Catalog Number 06C29-27 |
Device Problem
Incorrect Or Inadequate Test Results (2456)
|
Patient Problem
No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692)
|
Event Date 06/01/2017 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
An evaluation is in process.A follow-up report will be submitted when the evaluation is complete.Age at time of event, the patients were between 30 and 50 years old, however a specific age for each patient was not provided.This report is being filed on an international product, list number 6c29 that has a similar product distributed in the us, list number 6c27.
|
|
Event Description
|
The customer observed multiple falsely elevated (b)(6) patient results while using the architect (b)(6) reagents.The following data was provided (s/co).Sid (b)(6) initial 1.60 ((b)(6)), repeat 1.85 ((b)(6)).Sid (b)(6) initial 1.02 ((b)(6)), repeat 0.88 ((b)(6)).Sid (b)(6) initial 1.21 ((b)(6)), repeat 1.17 ((b)(6)).Sid (b)(6) initial 3.50 ((b)(6)), no repeat provided.Sid (b)(6) initial 2.77 ((b)(6)), no repeat provided.Sid (b)(6) initial 3.29 ((b)(6)), no repeat provided.The customer stated that all the patients are healthy and were being tested for occupational health issues.No impact to patient management was reported.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Additional patients were included.Device manufacturers only 10.This report is being filed on an international product, list number 6c29.The similar product distributed in the us list number was changed to 6l27 from 6c27.An evaluation is in process.
|
|
Event Description
|
The customer observed multiple falsely elevated igg anti-hav patient results while using the architect havab-igg reagents.The following data was provided (s/co).Sid (b)(6) initial 1.60 (reactive), repeat 1.85 (reactive).Sid (b)(6) initial 1.02 (reactive), repeat 0.88 (nonreactive).Sid (b)(6) initial 1.21 (reactive), repeat 1.17 (reactive).Sid (b)(6) initial 3.50 (reactive), no repeat provided.Sid (b)(6) initial 2.77 (reactive), no repeat provided.Sid (b)(6) initial 3.29 (reactive), no repeat provided.Sid (b)(6) initial 2.03 (reactive), no repeat provided, previous result for this patient from 2016 was 1.98 (reactive).Sid (b)(6) initial 1.99 (reactive), repeat 2.16 (reactive), previous result for this patient from 2016 was 1.6 (reactive) and elisa negative.Sid (b)(6) initial 1.73 (reactive), previous result for this patient from 2016 was 1.15 (reactive).Sid (b)(6) initial 1.98 (reactive), repeat 2.19 (reactive).The customer stated that all the patients are healthy and were being tested for occupational health issues.No impact to patient management was reported.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Evaluation of the customer issue included a review of the complaint text, a search for similar complaints, device history review, labeling review, returned specimen testing, and specificity testing.No adverse trend was identified for the customer issue.Device history review did not identify any issues that may have caused the customer issue.Labeling was reviewed and found to be adequate.Four patient specimens were returned, however the product was not available for return.Specimens sid (b)(6) were tested with retained kits of the likely cause reagent lot and were also tested using other methods, including vidas anti-hav total method and biorad monolisa total anti hav plus method.The four specimens were reactive using the architect method (lots 70628li00 and 72320li00) and the biorad method.The specimens were also reactive using the vidas method, with the exception of sid (b)(6), which was borderline.The customer stated that this patient sid (b)(6) had received two doses of hav vaccine prior to the sample being drawn.Additionally, clinical specificity testing of negative control replicates was performed using retained kits stored at the recommended storage condition.Specificity testing met all specifications.Based on all available information and abbott diagnostics complaint investigation, no systematic issue was identified and no product deficiency was identified.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|