoassays
E. Applicant:
EUROIMMUN US INC.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA)
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG)
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR §866.5660, Multiple autoantibodies immunological test system
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
MVM
{1}
4. Panel:
Immunology (82)
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended uses:
The Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA) test kit is intended for the qualitative or semi-quantitative determination of IgA class antibodies against tissue transglutaminase in human serum and EDTA plasma (K3-EDTA, Li+-heparin, Na+-citrate). It is used as an aid in the diagnosis of gluten-sensitive enteropathy (celiac disease) and dermatitis herpetiformis Duhring, in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.
The Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG) test kit is intended for the qualitative determination of IgG class antibodies against tissue transglutaminase in human serum and EDTA plasma (K3-EDTA, Li+-heparin, Na+-citrate). It is used as an aid in the diagnosis of gluten-sensitive enteropathy (celiac disease), in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.
2. Indications for use:
See above
3. Special conditions for use statement:
For prescription use
4. Special instrument requirements:
An ELISA microplate reader capable of reading absorbance values at 450 nm with a reference filter between 620–650 nm. An automatic microplate washer capable of dispensing 200 µL of fluid is recommended.
I. Device Description:
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA)
The device is packaged as a kit containing: 12 microplate strips each containing eight antigen-coated wells and frame; three calibrators (2, 20, and 200 RU/mL); human serum-based IgA positive and negative controls; horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated rabbit anti-human IgA; ready-to-use sample buffer; 10x wash buffer concentrate; 3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) substrate; and sulfuric acid stop solution.
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG)
The device is packaged as a kit containing: 12 microplate strips each containing eight antigen-coated wells and frame; one cut-off calibrator (20 RU/mL); human serum-based IgG
2
{2}
positive and negative controls; horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated rabbit anti-human IgG; ready-to-use sample buffer; 10x wash buffer concentrate; 3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) substrate; and sulfuric acid stop solution.
# J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device names and predicate 510(k) numbers:
INOVA QuantaLite h-tTg (human tissue transglutaminase) IgA, K011566
INOVA QuantaLite h-tTg (human tissue transglutaminase) IgG, K011570
2. Comparison with predicate:
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA)
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Intended Use | The anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA) test kit is intended for the qualitative or semi-quantitative determination of IgA class antibodies against tissue transglutaminase in human serum and EDTA plasma (K3-EDTA, Li+-heparin, Na+-citrate). It is used as an aid in the diagnosis of gluten-sensitive enteropathy (celiac disease) and dermatitis herpetiformis Duhring, in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. | An Enzyme Linked Immunosorbant Assay (ELISA) for the semi-quantitative detection of IgA antibodies to tissue transglutaminase (endomysium) in human serum. Detection of these antibodies is an aid in diagnosis of certain gluten sensitive enteropathies such as celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis. |
| Assay Type | ELISA | Same |
| Sample Type | Serum | Same |
| Labeled Detection Antibody (Conjugate) | Horseradish peroxidase conjugated to goat anti-human IgG | Same |
| Enzyme Substrate | 3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidene (TMB) | Same |
| Signal/Wavelength | Optical density, 450nm | Same |
| Instrumentation | Microwell plate reader | Same |
| Storage | 2-8°C | Same |
{3}
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Assay Format | Semi-quantitative and qualitative | Semi-quantitative only |
| Capture Antigen | Purified recombinant human tissue transglutaminase | Native human red blood cell tissue transglutaminase |
