The investigation included review of submitted data, product historical data, product labeling, as well as consultation with medical affairs and on-market engineer.Review of product historical data for any trends and all customer complaints received for this issue did not identify any adverse trends or abnormal complaint activity.The customer's instrument logs for two of the three analyzers (including (b)(4)) were reviewed and found the sample was run in open mode on the cell-dyn sapphire analyzers.Background counts and quality control recovered within specification and within the published assay range before the sample in question was run.Review of the provided data found multiple results obtained from the two comparison instruments (b)(4) were different from (b)(4) including: hgb, wbc, rbc, rbco, plt, plti and pic/poc delta message.Given the fact that the sample run on serial number (b)(4) with the higher hgb had lower wbc and plt results, aspiration error was excluded as a possible cause.However, a sample error caused by user error may have contributed to the issue.Additionally, labeling was reviewed and sufficiently addresses the customer's issue.Based on the available information, no systemic issue or deficiency of the cell-dyn sapphire analyzer was identified.
|