The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System with Moxifloxacin in the dilution range of 0.008-16 ug/mL
Applicant
Thermo Fisher Scientific
Product Code
JWY · Microbiology
Decision Date
Apr 15, 2025
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 866.1640
Device Class
Class 2
Attributes
PCCP
Indications for Use
The Sensititre MIC and Breakpoint Susceptibility system is an in vitro diagnostic product for clinical susceptibility testing of non-fastidious Gram negative isolates, comprising of Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and other non-Enterobacteriaceae and of non-fastidious Gram positive isolates, comprising of Staphylococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., and beta-hemolytic Streptococci other than S. pneumoniae.
Device Story
Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System performs in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Device utilizes microbroth dilution method to determine Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MIC) or breakpoint results for moxifloxacin against non-fastidious gram-positive bacteria. System intended for use in clinical laboratory settings by trained personnel. Output provides quantitative MIC values or qualitative breakpoint interpretations, assisting clinicians in selecting appropriate antimicrobial therapy for patients with bacterial infections. System includes Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP) for future modifications.
Clinical Evidence
Performance evaluated using 546 clinical and 144 challenge gram-positive isolates (Staphylococcus spp. and E. faecalis). Comparison against CLSI broth microdilution reference method. For Staphylococcus spp. (ARIS HiQ/OptiRead), EA was 96.0% and CA was 93.6%. For E. faecalis (ARIS HiQ/OptiRead), combined clinical/challenge/supplemental data showed EA 97.8% and CA 99.3%. Vizion read method showed similar performance. Trending toward higher MIC values was noted for several species and addressed in labeling. No clinical sensitivity/specificity data provided as this is an AST device.
Technological Characteristics
Microbroth dilution susceptibility testing system. Dilution range: 0.008-16 μg/mL. Designed for non-fastidious gram-positive organisms. Operates as an in vitro diagnostic system.
Indications for Use
Indicated for clinical susceptibility testing of non-fastidious gram-positive isolates, specifically Staphylococcus spp. (S. aureus, S. epidermidis, S. haemolyticus, S. hominis, S. lugdunensis, S. saprophyticus) and Enterococcus faecalis, using moxifloxacin (0.008-16 μg/mL). Prescription use only.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
An antimicrobial susceptibility test powder is a device that consists of an antimicrobial drug powder packaged in vials in specified amounts and intended for use in clinical laboratories for determining in vitro susceptibility of bacterial pathogens to these therapeutic agents. Test results are used to determine the antimicrobial agent of choice in the treatment of bacterial diseases.
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
K242658
B Applicant
Thermo Fisher Scientific
C Proprietary and Established Names
The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System with Moxifloxacin in the dilution range of 0.008-16 µg/mL
D Regulatory Information
| Product Code(s) | Classification | Regulation Section | Panel |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| JWY | Class II | 21 CFR 866.1640 - Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Powder | MI - Microbiology |
| LRG | Class II | 21 CFR 866.1640 - Antimicrobial susceptibility test powder | MI - Microbiology |
| LTT | Class II | 21 CFR 866.1640 - Antimicrobial susceptibility test powder | MI - Microbiology |
## II Submission/Device Overview:
### A Purpose for Submission:
To obtain substantial equivalence determination for The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System with Moxifloxacin in the dilution range of 0.008-16 µg/mL with updated FDA-recognized breakpoints for Staphylococcus spp. and expand claims to include additional Staphylococcus species and E. faecalis.
### B Measurand:
Moxifloxacin in the dilution range of 0.008 to 16 µg/mL
Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
www.fda.gov
{1}
C Type of Test:
Quantitative Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) growth-based detection
III Intended Use/Indications for Use:
A Intended Use(s):
The Sensititre MIC and Breakpoint Susceptibility system is an in vitro diagnostic product for clinical susceptibility testing of non-fastidious Gram negative isolates, comprising of Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and other non-Enterobacteriaceae and of non-fastidious Gram positive isolates, comprising of Staphylococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., and beta-hemolytic Streptococci other than S. pneumoniae.
B Indication(s) for Use:
The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System is an in vitro diagnostic product for clinical susceptibility testing of non-fastidious isolates.
This 510(k) is for moxifloxacin in the dilution range of 0.008-16 µg/mL for testing non-fastidious gram-positive isolates on The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System. Testing is indicated for Staphylococcus spp. and Enterococcus faecalis, as recognized by the FDA Susceptibility Test Interpretive Criteria (STIC) webpage.
