The Immunalysis SEFRIA Oxycodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay is a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay with a cutoff of 30 ng/mL in neat oral fluid collected by Quantisal or Quantisal II Oral Fluid Collection Device. The assay is intended for the qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis of oxycodone in human oral fluid with clinical analyzers. This assay is calibrated against oxycodone. The semi-quantitative mode is for purposes of enabling laboratories to determine an appropriate dilution of the specimen for confirmation by a confirmatory method such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) or Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or permitting laboratories to establish quality control procedures. The Immunalysis SEFRIA Oxycodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternate chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) or Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any test result, particularly when preliminary positive results are used.
Device Story
Homogeneous enzyme immunoassay for oxycodone detection in human oral fluid; utilizes Quantisal/Quantisal II collection devices. Principle: competitive binding between sample oxycodone and ED-oxycodone conjugate for antibody sites; inhibits enzyme complementation of β-galactosidase fragments. Enzyme activity measured spectrophotometrically at 570 nm via CPRG substrate conversion. Used in clinical laboratories on automated chemistry analyzers (e.g., Beckman Coulter AU480). Provides preliminary results; requires confirmation via GC-MS or LC-MS/MS. Enables semi-quantitative dilution determination for confirmatory testing and quality control. Benefits: rapid screening for oxycodone presence to guide clinical decision-making.
Clinical Evidence
Bench testing only. Precision/reproducibility studies (N=60 per concentration) across 15-20 days confirmed repeatability. Linearity demonstrated 10-100 ng/mL range. Method comparison study using 80 clinical oral fluid samples showed 100% agreement with LC-MS/MS reference method in both qualitative and semi-quantitative modes. Interference testing confirmed no cross-reactivity with structurally related/unrelated compounds or endogenous/exogenous substances at tested concentrations.
Technological Characteristics
Homogeneous enzyme immunoassay; reagents include Enzyme Acceptor (EA) with recombinant antibodies and Enzyme Donor (ED) labeled with oxycodone. Buffer: PIPES/malic acid with sodium azide preservative. Detection: spectrophotometric (570 nm). Form factor: liquid reagents for automated clinical chemistry analyzers. Storage: 2-8°C.
Indications for Use
Indicated for the qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis of oxycodone in human oral fluid collected via Quantisal or Quantisal II devices. For in vitro diagnostic use in clinical laboratories. Prescription use only.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
An opiate test system is a device intended to measure any of the addictive narcotic pain-relieving opiate drugs in blood, serum, urine, gastric contents, and saliva. An opiate is any natural or synthetic drug that has morphine-like pharmocological actions. The opiates include drugs such as morphine, morphine glucoronide, heroin, codeine, nalorphine, and meperedine. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of opiate use or overdose and in monitoring the levels of opiate administration to ensure appropriate therapy.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). An opiate 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
Thermo Scientific CEDIA Opiate OFT Assay (K101754)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
FDA U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY
ASSAY ONLY
## I Background Information:
A 510(k) Number
K203564
B Applicant
Immunalysis Corporation
C Proprietary and Established Names
SEFRIA™ Oxycodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay
D Regulatory Information
| Product Code(s) | Classification | Regulation Section | Panel |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| DJG | Class II | 21 CFR 862.3650 - Opiate Test System | TX - Clinical Toxicology |
## II Submission/Device Overview:
A Purpose for Submission:
New Device
B Measurand:
Oxycodone
C Type of Test:
Qualitative and Semi-quantitative Homogeneous Enzyme Immunoassay
Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
www.fda.gov
{1}
K203564 - Page 2 of 18
## III Intended Use/Indications for Use:
### A Intended Use(s):
See Indications for Use below.
### B Indication(s) for Use:
For In Vitro Diagnostic Use.
The Immunalysis SEFRIA Oxycodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay is a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay with a cutoff of 30 ng/mL in neat oral fluid collected by Quantisal or Quantisal II Oral Fluid Collection Device. The assay is intended for the qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis of oxycodone in human oral fluid with clinical analyzers. This assay is calibrated against oxycodone.
The semi-quantitative mode is for purposes of enabling laboratories to determine an appropriate dilution of the specimen for confirmation by a confirmatory method such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) or Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or permitting laboratories to establish quality control procedures.
The Immunalysis SEFRIA Oxycodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A more specific alternate chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) or Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be applied to any test result, particularly when preliminary positive results are used.
