|
Siemens is investigating the elevated advia centaur xp pth patient result.The interpretation of results section of the instructions for use states: "results of this assay should always be interpreted in conjunction with the patient's medical history, clinical presentation, and other findings." mdr 1219913-2018-00079 was filed for a sample from the same patient tested in (b)(6) 2017 and mdr 1219913-2018-00081 was filed for a sample from the same patient tested in (b)(6) 2018.
|
|
Mdr was filed on february 15, 2018 reporting a falsely elevated advia centaur xp pth result compared to historical results.Mdr 1219913-2018-00079 was filed for a sample from the same patient tested in (b)(6) 2017 and mdr 1219913-2018-00081 was filed for a sample from the same patient tested in (b)(6) 2018.February 22, 2018 additional information.The customer provided the actual dates of testing as well as the calcium results for each sample.Old pth pth (pg/ml) ca (mg/dl) (b)(6) 2017, 129.6, 9.6, (b)(6) 2017, 193.3, 9.1, (b)(6) 2017, 144.6, 9.4, new pth, (b)(6) 2017, 347.7, 10.4, (b)(6) 2017, 455.3, 9.7, (b)(6) 2018, 500, 9.7.The customer confirmed that the samples were all serum samples and that there was no change in treatment due to the results or changes in treatment that could cause the difference in results.Siemens reviewed the in house data comparing the old pth assay with the new pth assay with concentrations similar to the samples from the patient in question at the customer site.Based on the in house data, this difference observed by the customer for this patient is not what is expected when comparing the old pth method with the new pth method.For example a patient evaluated on the old method was 209.16 pg/ml versus 205 pg/ml on the new method.Another patient sample was 189.67 pg/ml vs 183.15 pg/ml.There appears to be other contributing factors causing the falsely elevated results.Results from a dilution study performed by the customer on the sample are not available and heterophilic testing was not performed by the customer on the samples.Without having more information or the sample, siemens cannot determine the potential root cause of the falsely elevated values.Siemens cannot rule out a potential interference in the patient sample.The interferent may not necessarily be due to an interfering antibody but may be due to other exogenous interferences such as drugs, nutritional supplements and/or herbal medicine in the blood.The laboratory procedure generally used to identify the presence of interfering antibody is serial dilutions to demonstrate a nonlinear response.No additional testing can be performed since the samples are not available.Mdr 1219913-2018-00079 supplemental 1 was filed for a sample from the same patient tested in (b)(6) 2017 and mdr 1219913-2018-00081 supplemental 1 was filed for a sample from the same patient tested in (b)(6) 2018.
|