The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System with Moxifloxacin in the dilution range of 0.008-16 µg/mL demonstrated acceptable performance with the following organisms:
Staphylococcus spp. (S. aureus, S. epidermidis, S. haemolyticus, S. hominis, S. lugdunensis, and S. saprophyticus)
Enterococcus faecalis
C Special Conditions for Use Statement(s):
Rx - For Prescription Use Only
The following limitation was applied to moxifloxacin testing in the appropriate sections of the device labeling that reference other drugs:
Studies of the following drugs were performed with the AIM Autoinoculator and read using the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and Vizion. The use of an alternative inoculation system or alternative read methods has not been evaluated.
Due to the insufficient number of resistant S. lugdunensis and S. saprophyticus isolates evaluated, the following limitation was applied to moxifloxacin testing in the appropriate section of the device labeling that references other drugs:
The ability of the Sensititre system to detect resistance or non-susceptibility to antimicrobials as shown below is unknown because an insufficient number of resistant or non-susceptible strains were available at the time of comparative testing. If such a strain is observed, it should be submitted to a reference laboratory.
K242658 - Page 2 of 13
{2}
K242658 - Page 3 of 13
## D Special Instrument Requirements:
- Sensititre AIM for device inoculation
- Sensititre Vizion digital plate reader/viewer
- Sensititre ARIS HiQ/OptiRead automated plate reader
## IV Device/System Characteristics:
### A Device Description:
The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility Plate System is an antimicrobial susceptibility test. Each plate is dosed with dried, stabilized antimicrobial agents at appropriate dilutions. It is a micro-version of the classic broth dilution method and can provide both qualitative and quantitative susceptibility results. After inoculation, plates are sealed with an adhesive seal, incubated at $34 - 36^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ for 18-24 hours and examined for bacterial growth.
### B Principle of Operation:
The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC Susceptibility plates are multi-well plastic microtiter plates that contain doubled dilutions of antibacterial agents. Each plate includes antimicrobial agents at appropriate dilutions. Results can be read using the digital viewing device (Vizion) or by use of an automated plate reader (ARIS HiQ/OptiRead).
The Sensititre Vizion digital viewing device allows the panel image to be displayed on a touch screen directly from a video camera and allows the user to visually determine MIC results. The Sensititre OptiRead utilizes fluorescence technology to read the microbroth dilution plates after 18 to 24 hours incubation. The technology involves the detection of bacterial growth by monitoring the activity of specific surface enzymes produced by the test organism. Growth is determined by generating a fluorescent product from a fluorogenic substrate. The non-fluorescent substrate is prepared by conjugating a fluorescent compound to the specific enzyme substrates with a bond which prevents fluorescence. The enzymatic action of the bacterial surface enzymes on the bound non-fluorescent substrate cleaves the bond releasing fluorescence. The amount of fluorescence detected is directly related to the activity of bacterial growth. The MIC is determined by observing the lowest dilution of antimicrobial agent that inhibits growth of the organism. The non-fluorescent (fluorogenic) substrate can be added to the inoculum broth which is dispensed into the test plate at the same time as the test organism, or the plates can be prepared with the substrate already added to each micro-well.
Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC plates can either be read automatically on an ARIS HiQ/OptiRead using fluorescence or by visual reading of growth on the Vizion digital viewing device.