### C Special Conditions for Use Statement(s):
Rx - For Prescription Use Only
### D Special Instrument Requirements:
The SEFRIA™ Oxycodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay was validated using the Beckman Coulter AU480 chemistry analyzer. Confirmatory tests were run in the Agilent 6430 Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry.
## IV Device/System Characteristics:
### A Device Description:
The SEFRIA Oxycodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay consists of ready to use reagents for use on automated clinical chemistry analyzers. The SEFRIA Oxycodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay is provided in two kit sizes by volume: 100 mL (621OF-0100K) and 500 mL (621OF-0500K). Each kit box contains the following reagents:
- 1 X Enzyme Acceptor/Antibody Reagent (EA) - This contains EA protein and recombinant antibodies to oxycodone, in PIPES buffer with sodium azide as a preservative.
{2}
- 1 X Enzyme Donor/Substrate Reagent (ED) - This contains ED peptide labeled with oxycodone and CPRG substrate in malic acid buffer with sodium azide as a preservative.
## B Principle of Operation:
The SEFRIA technology is based on artificial fragments of the E. coli enzyme β-galactosidase. A mutant enzyme, termed Enzyme Acceptor (EA), is created by deletion of a short sequence in the amino-terminal region of the sequence. EA is inactive, but can combine with peptides, termed Enzyme Donors (ED's), containing the deleted sequence, to form active β-galactosidase. This process is termed complementation, and the active enzyme formed as a result can be measured by hydrolysis of a chromogenic substrate such as chlorophenol red β-D-galactopyranoside (CPRG). The ED peptides can be modified by attachment of a derivative of oxycodone, which does not interfere with the formation of active β-galactosidase. However, antibodies to oxycodone bind to the ED-oxycodone conjugate, and block complementation. The assay is based on the competition of oxycodone in an oral fluid sample with the ED-oxycodone conjugate for the fixed amount of antibody binding sites. In the absence of the free drug in the sample, the antibody binds the ED-oxycodone conjugate, resulting in inhibition of enzyme formation. As the oxycodone concentration in the sample increases, ED-oxycodone becomes available for complementation, creating a dose response relationship between oxycodone concentration in the oral fluid and enzyme formation. The β-galactosidase activity is determined spectrophotometrically at 570 nm by the conversion of CPRG (orange) to chlorophenol red (red) and galactose.
## V Substantial Equivalence Information:
## A Predicate Device Name(s):
Thermo Scientific CEDIA Opiate OFT Assay
## B Predicate 510(k) Number(s):
K101754
## C Comparison with Predicate(s):
| Device & Predicate Device(s): | K203564 | K101754 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Device Trade Name | SEFRIA™ Oxycodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay | Thermo Scientific CEDIA Opiate OFT Assay |
| General Device Characteristic Similarities | | |
| Intended Use/Indications For Use | Qualitative determination of opiates in human oral fluid | Same |
| Test Principle | Homogeneous enzyme immunoassay | Same |
| Assay Materials | Antibody reagent, drug conjugate reagent | Same |
K203564 - Page 3 of 18
{3}
| Device & Predicate Device(s): | K203564 | K101754 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Cutoff Level | 30 ng/mL in Neat Oral Fluid | Same |
| User Environment | For use in laboratories | Same |
| Sample Matrix | Human oral fluid | Same |
| Reagent Storage | 2-8°C until expiration date | Same |
| Mass Spectrometry Confirmation | Required for preliminary positive analytical results | Same |
| General Device Characteristic Differences | | |
| Calibrated Against | Oxycodone | Morphine |
| Sample Collection Device | Oral fluid collected with the Quantisal and Quantisal II Oral Fluid Collection Devices. | Oral fluid is collected with the Oral Eze™ Saliva Collection System. |
VI Standards/Guidance Documents Referenced:
CLSI EP07-A2: Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry; Approved Guideline – Second Edition
ISO 14971:2007 Medical Devices – Application of Risk Management to Medical Devices
EN ISO 14971:2012 Medical Devices – Application of Risk Management to Medical Devices
VII Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
A Analytical Performance:
1. Precision/Reproducibility:
Precision study was performed over 15 days, 2 runs per day with 2 collection devices per run (N=60), one replicate per collection device on 1 lot of reagent and 1 lot of Quantisal and 1 lot of Quantisal II oral fluid collection devices. Drug free negative oral fluid was spiked to concentrations of assay cutoff and ±25%, ±50%, ±75%, ±100% of the cutoff and was collected using the collection devices. The spiked concentrations were confirmed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) before collection. The study established the repeatability of the testing system, including assay and oral fluid collection device. Test results in qualitative and semi-quantitative modes are presented in the following tables.
