Date of report 07/31/2015.Date received by manufacturer 07/31/2015.Follow up report 1.Additional information / device evaluation.Device evaluated by manufacturer yes.(b)(4) a customer from germany alleged that a (b)(6) while using the cobas mrsa/sa test.The customer requested information on if our assay detected st398 ((b)(6)).A sample testing in (b)(6) 2015 generated (b)(6) but was (b)(6) when testing by cobas 4800 and bd-max platforms.Additional testing was performed in which a (b)(6) was generated as well the run data was provided and evaluated.The data shows that the cobas 4800 reagents are working as expected; all controls including the internal control (ic) are valid.The sample did generate robust curves for sa and ic which shows that the sample contains the necessary amount of nucleic acids needed to perform and generate reliable results with the cobas mrsa test.Also note that within the same run as the sample in question, there are properly identified (b)(6) samples.The (b)(6) sequence type (st) 398 is known to be associated with livestock but has been documented to infect humans as well at a lower prevalence.The cobas mrsa/sa test can detect some isolates associated with st398 but not all.The alleged (b)(6) that is being observed by the customer is most likely sample related.Please note that the sample type used during testing within the current case was off-label.A mix sample collected from the nose, throat, and perineum is not a validated sample type for the cobas mrsa/sa test.Samples were provided for sequencing.Two samples were provided: the original copan e swab and swab from culture.The sequencing results are inconclusive, as a complete sequence has not been able to be obtained.The re type cannot be verified sequence analysis due to the lack of upstream binding region for the assay oligos.Without the re type it cannot be determined why the sample in question was not detected by the cobas mrsa/sa test, but is likely a sample specific issue.Retain kit testing results met specification and the customer allegation was not observed.There is no indication of a product malfunction.(b)(4).
|