### V Substantial Equivalence Information:
### A Predicate Device Name(s):
{3}
The Sensititre 18-24 Hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System with Lefamulin in the dilution range of 0.008-16 µg/mL
B Predicate 510(k) Number(s): K192729
C Comparison with Predicate(s):
| Device & Predicate Device(s): | Device: K242658 | Predicate: K192729 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Device Trade Name | The Sensititre 18-24 Hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System with Moxifloxacin in the dilution range of 0.008-16 µg/mL | The Sensititre 18-24 Hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System with Lefamulin in the dilution range of 0.008-16 µg/mL |
| General Device Characteristic Similarities | | |
| Intended Use | The Sensititre 18-24 Hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System is an in vitro diagnostic product for clinical susceptibility testing of non-fastidious bacterial isolates. | Same |
| Test Panel | Each 96 well plate is precision dosed with selected antimicrobial agents and substrate for the fluorescent reads, then dried. The bacterial suspension in the appropriate broth is used to rehydrate the plate. | Same |
| Incubation | 18-24 hours | Same |
| Read Method | Results can be read using fluorescence with the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead or by visual reading of growth with the Vizion. | Same |
| General Device Characteristic Differences | | |
| Antibiotic and Dilution Range | Moxifloxacin 0.008-16 µg/mL | Lefamulin 0.008-16 µg/mL |
| Test Organisms | Staphylococcus spp. E. faecalis | Staphylococcus aureus (methicillin-susceptible isolates) |
K242658 - Page 4 of 13
{4}
VI Standards/Guidance Documents Referenced:
CLSI M07, "Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically; Approved Standard - Eleventh Edition", (January 2018)
CLSI M100, "Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; 33rd Edition", (March 2023)
Guidance for Industry and FDA: Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Systems, August 28, 2009
VII Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
A Analytical Performance:
1. Precision/Reproducibility:
A reproducibility study of The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System with Moxifloxacin was performed at three sites using a panel of thirteen (13) gram-positive isolates from indicated species (4 Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), 4 Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), 1 Staphylococcus epidermidis (MSSE), 1 Staphylococcus haemolyticus, 1 Staphylococcus lugdunensis, 1 Enterococcus faecalis (VSE), and 1 Enterococcus faecalis (VRE)). In addition, two E. faecium isolates were tested that do not have FDA-recognized STIC breakpoints and are not intended for testing with the device. All isolates were tested in triplicate over three days with each read method (i.e., automatically with the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and visually with the Vizion). The Sensititre AIM Autoinoculator was used for Sensititre plate inoculation. The mode MIC value was determined, and the reproducibility of the 13 isolates was calculated based on MIC values falling within $\pm 1$ doubling dilution of the mode MIC value. The reproducibility studies for both the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and Vizion read methods demonstrated acceptable performance of $\geq 95\%$.
2. Linearity:
Not applicable.
3. Analytical Specificity/Interference:
Not applicable.
4. Assay Reportable Range:
Not applicable.
5. Traceability, Stability, Expected Values (Controls, Calibrators, or Methods):
K242658 - Page 5 of 13
{5}
The CLSI-recommended quality control (QC) strains S. aureus ATCC 29213 and Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212 were tested at four sites. The QC strains were tested a minimum of 20 times per site and read automatically with the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and visually with the Vizion. The QC strains were also tested with the reference method. The results demonstrate that The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC Susceptibility plates with Moxifloxacin produced quality control results within the recommended range >95% of the time (Table 1).
Table 1. Quality Control Results for S. aureus and E. faecalis with Moxifloxacin with the Reference Method, ARIS HiQ/OptiRead, and Vizion
| QC Organism | Expected Range (μg/mL) | Concentration (μg/mL) | Reference | ARIS HiQ/OptiRead | Vizion |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 | 0.15-0.12 μg/mL | ≤0.008 | 1 | - | - |
| | | 0.15 | 11 | - | - |
| | | 0.03 | 68 | 3 | 2 |
| | | 0.06 | 6 | 103 | 98 |
| | | 0.12 | - | | 4 |
| | | ≥0.25 | - | - | - |
| Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212 | 0.06-0.5 μg/mL | ≤0.03 | - | - | - |
| | | 0.06 | - | 1 | - |
| | | 0.12 | 86 | 69 | 10 |
| | | 0.25 | 2 | 37 | 97 |
| | | 0.5 | - | - | - |
| | | ≥1 | - | - | - |
Inoculum Density: Inoculum density checks were performed for all QC, reproducibility, challenge, and clinical isolates tested. Only results from cultures with appropriate inoculum densities were reported.
Purity Checks: Purity checks were performed for all QC, reproducibility, challenge, and clinical isolates tested. Only results from pure cultures were reported.
Growth Failure: There was one growth failure for Staphylococcus spp. There were no growth failures for E. faecalis.
ARIS HiQ/OptiRead Invalid (No fluorescence): There were two invalids for Staphylococcus spp. and one invalid for E. faecalis that did not produce adequate fluorescence by the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead.
6. Detection Limit:
Not applicable.
7. Assay Cut-Off:
K242658 - Page 6 of 13
{6}
Not applicable.