K203564 - Page 4 of 18
{4}
Precision – Qualitative results from samples collected using Quantisal
| Concentration (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | # of Determinations | Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | -100% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 7.5 | -75% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 15 | -50% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 22.5 | -25% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 30 | Cutoff | 60 | 31 Neg/29 Pos |
| 37.5 | +25% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 45 | +50% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 52.5 | +75% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 60 | +100% | 60 | 60 Positive |
Precision - Semi-Quantitative results from samples collected using Quantisal
| Concentration (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | # of Determinations | Mean Conc. (ng/mL) | Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | -100% | 60 | -0.2 | 60 Negative |
| 7.5 | -75% | 60 | 8.4 | 60 Negative |
| 15 | -50% | 60 | 16.7 | 60 Negative |
| 22.5 | -25% | 60 | 24.3 | 60 Negative |
| 30 | Cutoff | 60 | 32.3 | 16 Neg/44 Pos |
| 37.5 | +25% | 60 | 42.1 | 60 Positive |
| 45 | +50% | 60 | 53.3 | 60 Positive |
| 52.5 | +75% | 60 | 64.3 | 60 Positive |
| 60 | +100% | 60 | 76.3 | 60 Positive |
Precision – Qualitative results from samples collected using Quantisal II Pad A
| Concentration (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | # of Determinations | Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | -100% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 7.5 | -75% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 15 | -50% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 22.5 | -25% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 30 | Cutoff | 60 | 31 Neg/29 Pos |
| 37.5 | +25% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 45 | +50% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 52.5 | +75% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 60 | +100% | 60 | 60 Positive |
K203564 - Page 5 of 18
{5}
Precision - Semi-Quantitative results from samples collected using Quantisal II Pad A
| Concentration (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | # of Determinations | Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | -100% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 7.5 | -75% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 15 | -50% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 22.5 | -25% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 30 | Cutoff | 60 | 36 Neg/24 Pos |
| 37.5 | +25% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 45 | +50% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 52.5 | +75% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 60 | +100% | 60 | 60 Positive |
Precision - Qualitative results from samples collected using Quantisal II Pad B
| Concentration (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | # of Determinations | Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | -100% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 7.5 | -75% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 15 | -50% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 22.5 | -25% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 30 | Cutoff | 60 | 28 Neg/32 Pos |
| 37.5 | +25% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 45 | +50% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 52.5 | +75% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 60 | +100% | 60 | 60 Positive |
K203564 - Page 6 of 18
{6}
Precision - Semi-Quantitative results from samples collected using Quantisal II Pad B
| Concentration (ng/mL) | % of Cutoff | # of Determinations | Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | -100% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 7.5 | -75% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 15 | -50% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 22.5 | -25% | 60 | 60 Negative |
| 30 | Cutoff | 60 | 28 Neg/32 Pos |
| 37.5 | +25% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 45 | +50% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 52.5 | +75% | 60 | 60 Positive |
| 60 | +100% | 60 | 60 Positive |
An additional 20-day study was performed on 3 lots of assay reagent to demonstrate the repeatability across multiple reagent lots. All sample concentrations ranging from $-100\%$ to $-25\%$ of the cutoff were negative and all sample concentrations ranging from $+25\%$ to $+100\%$ of cutoff were positive for both qualitative and semi-quantitative interpretations.
# 2. Linearity:
Assay linearity was evaluated in the semi-quantitative mode by spiking a drug free oral fluid pool with a high concentration of oxycodone. Additional pools were made by serially diluting the high concentration specimen with drug free oral fluid to achieve concentrations ranging from $10\mathrm{ng / mL}$ to $110\mathrm{ng / mL}$ . The $0\mathrm{ng / mL}$ specimen was made from drug free oral fluid. Each pool was collected by Quantisal and Quantisal II oral fluid collection devices and tested in triplicate to calculate the mean concentration values that were used to calculate drug recovery. The results in semi-quantitative mode are presented in the following tables.
