The customer observed (b)(6) results while using architect anti-hcv reagents.The following data was provided.Patient 1 : initial (b)(6), not repeated.A new specimen was drawn approximately 2 weeks later and was also (b)(6) using the architect method (b)(6).Other methods were (b)(6) for both specimens.Patient 2 initial (b)(6), not repeated.A new specimen was drawn approximately 2 weeks later and was also (b)(6) using the architect method (b)(6).Other methods were (b)(6) for the second specimen.The customer stated the patients were (b)(6) three months ago, however the specific method and values were not provided.No impact to patient management was reported.
|
Evaluation of the customer issue included a complaint text review, a search for similar complaints, device history review, labeling review, and accuracy testing.No adverse trend was identified for the customer issue.Device history review did not identify any issues that may have caused the customer issue.Labeling was reviewed and found to be adequate.The product was not available for return.An internal panel was tested with retained kits of the likely cause reagent lot and accuracy testing met all specifications.External commercially available seroconversion panels (zeptometrix (b)(4)) were tested with retained kits of the likely cause reagent lot.Results were compared to architect hcv test results provided by zeptometrix and the complaint lot detected the same (b)(6) with comparable (b)(6) values for the seroconversion panels.Based on all available information and abbott diagnostics evaluation, no systemic issue was identified and no product deficiency was found.
|