## B Comparison Studies:
### 1. Method Comparison with Predicate Device:
Testing of The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC or Breakpoint Susceptibility System with Moxifloxacin was performed at three external sites and additional testing was performed at one internal site. Results were compared to those obtained with the CLSI broth microdilution reference method. Sensititre panels were inoculated using only the AIM Autoinoculator and results were read automatically by the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and visually by the Vizion. Reference panels were inoculated according to recommendations in the M07 CLSI document and results were read manually using a mirrored reader.
No inoculation system other than the AIM Autoinoculator and no read method other than ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and Vizion was used in the comparative study. To address the inoculation method and read method limitation, the following limitation was applied to moxifloxacin testing in the appropriate sections of the device labeling that references other drugs:
Studies of the following drugs were performed with the AIM Autoinoculator and read using the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and Vizion. The use of an alternative inoculation system or alternative read methods has not been evaluated.
The testing conditions for the reference method consisted of the following:
- Media: per CLSI M07 guidelines for Staphylococcus spp. and Enterococcus spp.
- Inoculum: Inoculated per CLSI M07 guidelines
- Incubation: 34-36° C in a non-CO₂ incubator for 16-20 hours
Inoculation and incubation procedure for Staphylococcus spp. and Enterococcus spp.
- Media: cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton broth with TES buffer (CAMHBT)
- Inoculum: A suspension approximating a 0.5 McFarland standard was prepared in 5 mL sterile water. Ten (10) μL of the standardized suspension was transferred to 11 mL of CAMHBT. Susceptibility plates were inoculated with 50 μL of the final organism suspension using the Sensititre AIM Autoinoculator.
- Incubation: 34-36° C in a non-CO₂ incubator for 18-24 hours
A total of 546 gram-positive clinical isolates comprised of Staphylococcus spp. (334 S. aureus, 75 S. epidermidis, 11 S. haemolyticus, 10 S. hominis, 26 S. lugdunensis, and 24 S. saprophyticus isolates) and E. faecalis (66 isolates), as well as 144 challenge isolates comprised of Staphylococcus spp. (100 S. aureus, 7 S. epidermidis, 4 S. haemolyticus, 3 S. hominis, 6 S. lugdunensis, and 5 S. saprophyticus isolates) and E. faecalis (19 isolates) were evaluated with the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and the results are provided in Table 2.
For Staphylococcus spp. read using the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead, the combined clinical and challenge results (605 isolates) were acceptable at 96.0% and 93.6% for EA and CA, respectively. There were 38 minor errors, 1 major error (1/434 = 0.2%), and no very major errors.
K242658 - Page 7 of 13
{7}
For $E$ faecalis read by the ARIS/HiQ/OptiRead, the combined clinical and challenge results (85 isolates) were acceptable at $96.5\%$ and $98.8\%$ for EA and CA, respectively. There were no minor errors, no major errors, and one very major error $(1/24 = (4.2\%)$ , which is not acceptable. A supplemental study was performed to address the unacceptable very major error rate and is described below.
Table 2. Moxifloxacin Performance of Staphylococcus spp. and E. faecalis spp. Read by ARIS HiQ/OptiRead
| | Tot | EA N | EA % | Eval Tot | Eval EA N | Eval EA % | CA Tot | CA % | No. R | No. S | min | maj | vmj |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Staphylococcus spp. [≤ 0.5 (S), 1 (I), ≥2 (R)] | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Clinical | 480 | 463 | 96.5 | 475 | 458 | 96.4 | 456 | 95.0 | 86 | 355 | 24 | 0 | 0 |
| Challenge | 125 | 118 | 94.4 | 117 | 110 | 94.0 | 110 | 88.0 | 32 | 79 | 14 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 605 | 581 | 96.0 | 592 | 568 | 96.0 | 566 | 93.6 | 118 | 434 | 38 | 1 | 0 |
| E. faecalis [≤ 1 (S), 2 (I), ≥4 (R)] | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Clinical | 66 | 63 | 95.5 | 61 | 58 | 95.1 | 65 | 98.5 | 15 | 51 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Challenge | 19 | 19 | 100 | 17 | 17 | 100 | 19 | 100 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 85 | 82 | 96.5 | 78 | 75 | 96.2 | 84 | 98.8 | 24 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
EA - Essential Agreement
CA - Categorical Agreement
S - Susceptible
Maj - Major Discrepancies
EVAL - Evaluable MICs
R - Resistant
min - Minor Discrepancies
vmj - Very Major Discrepancies
Essential agreement (EA) occurs when the result of the reference method and that of the Sensititre panel are within plus or minus one serial two-fold dilution of the antibiotic. Evaluable results are those that are on scale for both the reference method and the Sensititre panel or those in which an off-scale result is at least two doubling dilutions from the on-scale result. Category agreement (CA) occurs when the interpretation of the result of the reference method agrees exactly with the interpretation of the Sensititre panel.
