Patient contacted bio-rad directly about what they considered to be a (b)(6) result from (b)(6) 2020.Bio-rad established that the patient did routine blood work at a laboratory on (b)(6) 2020.The initial result came back as (b)(6) on bioplex 2200 hiv ag-ab assay.Bio-rad contacted the clinical laboratory that conducted the test and requested all reidentified testing data and the troubleshooting file from the instrument for the investigation.There were 406 other samples were run at the same time and this is the only sample with showing (b)(6).According to the medical director of the clinical laboratory that performs this test, the retest for this patient was run on another bioplex 2200 instrument and the required confirmatory test was done on 2 additional methods prior to release of the result to the ordering physician.Required confirmatory testing was done per cdc guidelines, and the results were (b)(6).Per bioplex 2200 hiv ag-ab information for user (ifu), initially reactive specimens must be retested in duplicate.If they are repeatedly reactive, they must be investigated by additional, more specific, or supplemental tests.Refer to cdc guidelines for the current recommended hiv testing algorithm.Based on the approved performance of the device it is expected that a certain number of (b)(6) will be observed.As noted the device is intended to be used as an initial screen assay with initial (b)(6) required to be retested and confirmed with a confirmatory assay.On receipt of the initial patient contact in (b)(6) 2021, there was no indication of severe patient anxiety.The patient indicated that the call was simply an inquiry into how our product was to be used.Bio-rad only became aware on april 15th 2021, via review of the fda maude database (mw5098797), that the patient had suffered significant anxiety.
|