| Conjugate | Peroxidase-labeled anti-human IgA (rabbit) | Peroxidase-labeled anti-human IgA (goat) |
| Calibrators | Set of three: Values in RU/mL: 2, 20, 200 | One calibrator Value in U/mL |
| Assay Range | 2–200 RU/mL | Not specified |
| Controls | Positive and Negative Control | Low Positive, High Positive, and Negative Control |
| Results Interpretation | Semi-Quantitative: Negative: < 20 RU/mL Positive: ≥ 20 RU/mL Qualitative Ratio: Negative: < 1 Positive: ≥ 1 | Semi-Quantitative: Negative: ≤ 20 U/mL Weak Positive: 20-30 U/mL Positive: > 30 U/mL |
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG)
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Assay Type | ELISA | Same |
| Labeled Detection Antibody (Conjugate) | Horseradish peroxidase conjugated to goat anti-human IgG | Same |
| Enzyme Substrate | 3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidene (TMB) | Same |
| Signal/Wavelength | Optical density, 450nm | Same |
| Instrumentation | Microwell plate reader | Same |
| Storage | 2–8°C | Same |
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Intended Use | The Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG) test kit is intended for the qualitative determination of IgG class | An Enzyme Linked Immunosorbant Assay (ELISA) for the semi-quantitative detection of IgG antibodies to tissue |
{4}
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| | antibodies against tissue transglutaminase in human serum and EDTA plasma (K3-EDTA, Li+-heparin, Na+-citrate). It is used as an aid in the diagnosis of gluten-sensitive enteropathy (celiac disease), in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. | transglutaminase (endomysium) in human serum. Detection of these antibodies, in conjunction with IgA antibodies, is an aid in diagnosis of certain gluten sensitive enteropathies such as celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis. This test is intended for providing added sensitivity when testing IgA deficient patients. |
| Sample Type | Serum, Plasma (K3-EDTA, Li+-heparin, Na+-citrate | Serum |
| Assay Format | Qualitative | Semi-quantitative only |
| Capture Antigen | Purified recombinant human tissue transglutaminase | Native human red blood cell tissue transglutaminase |
| Conjugate | Peroxidase-labeled anti-human IgA (rabbit) | Peroxidase-labeled anti-human IgA (goat) |
| Calibrators | One cut-off calibrator (20 RU/mL) | One calibrator Value in U/mL |
| Assay Range | Not applicable | Not specified |
| Controls | Positive and Negative Control | Low Positive, High Positive, and Negative Control |
| Results Interpretation | Qualitative (Ratio): Negative: < 1 Positive: ≥ 1 | Semi-Quantitative: Negative: ≤ 20 U/mL Weak Positive: 20-30 U/mL Positive: > 30 U/mL |
## K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced:
CLSI guideline EP6-A, “Evaluation of the Linearity of Quantitative Measurement Procedures: A Statistical Approach; Approved Guideline”
## L. Test Principle:
Controls, calibrators and diluted patient sera are added to separate wells, allowing any anti-tTG antibodies present to bind to the immobilized antigen. Unbound sample is washed away and an enzyme labeled anti-human IgA or anti-human IgG conjugate is added to each well.
{5}
After washing away any unbound conjugate, specific enzyme substrate (TMB) is then added to the wells. After stopping the enzymatic reaction, the intensity of color change, which is proportional to the concentration of antibody, is read by a spectrophotometer at $450~\mathrm{nm}$ .
Semi-quantitative results for the anti-tTG IgA assay are determined from a series of three calibrators (2, 20, and $200\mathrm{RU / mL}$ ). Values less than $20\mathrm{RU / mL}$ are considered negative results while values $\geq 20\mathrm{RU / mL}$ are considered positive.
Qualitative results for the anti-tTG IgA and IgG assays are determined using a ratio of the absorbance of the sample to the absorbance of the cut-off calibrator (20 RU/mL). The ratio is determined by dividing the optical density (OD) of the sample or control by the OD of the cut-off calibrator. A ratio $< 1.0$ is negative while a ratio $\geq 1.0$ is positive.
# M. Performance Characteristics:
# 1. Analytical performance:
All results presented below met the manufacturer's pre-determined acceptance criteria.