A total of 548 gram-positive clinical isolates comprised of Staphylococcus spp. (334 S. aureus, 75 S. epidermidis, 11 S. haemolyticus, 10 S. hominis, 27 S. lugdunensis, and 24 S. saprophyticus isolates) and E. faecalis (67 isolates), as well as 144 challenge isolates comprised of Staphylococcus spp. (100 S. aureus, 7 S. epidermidis, 4 S. haemolyticus, 3 S. hominis, 6 S. lugdunensis, and 5 S. saprophyticus isolates) and E. faecalis (19 isolates) were evaluated with the Vizion and the results are provided in Table 3.
For Staphylococcus spp. read using the Vizion, the combined clinical and challenge results (606 isolates) were acceptable at $94.4\%$ and $93.4\%$ for EA and CA, respectively. There were 39 minor errors, 1 major error $(1/435 = 0.2\%)$ , and no very major errors.
For $E.$ faecalis read by the Vizion, the combined clinical and challenge results (86 isolates) were acceptable at $93.0\%$ and $98.8\%$ for EA and CA, respectively. There were no minor errors, no major errors, and one very major error $(1/24 = (4.2\%)$ , which was not acceptable.
Table 3. Moxifloxacin Performance of Staphylococcus spp. and E. faecalis spp. Read by Vizion
| | Tot | EA N | EA % | Eval Tot | Eval EA N | Eval EA % | CA Tot | CA % | No. R | No. S | min | maj | vmj |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Staphylococcus spp. [≤ 0.5 (S), 1 (I), ≥2 (R)] | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Clinical | 481 | 454 | 94.4 | 477 | 450 | 94.3 | 455 | 94.6 | 86 | 356 | 26 | 0 | 0 |
| Challenge | 125 | 118 | 94.4 | 117 | 110 | 94.0 | 111 | 88.8 | 32 | 79 | 13 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 606 | 572 | 94.4 | 594 | 560 | 94.3 | 566 | 93.4 | 118 | 435 | 39 | 1 | 0 |
| E. faecalis [≤ 1 (S), 2 (I), ≥4 (R)] | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Clinical | 67 | 61 | 91.0 | 62 | 56 | 90.3 | 66 | 98.5 | 15 | 52 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
K242658 - Page 8 of 13
{8}
| | Tot | EA N | EA % | Eval Tot | Eval EA N | Eval EA % | CA Tot | CA % | No. R | No. S | min | maj | vmj |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Challenge | 19 | 19 | 100 | 16 | 16 | 100 | 19 | 100 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 86 | 80 | 93.0 | 78 | 72 | 92.3 | 85 | 98.8 | 24 | 62 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
EA - Essential Agreement
CA - Categorical Agreement
S - Susceptible
Maj - Major Discrepancies
EVAL - Evaluable MICs
R - Resistant
min - Minor Discrepancies
vmj - Very Major Discrepancies
Essential agreement (EA) occurs when the result of the reference method and that of the Sensititre panel are within plus or minus one serial two-fold dilution of the antibiotic. Evaluable results are those that are on scale for both the reference method and the Sensititre panel or those in which an off-scale result is at least two doubling dilutions from the on-scale result. Category agreement (CA) occurs when the interpretation of the result of the reference method agrees exactly with the interpretation of the Sensititre panel.
To address the unacceptable VMJ rate for $E$ faecalis read by ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and Vizion, a supplemental study was performed at one internal site. Additional $E$ faecalis challenge isolates (52) were tested and read by the ARIS/HiQ/OptiRead and Vizion. The original clinical and challenge data were combined with the supplemental testing. Final results demonstrated an acceptable very major error rate of $1.6\%$ (1/63) with the ARIS/HiQ/OptiRead and $1.6\%$ (1/64) with the Vizion (Table 4).
