The customer reported that a clinician questioned false positive architect total b-hcg results on a (b)(6) year-old female patient diagnosed with irregular menstruation.On (b)(6) 2020, the initial result for sid (b)(6) was 2015.59 miu/ml; the patient tested negative for urine hcg; on (b)(6) 2020 the retest sid (b)(6) generated a result of <1.20 miu/ml.Three days later the patients period started, and the retested b-hcg result was normal at another hospital.No impact to patient management was reported.
|
The complaint investigation included a review of data and information provided by the customer, search for similar complaints, ticket trending review, labelling review, device history record review, field data review and in house testing of retained kits with the complaint lot number.Return testing was not completed as returns were not available.A review of tracking and trending did not identify any trends for the complaint issue.Device history record review did not identify any issues associated with the complaint lot.Labeling was reviewed and found to adequately address the current issue.In house testing determined that the specificity performance is acceptable.The overall performance of architect total hcg reagents was reviewed using worldwide field data and suggested that the performance of the lot is acceptable.Based on the investigation, no systemic issue or product deficiency for the architect total b-hcg reagent lot was identified.
|