# a. Precision:
# Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA)
# Imprecision:
Precision performance was evaluated by testing a panel consisting of six patient sera with levels of anti-tTG IgA antibodies that cover the analytical measuring range. The samples were assayed in duplicate, twice a day, for 20 days with one reagent lot for a total of 80 replicates per sample. The semi-quantitative concentration (RU/mL) was determined and the repeatability, between-run, within-day, between-day, and total precision were calculated:
| Sample | Mean (RU/ml) | Repeatability | | Between-Run | | Within-Day | | Between-Day | | Total | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV |
| 1 | 6.21 | 0.48 | 7.7% | 0.37 | 6.0% | 0.61 | 9.8% | 0.87 | 14.0% | 1.06 | 17.1% |
| 2 | 15.11 | 0.58 | 3.9% | 0.68 | 4.5% | 0.89 | 5.9% | 0.62 | 4.1% | 1.08 | 7.2% |
| 3 | 25.95 | 0.96 | 3.7% | 1.82 | 7.0% | 2.06 | 8.0% | 0.00 | 0.0% | 2.06 | 8.0% |
| 4 | 23.92 | 1.32 | 5.5% | 1.38 | 5.8% | 1.91 | 8.0% | 0.54 | 2.2% | 1.99 | 8.3% |
| 5 | 108.72 | 3.30 | 3.0% | 3.67 | 3.4% | 4.93 | 4.5% | 5.17 | 4.8% | 7.14 | 6.6% |
| 6 | 163.88 | 5.98 | 3.7% | 4.74 | 2.9% | 7.64 | 4.7% | 5.00 | 3.0% | 9.12 | 5.6% |
The qualitative reproducibility of the assay was evaluated using the same data set but by calculating the qualitative ratio of the sample OD to the OD of the cut-off calibrator:
{6}
| Sample | Mean Ratio | Range of Ratios | Expected Result | Repeatability | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | Positive/Negative | % Correct |
| 1 | 0.39 | 0.31–0.52 | Neg | 0/80 | 100 |
| 2 | 0.78 | 0.62–0.92 | Neg | 0/80 | 100 |
| 3 | 1.15 | 1.00–1.28 | Pos | 80/0 | 100 |
| 4 | 1.10 | 0.90–1.28 | Pos | 77/3 | 96 |
| 5 | 3.25 | 2.60–3.79 | Pos | 80/0 | 100 |
| 6 | 4.65 | 4.20–5.41 | Pos | 80/0 | 100 |
## Lot to Lot Imprecision:
To evaluate lot-to-lot imprecision, a panel of six samples with levels of anti- tTG IgA antibodies spanning the AMR was tested with three replicates per run, two runs per day, with three different lots over the course of five days (a total of 90 replicates per sample). The results are summarized in the table below:
| Sample | Mean RU/ml | Repeatability | | Between-Run | | Between-Day | | Within-Lot | | Between-Lot | | Reproducibility | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV |
| 1 | 5.70 | 0.70 | 12.3% | 0.55 | 9.6% | 0.34 | 6.0% | 0.96 | 16.8% | 0.20 | 3.6% | 0.98 | 17.2% |
| 2 | 14.92 | 0.57 | 3.8% | 0.93 | 6.2% | 0.64 | 4.3% | 1.26 | 8.5% | 0.00 | 0.0% | 1.26 | 8.5% |
| 3 | 24.24 | 1.47 | 6.1% | 1.84 | 7.6% | 0.00 | 0.0% | 2.36 | 9.7% | 0.92 | 3.8% | 2.53 | 10.5% |
| 4 | 22.89 | 1.16 | 5.1% | 1.39 | 6.1% | 1.01 | 4.4% | 2.07 | 9.1% | 0.85 | 3.7% | 2.24 | 9.8% |
| 5 | 105.35 | 3.40 | 3.2% | 4.89 | 4.6% | 3.55 | 3.4% | 6.93 | 6.6% | 1.26 | 1.2% | 7.04 | 6.7% |
| 6 | 162.46 | 5.67 | 3.5% | 10.63 | 6.5% | 3.66 | 2.3% | 12.59 | 7.8% | 0.00 | 0.0% | 12.59 | 7.8% |
Qualitative performance between lots was calculated by the qualitative ratio of the sample OD to the cut-off calibrator:
| | Mean Ratio | Expected Result | Lot 1 Repeatability | | Lot 2 Repeatability | | Lot 3 Repeatability | | Total | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | Positive/Negative | % Correct | Positive/Negative | % Correct | Positive/Negative | % Correct | Positive/Negative | % Correct |
| 1 | 0.35 | Neg | 0/30 | 100 | 0/30 | 100 | 0/30 | 100 | 0/90 | 100 |
| 2 | 0.77 | Neg | 0/30 | 100 | 0/30 | 100 | 0/30 | 100 | 0/90 | 100 |
| 3 | 1.11 | Pos | 30/0 | 100 | 30/0 | 100 | 29/1 | 97 | 89/1 | 99 |
| 4 | 1.07 | Pos | 30/0 | 100 | 29/1 | 97 | 24/6 | 80 | 83/7 | 80 |
| 5 | 3.20 | Pos | 30/0 | 100 | 30/0 | 100 | 30/0 | 100 | 90/0 | 100 |
| 6 | 4.68 | Pos | 30/0 | 100 | 30/0 | 100 | 30/0 | 100 | 90/0 | 100 |
## Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG)
### Qualitative Repeatability:
Repeatability was evaluated by testing a panel consisting of six patient sera with levels of anti-tTG IgG antibodies at different concentrations. The samples were assayed in duplicate, twice a day, for 20 days with one reagent lot, a total of 80 replicates per sample.