Table 4. Combined (Original and Supplemental) Moxifloxacin Performance of $E$ . faecalis spp. Read by ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and Vizion
| | Tot | EA N | EA % | Eval Tot | Eval EA N | Eval EA % | CA Tot | CA % | No. R | No. S | min | maj | vmj |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| E. faecalis [≤1 (S), 2 (I), ≥4 (R)] | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ARIS HiQ/OptiRead | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Clinical | 66 | 63 | 95.5 | 61 | 58 | 95.1 | 65 | 98.5 | 15 | 51 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Challenge | 19 | 19 | 100 | 17 | 17 | 100 | 19 | 100 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Supplemental | 51 | 51 | 100 | 48 | 48 | 100 | 51 | 100 | 39 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 136 | 133 | 97.8 | 126 | 123 | 97.6 | 135 | 99.3 | 63 | 73 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Vizion | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Clinical | 67 | 61 | 91.0 | 62 | 56 | 90.3 | 66 | 98.5 | 15 | 52 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Challenge | 19 | 19 | 100 | 16 | 16 | 100 | 19 | 100 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Supplemental | 52 | 52 | 100 | 41 | 41 | 100 | 52 | 100 | 40 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 138 | 132 | 95.7 | 119 | 113 | 95.0 | 137 | 99.3 | 64 | 74 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
EA - Essential Agreement
CA - Categorical Agreement
S - Susceptible
Maj - Major Discrepancies
EVAL - Evaluable MICs
R - Resistant
min - Minor Discrepancies
vmj - Very Major Discrepancies
Essential agreement (EA) occurs when the result of the reference method and that of the Sensititre panel are within plus or minus one serial two-fold dilution of the antibiotic. Evaluable results are those that are on scale for both the reference method and the Sensititre panel or those in which an off-scale result is at least two doubling dilutions from the on-scale result. Category agreement (CA) occurs when the interpretation of the result of the reference method agrees exactly with the interpretation of the Sensititre panel.
Due to the insufficient number of non-susceptible S. lugdunensis and S. saprophyticus isolates evaluated, the following limitation was applied to moxifloxacin testing in the appropriate section of the device labeling that references other drugs:
The ability of the Sensititre system to detect resistance or non-susceptibility to antimicrobics as shown below is unknown because an insufficient number of
K242658 - Page 9 of 13
{9}
resistant or non-susceptible strains were available at the time of comparative testing. If such a strain is observed, it should be submitted to a reference laboratory.
# MIC Trending
A trending analysis was conducted using the combined data (clinical and challenge) obtained for both the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and the Vizion for Staphylococcus spp. and E. faecalis. This trending calculation takes into account MIC values that are determined to be one or more doubling dilutions lower or higher than the reference method irrespective of whether the device MIC values are on-scale or not. Results that are not clearly at least one dilution lower at least one dilution higher or in exact agreement with the CLSI reference method are not considered in the trending analysis.
Species for which the difference between the percentage of isolates with higher vs. lower readings was > 30% and for which the confidence interval was determined to be statistically significant were considered to show evidence of trending. Trending that shows higher or lower MIC values compared to the reference is addressed in the labeling.
Evaluation of results for Staphylococcus spp. and E. faecalis with moxifloxacin using the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and Vizion are summarized in Table 5. A trend toward higher MIC values was observed for S. aureus, S. epidermidis, S. hominis, and S. saprophyticus using the ARIS/HiQ/OptiRead when compared to the CLSI broth microdilution reference method. A trend toward higher MIC values was observed for S. aureus, S. epidermidis, S. hominis, S. lugdunensis, S. saprophyticus, and E. faecalis using the Vizion when compared to the CLSI broth microdilution reference method.
To address the MIC trending, the sponsor includes the following footnotes in the performance table:
For ARIS HiQ/OptiRead:
Moxifloxacin MIC values tended to be in exact agreement or at least one doubling dilution higher when testing S. aureus, S. epidermidis, S. hominis, and S. saprophyticus with the ARIS HiQ/OptiRead compared to the CLSI reference broth microdilution method.
For Vizion:
Moxifloxacin MIC values tended to be in exact agreement or at least one doubling dilution higher when testing S. aureus, S. epidermidis, S. hominis, S. lugdunensis, S. saprophyticus, and E. faecalis with the Vizion compared to the CLSI reference broth microdilution method.