Linearity/Recovery - Quantisal
| Expected Concentration (ng/mL) | Mean Concentration (ng/mL) | Recovery (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | 1.8 | N/A |
| 10 | 9.6 | 95.7 |
| 20 | 21.0 | 104.8 |
| 30 | 33.2 | 110.6 |
| 40 | 40.7 | 101.8 |
| 50 | 55.8 | 111.6 |
| 60 | 60.5 | 100.8 |
| 70 | 75.8 | 108.2 |
| 80 | 80.9 | 101.2 |
| 90 | 95.6 | 106.2 |
| 100 | 106.7 | 106.7 |
| 110 | 112.4 | 102.2 |
K203564 - Page 7 of 18
{7}
Linearity/Recovery – Quantisal II “Pad A”
| Expected Concentration (ng/mL) | Mean Concentration (ng/mL) | Recovery (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | -1.5 | N/A |
| 10 | 10.2 | 102.0 |
| 20 | 20.4 | 102.2 |
| 30 | 29.8 | 99.2 |
| 40 | 42.0 | 104.9 |
| 50 | 50.2 | 100.3 |
| 60 | 57.1 | 95.2 |
| 70 | 69.4 | 99.1 |
| 80 | 81.9 | 102.3 |
| 90 | 87.9 | 97.7 |
| 100 | 107.7 | 107.7 |
| 110 | 109.7 | 99.7 |
Linearity/Recovery – Quantisal II “Pad B”
| Expected Concentration (ng/mL) | Mean Concentration (ng/mL) | Recovery (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | -1.2 | N/A |
| 10 | 10.9 | 108.7 |
| 20 | 19.4 | 97.0 |
| 30 | 27.2 | 90.6 |
| 40 | 43.0 | 107.5 |
| 50 | 46.7 | 93.5 |
| 60 | 59.9 | 99.8 |
| 70 | 74.3 | 106.2 |
| 80 | 85.4 | 106.8 |
| 90 | 90.8 | 100.9 |
| 100 | 105.4 | 105.4 |
| 110 | 117.7 | 107.0 |
The study demonstrated that the SEFRIA™ Oxycodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay has good correlation to the expected concentration in the range from 10 to 100 ng/mL.
3. Analytical Specificity/Interference:
Structurally and functionally similar compounds were spiked into drug free pooled oral fluid at levels that will yield a result that is equivalent to the cutoff, if cross reacting. The study assessed the cross reactivity of the oxycodone assay to related drugs and drug metabolites, in both the qualitative and semiquantitative modes. Cross-reactivity test results in qualitative and semi-quantitative modes are presented in the tables below.
K203564 - Page 8 of 18
{8}
Cross-Reactivity – Qualitative
| Compound | Compound Conc. (ng/mL) | Oxycodone Equivalent Conc. (ng/mL) | Result | Cross-Reactivity (%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6-acetylcodeine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| 6-acetylmorphine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Buprenorphine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Codeine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Desomorphine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Dihydrocodeine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Ethylmorphine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Fentanyl | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Heroin | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Hydrocodone | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Hydromorphone | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Levorphanol | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Meperidine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Morphine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Morphine-3-β-D-glucuronide | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Morphine-6-β-D-glucuronide | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Naloxone | 6,000 | 30 | POS | 0.5 |
| Naltrexone | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Norbuprenorphine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Norcodeine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Normorphine | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Noroxycodone | 4,750 | 30 | POS | 0.6 |
| Noroxymorphone | 12,500 | 30 | POS | 0.2 |
| Oxymorphone | 35 | 30 | POS | 85.7 |
| Oxymorphone-3-β-D-glucuronide | 550 | 30 | POS | 5.5 |
| Tapentadol | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Tramadol | 40,000 | <30 | NEG | <0.08 |
Cross-Reactivity – Semi-Quantitative