{7}
| Sample | Mean Ratio | Range of Ratios | Expected Result | Repeatability | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | Positive/Negative | % Correct |
| 1 | 0.13 | 0.09–0.16 | Neg | 0/80 | 100 |
| 2 | 0.65 | 0.45–0.78 | Neg | 0/80 | 100 |
| 3 | 0.86 | 0.63–1.09 | Neg | 5/75 | 93.8 |
| 4 | 1.13 | 0.98–1.36 | Pos | 76/4 | 95 |
| 5 | 1.93 | 1.74–2.18 | Pos | 80/0 | 100 |
| 6 | 4.25 | 3.65–5.05 | Pos | 80/0 | 100 |
Lot to Lot Imprecision:
To evaluate lot-to-lot imprecision, a panel of six samples with levels of anti-tTG IgG antibodies at different concentrations was tested with three replicates per run, two runs per day with three different lots over the course of five days (a total of 90 replicates per sample). The results are summarized in the table below:
| | Mean Ratio | Expected Result | Lot 1 Repeatability | | Lot 2 Repeatability | | Lot 3 Repeatability | | Total | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | Positive/Negative | % Correct | Positive/Negative | % Correct | Positive/Negative | % Correct | Positive/Negative | % Correct |
| 1 | 0.14 | Neg | 0/30 | 100 | 0/30 | 100 | 0/30 | 100 | 0/90 | 100 |
| 2 | 0.72 | Neg | 0/30 | 100 | 0/30 | 100 | 0/30 | 100 | 0/90 | 100 |
| 3 | 0.93 | Neg | 0/30 | 100 | 18/12 | 40 | 5/25 | 83.3 | 23/67 | 74.4% |
| 4 | 1.32 | Pos | 30/0 | 100 | 30/0 | 100 | 30/0 | 100 | 90/0 | 100 |
| 5 | 2.21 | Pos | 30/0 | 100 | 30/0 | 100 | 30/0 | 100 | 90/0 | 100 |
| 6 | 4.80 | Pos | 30/0 | 100 | 30/0 | 100 | 30/0 | 100 | 90/0 | 100 |
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA)
A set of 11 sample dilutions was made by diluting a high positive sample (>200 RU/mL) and a moderately high sample (87.8 RU/mL) with different proportions of negative sera. The dilutions were tested in quadruplicate and the results were evaluated by a linear and polynomial regression analysis. The linear regression analysis of the samples showed the samples were linear within the range defined by the calibrators. Although the $2^{\text{nd}}$ order polynomial regression coefficient was significant (p-value $< 0.05$ ) for both samples, the amount of non-linearity was acceptable. The linear regression analyses yielded $y = 1.00x - 0.03$ for the high sample and $1.08x - 10.4$ for the moderately high sample. The assay range was defined as 2 to $200\mathrm{RU / mL}$ .
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG)
Not applicable
{8}
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
## Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA) and Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG):
**Traceability:** A recognized standard or reference material for anti-tTG antibodies is not available. The assay is calibrated in relative arbitrary units (RU/ml) in semi-quantitative mode. Alternatively, results may be determined as a ratio of the cut-off calibrator (i.e., 20 RU/mL calibrator) then defined as positive or negative in qualitative mode.
**Stability studies:**
Real-time stability studies were conducted using three production lots of all kit reagents. The studies support a 12-month unopened stability claim when stored at +2°C to +8°C. Other studies support that the reconstituted wash buffer is stable for up to 28 days. Opened reagents stored at +2°C to +8°C are stable for six months for the anti-tTG IgA assay, and for 12 months for the anti-tTG IgG assay.
