The end user's caregiver called to report a variance between the inratio inr result and the laboratory inr result.On (b)(6) 2015, the caregiver called after receiving 8 unspecified error messages on the inratio device.On the 9th test, the inratio inr was 1.6.The following day, (b)(6) 2015, the patient went to a follow up radiation appointment and the laboratory inr was 2.1.The patient has advanced stage cancer.Therapeutic range: 2.0 - 3.0.Reportedly, multiple fingersticks were performed on the same finger, the sample was not immediately applied, multiple drops of blood was applied and the finger touched the sample well.These are all considered to be improper techniques when performing the inratio test.There was no reported adverse patient sequela.There was no additional information provided.
|
Investigation/conclusion: it is indicated that the product is not returning for evaluation.Therefore, a review of the entire in-house testing history of the lot was performed.In-house strip testing on the reported strip lot met accuracy criteria and the product performed as expected.The customer's complaint was not replicated.The manufacturing records for the lot were reviewed and the lot met release specifications.Although the root cause analysis did not include return testing, improper techniques were identified in the complaint.These could not be ruled out as a cause of the unexpected results.The customer was reported to have advanced stage cancer.This condition may impact the performance of the assay.Based on the information available, there is no indication of a product deficiency and no corrective action is required.
|