| Compound | Compound Conc. (ng/mL) | Oxycodone Equivalent Conc. (ng/mL) | Mean Value (ng/mL) | Result | Cross-Reactivity (%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6-acetylcodeine | 40,000 | <30 | 3.1 | NEG | <0.08 |
| 6-acetylmorphine | 40,000 | <30 | 2.1 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Buprenorphine | 40,000 | <30 | 1.4 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Codeine | 40,000 | <30 | 3.1 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Desomorphine | 40,000 | <30 | 3.2 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Dihydrocodeine | 40,000 | <30 | 4.0 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Ethylmorphine | 40,000 | <30 | 4.9 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Fentanyl | 40,000 | <30 | 2.1 | NEG | <0.08 |
K203564 - Page 9 of 18
{9}
| Compound | Compound Conc. (ng/mL) | Oxycodone Equivalent Conc. (ng/mL) | Mean Value (ng/mL) | Result | Cross-Reactivity (%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Heroin | 40,000 | <30 | 1.9 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Hydrocodone | 40,000 | <30 | 4.7 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Hydromorphone | 40,000 | <30 | 4.1 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Levorphanol | 40,000 | <30 | 2.9 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Meperidine | 40,000 | <30 | 1.8 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Morphine | 40,000 | <30 | 4.0 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Morphine-3-β-D-glucuronide | 40,000 | <30 | 1.3 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Morphine-6-β-D-glucuronide | 40,000 | <30 | 1.2 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Naloxone | 6,000 | 30 | 32.5 | POS | 0.5 |
| Naltrexone | 40,000 | <30 | 19.8 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Norbuprenorphine | 40,000 | <30 | 1.3 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Norcodeine | 40,000 | <30 | 1.4 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Normorphine | 40,000 | <30 | 1.4 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Noroxycodone | 4,750 | 30 | 32.6 | POS | 0.6 |
| Noroxymorphone | 12,500 | 30 | 33.0 | POS | 0.2 |
| Oxymorphone | 35 | 30 | 31.0 | POS | 85.7 |
| Oxymorphone-3-β-D-glucuronide | 550 | 30 | 30.3 | POS | 5.5 |
| Tapentadol | 40,000 | <30 | 1.6 | NEG | <0.08 |
| Tramadol | 40,000 | <30 | 1.8 | NEG | <0.08 |
## Interference – Structurally Unrelated Compounds
Structurally unrelated compounds were evaluated in qualitative and semi-quantitative modes by spiking the potential interferent into drug free oral fluid containing oxycodone at $\pm 25\%$ of the cutoff. No interference was observed at the concentrations tested with structurally unrelated compounds. The concentration levels of structurally unrelated compounds tested was 40,000 ng/mL.
| Non-Interfering Structurally Unrelated Compounds |
| --- |
| 4-Bromo-2,5,Dimethoxyphenethylamine |
| Alprazolam |
| 7-Aminoclonazepam |
| 7-Aminoflunitrazepam |
| 7-Aminonitrazepam |
| Amitriptyline |
| S-(+) Amphetamine |
| Benzylpiperazine |
| Bromazepam |
| Bupropion |
K203564 - Page 10 of 18
{10}
K203564 - Page 11 of 18
| Non-Interfering Structurally Unrelated Compounds |
| --- |
| Butabarbital |
| Butalbital |
| Cannabidiol |
| Cannabinol |
| Carbamazepine |
| Carisoprodol |
| Chlordiazepoxide |
| Chlorpromazine |
| Clobazam |
| Clomipramine |
| Clonazepam |
| Clozapine |
| Cocaine |
| Cotinine |
| Cyclobenzaprine |
| Demoxepam |
| Desalkylflurazepam |
| Desipramine |
| Diazepam |
| Digoxin |
| Dehydronorketamine |
| Delta-9-THC |
| Diphenhydramine |
| Dextromethorphan |
| Doxepin |
| Ecgonine |
| Ecgonine Methyl Ester |
| EDDP |
| EMDP |
| 1R,2S(-)-Ephedrine |
| 1S,2R(+)-Ephedrine |
| Ethyl-β-D-Glucuronide |
| Fenfluramine |
| Flunitrazepam |
| Fluoxetine |
| Flurazepam |
| Haloperidol |
| 11-hydroxy-delta-9-THC |
| Imipramine |
| Ketamine |
{11}
K203564 - Page 12 of 18