**Sample stability:**
The sponsor recommends following the guidelines in CLSI GP44-A4 for sample storage. Samples should be stored at room temperature (+18°C to +25°C) no longer than 8 hours. If the assay will not be completed within 8 hours, the samples should be refrigerated at +2°C to +8°C. If the assay will not be completed within 48 hours, or will be stored beyond 48 hours, samples should be frozen at -20°C or lower. Samples should not be repeatedly frozen and thawed.
## d. Detection limit:
### Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA):
The Limit of Blank (LoB) was determined by assaying four negative samples, each tested 15 times for a total of 60 replicates. The limit of detection (LoD) was determined by assaying four low negative sera in three runs with five replicates each, each run performed on a different day. The LoB and LoD for the assay was 0.8 and 1.1 RU/mL, respectively. The Limit of Quantitation (LoQ) was the same as the LoD, 1.1 RU/mL.
### Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG):
Not applicable
## e. Analytical specificity:
### Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA) and Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG):
Endogenous interferences were evaluated by testing hemolytic, lipemic, and icteric samples across the assay range. These endogenous interferences showed no influence on the result up to a concentration of 1000 mg/dL for hemoglobin, 2000 mg/dL for triglycerides, and 40 mg/dL for bilirubin in testing with Anti-tissue Transglutaminase
9
{9}
ELISA IgA and IgG. Interferences due to high protein (albumin), cholesterol, and intralipids were not investigated; the package directions instruct the user to interpret the results with caution when testing samples with high levels of these substances.
f. Assay cut-off:
The cut-offs for both assays were established then validated by ROC analyses using sample sets that were independent of the method comparison and clinical studies and included 183 biopsy-confirmed celiac disease patients and 298 control samples with negative biopsies. The ROC analyses demonstrated optimal sensitivity and specificity at the specified cut-offs, described below:
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA)
Semi-Quantitative: Qualitative (Ratio):
Negative: < 20 RU/mL
Negative: < 1
Positive: ≥ 20 RU/mL
Positive: ≥ 1
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG)
Qualitative (Ratio):
Negative: < 1
Positive: ≥ 1
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA)
A panel of 174 samples was assayed with the EUROIMMUN Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA) and with the predicate ELISA according to their respective package inserts. The sample cohort contained 30 samples from biopsy confirmed celiac patients, 64 Endomysial Antibody (EMA) / Gliadin Antibody positive patient samples, 10 inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 10 diabetes mellitus type 1 (T1D), and 60 rheumatic diseases samples.
For semi-quantitative evaluation, 121 samples within the measuring range of the EUROIMMUN Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA) were included in the method comparison.
| | Predicate ELISA | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Pos | Neg | Total |
| EUROIMMUN anti-tTG IgA | Pos | 67 | 1 | 68 |
| | Neg | 9 | 44 | 53 |
| | Total | 76 | 45 | 121 |
Positive Percent Agreement: 88.2% (95% CI 78.7% – 94.4%)
Negative Percent Agreement: 97.8% (95% CI 88.2% – 99.9%)
{10}
All samples, including those above or below the AMR, were included in the qualitative method comparison:
| | Predicate ELISA | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Pos | Neg | Total |
| EUROIMMUN anti-tTG IgA | Pos | 90 | 1 | 91 |
| | Neg | 9 | 74 | 83 |
| | Total | 99 | 75 | 174 |
Positive Percent Agreement: 90.9% (95% CI 83.4% – 95.8%)
Negative Percent Agreement: 96.0% (95% CI 92.8% –100.0%)
## Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG)
A panel of 174 samples was assayed with the EUROIMMUN Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG) and with the predicate ELISA according to their respective package inserts. The sample cohort contained 59 samples from biopsy-confirmed celiac patients, 35 Endomysial Antibody (EMA)/Gliadin Antibody positive patient samples, 10 inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 10 diabetes mellitus type 1 (T1D), and 60 rheumatic disease samples. The correlation between the new device and the predicate for the entire panel is shown in the tables below.
| | Predicate ELISA | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Pos | Neg | Total |
| EUROIMMUN anti-tTG IgG | Pos | 66 | 4 | 70 |
| | Neg | 8 | 96 | 104 |
| | Total | 74 | 100 | 174 |
Positive Percent Agreement: 89.2% (95% CI 79.8% – 95.2%)
Negative Percent Agreement: 96.0% (95% CI 90.1% – 98.9%)
## b. Matrix comparison:
## Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA)
Twenty-five (25) sample sets consisting of matched serum and potassium EDTA plasma, lithium heparin plasma, and sodium citrate plasma (K3 EDTA, Li+ heparin, Na+ citrate) were evaluated semi-quantitatively and qualitatively.