K242658 - Page 10 of 13
{10}
Table 5. Moxifloxacin Trending Analysis for Staphylococcus spp. and E. faecalis with ARIS HiQ/OptiRead and Vizion
| Read Method | Organism | Total Evaluable for Trending | ≥ 1 Dilution lower No. (%) | Exact No. (%) | ≥ 1 Dilution Higher No. (%) | Percent Difference (95% CI) | Trending Noted |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ARIS HiQ/OptiRead | S. aureus | 426 | 4, (0.9) | 116 | 306 (71.8) | 71% (66% to 75%) | Yes, high |
| | S. epidermidis | 82 | 2, (2.4) | 35 | 45, (54.9) | 52% (40% to 62%) | Yes, high |
| | S. haemolyticus | 13 | 1, (7.7) | 11 | 1, (7.7) | 0% (-26% to 26%) | No |
| | S. hominis | 13 | 0, (0) | 4 | 9, (69.2) | 69% (34% to 87%) | Yes, high |
| | S. lugdunensis | 32 | 0, (0) | 27 | 5, (15.6) | 16% (2% to 32%) | No |
| | S. saprophyticus | 29 | 0, (0) | 17 | 12, (41.4) | 41% (22% to 59%) | Yes, high |
| | E. faecalis | 129 | 22 (17.1) | 84 | 23 (17.8) | 1% (-9% to 10%) | No |
| Vizion | S. aureus | 426 | 2, (0.5) | 122 | 302 (70.8) | 70% (66% to 75%) | Yes, high |
| | S. epidermidis | 81 | 0, (0) | 19 | 62, (76.5) | 77% (65% to 84%) | Yes, high |
| | S. haemolyticus | 13 | 0, (0) | 11 | 2, (15.4) | 15% (-10% to 42%) | No |
| | S. hominis | 13 | 0, (0) | 13 | 13, (100) | 100% (68% to 100%) | Yes, high |
| | S. lugdunensis | 33 | 0, (0) | 6 | 27, (81.8) | 82% (63% to 91%) | Yes, high |
| | S. saprophyticus | 29 | 0, (0) | 14 | 15, (51.7) | 52% (31% to 69%) | Yes, high |
| | E. faecalis | 129 | 4 (3.1) | 58 | 67, (51.9) | 49% (39% to 57%) | Yes, high |
Testing/Reporting MICs for Non-indicated Species.
For this review, the interpretive criteria are applied to the organisms/organism groups according to the FDA STIC website. As required under 511A(2)(2)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the following statement is included in the Warnings and Precautions section of the device labeling to address testing and reporting of non-indicated species:
The safety and efficacy of antimicrobial drugs, for which antimicrobial susceptibility is tested by this AST device, may or may not have been established in adequate and well controlled clinical trials for treating clinical infections due to microorganisms outside of those found in the indications and usage in the drug label. The clinical significance of susceptibility information in those instances is unknown. The approved labeling for specific antimicrobial drugs provides the uses for which the antimicrobial drug is approved.
2. Matrix Comparison:
K242658 - Page 11 of 13
{11}
Not applicable.
## C Clinical Studies:
1. Clinical Sensitivity:
Not applicable.
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:
Table 6: FDA-Recognized Interpretive Criteria for Moxifloxacin
| | Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (μg/mL)a | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Organisms | Susceptible | Intermediate | Resistant |
| Staphylococcus spp. | ≤0.5 | 1 | ≥2 |
| Enterococcus faecalis | ≤1 | 2 | ≥4 |
aAccording to FDA STIC Webpage
## 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.
To support the implementation of changes to FDA-recognized susceptibility test interpretive criteria (i.e., breakpoints), this submission incorporated by reference a breakpoint change protocol that was reviewed and accepted by FDA in submission K231994 cleared on August 25, 2023. This referenced protocol addresses future revisions to device labeling in response to breakpoint changes that are recognized on the FDA STIC webpage (https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/ucm410971.htm). The referenced protocol outlined the specific procedures and acceptance criteria that Thermo Fisher Scientific intends to use to evaluate The Sensititre 18-24 hour MIC or Breakpoint
K242658 - Page 12 of 13
{12}
Susceptibility System with Moxifloxacin when revised breakpoints for moxifloxacin are published on the FDA STIC webpage. The breakpoint change protocol included with the submission indicated that if specific criteria are met, Thermo Fisher Scientific will update the moxifloxacin device label to include (1) the new breakpoints, (2) an updated performance section after re-evaluation of data in this premarket notification with the new breakpoints, and (3) any new limitations as determined by their evaluation.
K242658 - Page 13 of 13
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.