| Non-Interfering Structurally Unrelated Compounds |
| --- |
| Lamotrigine |
| Lidocaine |
| Lorazepam |
| Lorazepam Glucuronide |
| Lormetazepam |
| LSD |
| Maprotiline |
| MDA |
| MDEA |
| MDMA |
| Meprobamate |
| S(+)-Methamphetamine |
| Methadone |
| Methaqualone |
| Methoxetamine |
| Methylone |
| Methylphenidate |
| Midazolam |
| N-desmethyltentadol |
| N-desmethyl tramadol |
| N-desmethyl venlafaxine |
| Nalorphine |
| Nitrazepam |
| 11-nor-9 carboxy THC |
| Nordiazepam |
| Norketamine |
| Norpropoxyphene |
| Norpseudoephedrine |
| Nortriptyline |
| O-desmethyl tramadol |
| O-desmethyl venlafaxine |
| Olanzapine |
| Oxazepam |
| Pentazocine |
| Pentobarbital |
| Phencyclidine |
| Phenobarbital |
| Phentermine |
| Phenylephrine |
| Phenytoin |
{12}
| Non-Interfering Structurally Unrelated Compounds |
| --- |
| Phenylpropanolamine |
| PMA |
| Prazepam |
| Propranolol |
| Propoxyphene |
| Protriptyline |
| R,R(-)-Pseudoephedrine |
| S,S(+)-Pseudoephedrine |
| Ritalinic Acid |
| Salicylic Acid |
| Secobarbital |
| Sertraline |
| Sufentanil |
| Temazepam |
| Theophylline |
| Thioridazine |
| Trazadone |
| Triazolam |
| Trifluoromethylphenyl-piperazine |
| Trimipramine |
| Venlafaxine |
| Verapamil |
| Zolpidem Tartrate |
## Interference – Endogenous Compounds and Exogenous Compounds
Endogenous compounds and exogenous compounds were evaluated in qualitative and semi-quantitative modes by spiking the potential interferent into drug free oral fluid containing oxycodone at $\pm 25\%$ of the cutoff. Additional orally used products were tested by collecting oral fluid using Quantisal and Quantisal II Oral Fluid Collection Devices from subjects after use of the substances. At the levels tested, there was no interference observed with endogenous compounds, exogenous compounds and orally used compounds. Endogenous compounds and exogenous compounds are presented in the first and second tables below. Orally used compounds are presented in the $3^{\mathrm{rd}}$ table below.
K203564 - Page 13 of 18
{13}
Non-interfering Endogenous Compounds
| Compound | Concentration Tested |
| --- | --- |
| Ascorbic Acid | 3 mg/mL |
| Bilirubin | 0.15 mg/mL |
| Cholesterol | 0.45 mg/mL |
| γ-Globulin | 0.8 mg/mL |
| Hemoglobin | 3 mg/mL |
| Human Serum Albumin | 15 mg/mL |
| IgA | 1 mg/mL |
| IgG | 1 mg/mL |
| IgM | 0.5 mg/mL |
| Salivary-α-amylase | 1000 U/mL |
Non-interfering Exogenous Compounds
| Compound | Concentration Tested |
| --- | --- |
| Acetaminophen | 0.1 mg/mL |
| Acetylsalicylic Acid | 0.1 mg/mL |
| Baking Soda | 0.6% v/v |
| Denture Adhesive | 0.6% w/v |
| Ibuprofen | 0.1 mg/mL |
| Alcohol (Ethanol) | 6% v/v |
| Caffeine | 0.1 mg/mL |
| Cough Syrup | 6% v/v |
| Coffee | 6% v/v |
| Cranberry Juice | 6% v/v |
| Hydrogen Peroxide (3% OTC) | 0.5% v/v |
| Milk | 1% v/v |
| Mouthwash | 6% v/v |
| Naproxen | 0.1 mg/mL |
| Orange Juice | 6% v/v |
| Soft Drink (Pepsi) | 6% v/v |
| Sodium Chloride | 18 mg/mL |
| Sugar | 50 mg/mL |
| Tea | 6% v/v |
| Toothpaste | 6% v/v |
K203564 - Page 14 of 18
{14}
Non-interfering Orally Used Exogenous Products
| Compound | Concentration Tested |
| --- | --- |
| Teeth Whitener | 2 strips |
| Cigarette | 1 cigarette |
| Hard Candy | 1 piece |
| Chewing Gum | 1 piece |
| Hydrogen Peroxide (3% OTC) | Neat (2 min. mouth rinse) |
| Sugar | 2 Teaspoons |
| Cough Syrup | 2 Teaspoons |
## Interference – pH
To evaluate potential interference from the effect of oral fluid pH, device performance in the qualitative and semi-quantitative modes was tested using a range of oral fluid pH values (3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0 and 11.0). All test samples were prepared in drug free oral fluid containing oxycodone at ±25% of the cutoff. At the pH levels tested, there was no interference observed for each test mode.
## 4. Assay Reportable Range:
The assay reportable range for the semi-quantitative mode is 10 ng/mL to 100 ng/mL.