For the semi-quantitative assessment, 19 sample sets were within the assay range; the range of the serum sample concentrations was 2.61 – 168.46 RU/mL. Passing-Bablok regression was calculated for the comparison of plasma to serum:
{11}
| RU/mL | K3EDTA plasma | Li-heparin plasma | Citrate plasma |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Regression equation | y = 0.93x - 0.26 | y = 1.03x + 0.96 | y = 1.02x - 1.22 |
| 95% CI of intercept | -2.14 - 1.64 | 0.34 -2.57 | -3.57 - 0.46 |
| 95% CI of slope | 0.88 - 0.99 | 0.99 -1.05 | 0.93 - 1.06 |
| Correlation coefficient | 0.993 | 0.995 | 0.993 |
All samples were qualitatively assessed. The samples covered the range of the assay; the ratios of the serum values ranged from $0.04 - 4.96$ and $\%$ agreement was $>95\%$ for all three matrices tested. Two samples were discordant: one K3 EDTA plasma sample was negative while the serum sample was positive, and one $\mathrm{Li^{+}}$ heparin sample was positive while the serum sample was negative. Both of these samples were $< \pm 10\%$ of the cut-off ratio. None of the results of citrate plasma samples were discordant with matched serum samples.
# Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG)
A series of 20 sample sets of serum and potassium EDTA plasma, lithium heparin plasma, and sodium citrate plasma (K3 EDTA, $\mathrm{Li^{+}}$ heparin, $\mathrm{Na^{+}}$ citrate) samples were evaluated. The samples covered a range of ratios of the serum values (0.04 - 4.10). None of the results of plasma samples were discordant with matched serum samples.
# 3. Clinical studies:
# a. Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity:
Clinically characterized serum samples were included in the clinical validation for the EUROIMMUN anti-tTG IgA and IgG ELISAs. Both assays' studies included 102 biopsy-confirmed celiac disease samples (Marsh scores 1 to 3c) and 166 samples from autoimmune diseases that could be expected to be found in the differential diagnosis of celiac disease.
# Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA)
The evaluation of the anti-tTG IgA assay included an additional 45 dermatitis herpetiformis Duhring (DH). The sensitivity was $99.0\%$ (95% CI: 94.7 - 100.0%) for celiac disease and $77.8\%$ (95% CI: 62.9 - 88.8%) for DH. The specificity of the device for disease controls was $97.6\%$ (95% CI: 93.9 - 99.3%). A qualitative assessment of the same sample yielded the same results:
{12}
13
| | Celiac Disease¹ | | | | Duhring’s² | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Pos | Neg | | Total | Pos | Neg | Total |
| EUROIMMUN anti-tTG IgA | Pos | 101 | 4 | | 105 | 35 | 4 | 36 |
| | Neg | 1 | 162 | | 163 | 10 | 162 | 172 |
| | Total | 102 | 166 | | 268 | 45 | 166 | 209 |
| Sensitivity | | 99.0%
(95% CI: 94.7 – 100.0%) | | | | 77.8%
(95% CI: 62.9 – 88.8%) | | |
| Specificity | | 97.6%
(95% CI: 93.9 – 99.3%) | | | | 97.6%
(95% CI: 93.9 – 99.3%) | | |
¹ DH samples not included in this analysis
² Celiac Disease samples not included in this analysis
| | Anti-tTG IgA results | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Target Disease Group: | n | Positive (%) |
| Celiac Disease | 102 | 101 (99.0%) |
| Duhring’s dermatitis herpetiformis | 45 | 35 (77.8%) |
| | | |
| Non-Target Disease Group: | n | Negative (%) |
| Ulcerative colitis | 10 | 10 (100.0%) |
| Crohn’s Disease | 10 | 10 (100.0%) |
| Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 | 30 | 29 (96.7%) |
| Autoimmune Thyroid Disease | 20 | 20 (100.0%) |
| Rheumatoid Arthritis | 30 | 28 (93.3%) |
| Sjögren’s syndrome | 21 | 21 (100.0%) |
| Systemic lupus erythematosus | 30 | 30 (100.0%) |
| Systemic sclerosis | 15 | 14 (93.3%) |
| Specificity | 166 | 162 (97.6%) |
## Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG)
The evaluation of the anti-tTG IgG assay did not include the DH samples but included an additional 17 IgA-deficient celiac disease samples. The sensitivity was 37.3% (95% CI: 42.4 – 59.7%) for celiac disease and 82.4% (95% CI: 62.9 – 88.8%) for IgA-deficient celiac patients. The specificity of the device for disease controls was 99.4% (95% CI: 96.7 – 100.0%).
