H.6.Investigation: the complaint investigation for discrepant results with the bd max vaginal panel (ref 443712) lots 1021801 and 1033588 was performed by the review of the manufacturing records, retain material testing, customer¿s data analysis and verification of complaints history.Review of the manufacturing records of bd max vaginal panel indicated that lots 1021801 and 1033588 were manufactured according to specifications and met performance requirements.Customer reported discrepant results on two specimen samples when using the bd max¿ vaginal panel assay.Negative results were obtained with the bd max¿ vaginal panel assay whereas candida albicans was identified by culture.Customer provided three runs (631, 634 and 652) performed on instrument ct1373.Manual pcr curve adjudication was conducted on the samples identified by the customer.Sample #364 was tested twice (in runs 631 and 634), with two different kit lots, and gave a negative result in both tests.Sample #757 was tested in run 652, and also gave a negative result.However, c.Albicans was found in these two samples by culture.The customer mentioned that no amplification was observed for any of the targets, including the spc.Analysis of the curves showed abnormal high raw fluorescence values for these samples, especially in the cy5.5 channel (spc target) in the 3 runs.The curves obtained for the spc target for all three runs showed a slight increase that passed the threshold to give valid result.However, these curves indicates that they were not the result of true amplification.Amplification of the spc explains why no unr result was obtained.Analysis of the curves in other channels also showed atypical curves for these samples and no amplification for any of the bv targets as well as no amplification of the spc.These observations strongly suggest an issue with the samples.The samples may have contained inhibitory/ interfering substances, or due to an issue from unknown origin.However, manual curve adjudication has limitations; visual examination of pcr curves for low/abnormal signal is a conservative assessment of the data.Overall, based on the information provided by the customer, the issue seems isolated to these 2 patient samples.There is no indication of an increase in complaints for discrepant results for bd max vaginal panel lots 1021801 and 1033588.The root cause was not identified but the presence of interfering or inhibitory substance in sample might be responsible for the customer issue.Bd cannot confirm the complaint based on the investigation that was performed.Bd did not initiate a corrective and preventive action (capa).Bd quality will continue to monitor for trends.
|