## 5. Traceability, Stability, Expected Values (Controls, Calibrators, or Methods):
### Traceability
The assay is traceable to a commercially available, certified, standard material with the concentration verified by GC-MS or LC-MS/MS.
### Oxycodone Stability in Oral Fluid
Drug free negative oral fluid spiked with oxycodone at +50% of the 30 ng/mL cutoff were collected and stored in Quantisal and Quantisal II Oral Fluid Collection Devices at 2°C - 8°C, tested by LC-MS/MS at each time point and compared to the baseline concentration result. The test results indicate that oral fluid samples containing oxycodone are stable for up to 12 months stored in Quantisal or Quantisal II Oral Fluid Collection Device at 2°C - 8°C.
Data to support 10-day storage in Quantisal or Quantisal II Oral Fluid Collection Device at ambient temperature 8°C - 25°C were reported in K183048 and K200801.
## 6. Detection Limit:
Not applicable
## 7. Assay Cut-Off:
The assay cut-off cutoff for the qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis of oxycodone in neat oral fluid is 30 ng/mL.
K203564 - Page 15 of 18
{15}
8. Carry-Over:
Not applicable
B Comparison Studies:
1. Method Comparison with Predicate Device:
Eighty (80) deidentified, unaltered clinical oral fluid samples collected using the Quantisal and Quantisal II Oral Fluid Collection Devices were obtained from clinical research facilities, analyzed for oxycodone at assay cutoff with the SEFRIA™ Oxycodone Oral Fluid Enzyme Immunoassay in both qualitative and semi-quantitative modes and compared to Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) results (using the Agilent 6430 Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry). Method comparison test results in qualitative and semi-quantitative modes are presented in the tables below.
Method Comparison –samples collected using Quantisal
| Immunoassay Result | LC-MS/MS Oxycodone Concentration | | | | Agreement (%) | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | < 15 ng/mL (less than-50% cutoff) | 15 – 29 ng/mL (between -50% cutoff and cutoff) | 30 – 45 ng/mL (between cutoff and +50% cutoff) | | > 45 ng/mL (greater than +50% cutoff) |
| Qual. | Positive | 0 | 0 | 5 | 35 | 100% (40/40) |
| | Negative | 36 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 100% (40/40) |
| Semi-Quant. | Positive | 0 | 0 | 5 | 35 | 100% (40/40) |
| | Negative | 36 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 100% (40/40) |
K203564 - Page 16 of 18
{16}
Method Comparison – samples collected using Quantisal II “Pad A”
| Immunoassay Result | LC-MS/MS Oxycodone Concentration | | | | Agreement (%) | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | < 15 ng/mL (less than -50% cutoff) | 15 – 29 ng/mL (between -50% cutoff and cutoff) | 30 – 45 ng/mL (between cutoff and +50% cutoff) | | > 45 ng/mL (greater than +50% cutoff) |
| Qual. | Positive | 0 | 0 | 5 | 35 | 100% (40/40) |
| | Negative | 36 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 100% (40/40) |
| Semi-Quant. | Positive | 0 | 0 | 5 | 35 | 100% (40/40) |
| | Negative | 36 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 100% (40/40) |
Method Comparison – samples collected using Quantisal II “Pad B”
| Immunoassay Result | LC-MS/MS Oxycodone Concentration | | | | Agreement (%) | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | < 15 ng/mL (less than -50% cutoff) | 15 – 29 ng/mL (between -50% cutoff and cutoff) | 30 – 45 ng/mL (between cutoff and +50% cutoff) | | > 45 ng/mL (greater than +50% cutoff) |
| Qual. | Positive | 0 | 0 | 5 | 35 | 100% (40/40) |
| | Negative | 36 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 100% (40/40) |
| Semi-Quant. | Positive | 0 | 0 | 5 | 35 | 100% (40/40) |
| | Negative | 36 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 100% (40/40) |
2. Matrix Comparison:
Not applicable. The assay is intended for use only with oral fluid samples.
C Clinical Studies:
1. Clinical Sensitivity:
Not applicable
K203564 - Page 17 of 18
{17}
2. Clinical Specificity:
Not applicable
3. Other Clinical Supportive Data (When 1. and 2. Are Not Applicable):
Not applicable
D. Clinical Cut-Off:
Not applicable
E. Expected Values/Reference Range:
Not applicable.
VIII. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling supports the finding of substantial equivalence for this device.
IX. Conclusion:
The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
K203564 - Page 18 of 18
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.