{13}
| | Celiac Disease1 | | | | IgA-def Celiac2 | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Pos | Neg | | Total | Pos | Neg | Total |
| EUROIMMUN a-tTG IgG | Pos | 38 | 165 | | 203 | 14 | 165 | 179 |
| | Neg | 64 | 1 | | 65 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| | Total | 102 | 166 | | 268 | 17 | 166 | 183 |
| Sensitivity | | 37.3% (95% CI: 42.4 – 59.7%) | | | | 82.4% (95% CI: 62.9 – 88.8%) | | |
| Specificity | | 99.4% (95% CI: 96.7–100.0%) | | | | 99.4% (95% CI: 96.7–100.0%) | | |
$^{1}$ IgA deficient samples not included in this analysis
$^{2}$ IgA-sufficient Celiac Disease samples not included in this analysis
| | Anti-tTG IgG results | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Target Disease Group: | n | Positive (%) |
| Celiac Disease | 102 | 38 (37.3%) |
| IgA-deficient Celiac Disease | 17 | 14 (82.4%) |
| | | |
| Non-Target Disease Group: | n | Negative (%) |
| Ulcerative colitis | 10 | 10 (100.0%) |
| Crohn's Disease | 10 | 10 (100.0%) |
| Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 | 30 | 29 (96.7%) |
| Autoimmune Thyroid Disease | 20 | 20 (100.0%) |
| Rheumatoid Arthritis | 30 | 30 (100.0%) |
| Sjögren's syndrome | 21 | 21 (100.0%) |
| Systemic lupus erythematosus | 30 | 30 (100.0%) |
| Systemic sclerosis | 15 | 15 (100.0%) |
| Specificity | 166 | 165 (99.4%) |
# 4. Clinical cut-off:
See assay cutoff
# 5. Expected values/Reference range:
The seroprevalence (as defined as anti-tTG IgA) of celiac disease in the U.S. from National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) was $0.7\%$ in $2012^{1}$ . To evaluate the incidence of anti-tTG antibodies in normal population, sera from 250 U.S. healthy adult blood donors of a range of ages (17 - 81 years, mean 38 years) and roughly evenly divided by sex (136 male, 114 female) were tested with both assays. A separate panel of 400 normal European healthy blood donors (range 18 - 67 years, mean age 39 years; 251 men, 149 women) was also assessed by both assays:
{14}
15
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgA)
There were four positive samples in the U.S. cohort in both the semi-quantitative and qualitative determinations. Thus, the prevalence of the U.S. cohort was 1.6% (95% CI 0.4 – 4.0%). In the semi-quantitative evaluation, the mean value was 6.7 RU/mL and the median value was 3.1 RU/mL. There were three positive samples in the European cohort in both the semi-quantitative and qualitative determinations. Thus, the prevalence of the European cohort was 0.8% (95% CI 0.2 – 2.2%). In the semi-quantitative evaluation, the mean value was 5.4 RU/mL and the median value was 4.2 RU/mL.
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase ELISA (IgG)
None of the samples in either cohort were positive. Thus, the prevalence of the U.S. cohort is 0% (95% CI 0.0 – 1.5%) and the prevalence of the European cohort is 0% (95% CI 0.0 – 0.9%).
N. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Parts 801 and 809, as applicable.
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.