The customer observed (b)(6) architect (b)(6) results on 2 patients.Patient #1 generated a result of (b)(6), repeat (b)(6).Patient #2 generated a result of (b)(6), repeat (b)(6).The reference range for (b)(6) is (b)(6) and (b)(6).There was no impact to patient management reported.
|
The complaint investigation for false reactive results for two samples tested with the architect havab-g assay included a review of data and information provided by the customer, search for similar complaints, ticket trending review, labeling review, device history record review and field data review.No customer returns were available.A ticket search by lot indicated that lot 14054be00 performed as expected.Trending review determined no related trends for the issue for the product.Device history record review did not identify any non-conformances or deviations associated with the likely cause lot and complaint issue.The overall performance of architect havab-g reagents in the field was reviewed using worldwide data and suggested that the performance of the complaint lot is acceptable.Labeling review concludes that the issue was adequately addressed.Based on the investigation, there is no systemic issue and/or product deficiency for the architect havab-g reagent lot identified in this complaint.
|