The account observed (b)(6) architect anti-hcv on a patient who previously tested hcv (b)(6).The patient generated architect anti-hcv (b)(6) ((b)(6)) result but previously was anti-hcv (b)(6) ((b)(6) in 2018, (b)(6) in 2016).The patient is (b)(6) male with elevated afp, pivka and a cancer diagnosis and multiple medications.Patient race/ethnicity not provided.No impact to patient management was reported.
|
Section g1.Contact name, address, email, phone, fax updated.The ticket search by lot indicates that the reagent lot performs as expected for this product.The ticket trending review of complaint data for the likely cause list number does not identify any adverse trend.Labeling review concludes that the issue is adequately addressed.A review in the corrective and preventive actions system does not identify any related non-conformances or deviations associated with the likely cause lot and complaint issue.In-house testing of a retained reagent kit of the complaint lot was performed, showing that the lot generates the expected results.All specifications were met and no false non-reactive results were obtained, indicating that the sensitivity performance is not negatively impacted.In addition, the clinical sensitivity of the lot was evaluated by testing two commercially available seroconversion panels.The seroconversion panel results were compared to historical architect anti-hcv test results provided by manufacturer.The lot detected the same bleeds as reactive for the seroconversion panels.Based on these data it was shown that the sensitivity performance of the complaint lot is not adversely affected.No product deficiency was identified.Section g1.Contact name, address, email, phone, fax updated.
|