AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2-Gamma, HELIOS FULLY AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM

K153117 · Aesku Systems GmbH&Co.Kg · DHN · Jul 28, 2016 · Immunology

Device Facts

• Record ID: K153117
• Device Name: AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2-Gamma, HELIOS FULLY AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM
• Applicant: Aesku Systems GmbH&Co.Kg
• Product Code: DHN · Immunology
• Decision Date: Jul 28, 2016
• Decision: SESE
• Submission Type: Traditional
• Regulation: 21 CFR 866.5100
• Device Class: Class 2
• Attributes: AI/ML

AI Performance

Output	Acceptance	Observed	Dev DS	Test DS
Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) Qualitative Result (Automated)	Manufacturer's acceptance criteria met (no specific numerical threshold provided).	Overall agreement with predicate (Method E) at 1:40 dilution: 99.9% (95% CI: 99.5–100).	Not specified.	Clinical study: 556 clinical serum samples evaluated at two U.S. locations.
Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) Pattern Suggestion (Automated)	Manufacturer's acceptance criteria met (no specific numerical threshold provided).	Total pattern agreement with predicate (Method E) at 1:40 dilution: 98.8% (95% CI: 97.9–99.3).	Not specified.	Clinical study: 556 clinical serum samples evaluated at two U.S. locations.
Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) Titer Estimation (Automated)	Manufacturer's acceptance criteria met (no specific numerical threshold provided).	All results within ±1 expected titer level.	Not specified.	Linearity study: 10 high positive samples serially diluted and evaluated.

Indications for Use

The HELIOS® AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM is an automated system for immunofluorescence processing with an integrated fluorescence microscope and software for routine laboratory use by professional users under controlled environmental conditions. All suggested results obtained with the HELIOS® AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM must be confirmed by trained personnel. AESKUSLIDES® ANA HEp-2-Gamma is an indirect fluorescent antibody assay utilizing HEp-2 cell coated slides as a substrate for the qualitative and/or semi-quantitative determination of antibodies (ANA) in human serum by manual microscopy or with HELIOS® AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM. This in vitro diagnostic assay is used as an aid in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings. All suggested results obtained with the HELIOS® AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM instrument must be confirmed by trained personnel.

Device Story

HELIOS® AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM processes indirect immunofluorescence (IFA) assays using HEp-2 cell-coated slides; automates pipetting, incubation, and washing. Integrated fluorescence microscope captures digital images of stained slides. Software performs image pre-processing, feature extraction, and classification to suggest qualitative (positive/negative) results, patterns, and semi-quantitative titers. Used in clinical laboratories by trained operators. Output displayed on PC; requires operator confirmation of all software-suggested results. Assists clinicians in diagnosing systemic rheumatic diseases by identifying ANA presence and patterns.

Clinical Evidence

No clinical data provided in the document.

Technological Characteristics

System includes HELMED slide processing module, integrated fluorescence microscope, and PC-based software. Assay uses HEp-2 cell-coated slides, FITC-labeled goat anti-human IgG (Fc Gamma Chain) conjugate, and Evans Blue counterstain. Excitation 490 nm, barrier filter 510 nm. Magnification 400–800x. Software utilizes Support Vector Machine (SVM) for pattern recognition. Connectivity: Standalone PC, no wireless transmission. Sterilization: Not applicable (reagents).

Indications for Use

Indicated for qualitative and/or semi-quantitative determination of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in human serum as an aid in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases. For prescription use only in clinical laboratory settings by trained operators. Must be used with reagents indicated for the device. All software-aided results require confirmation by a trained operator.

Regulatory Classification

Identification

An antinuclear antibody immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the autoimmune antibodies in serum, other body fluids, and tissues that react with cellular nuclear constituents (molecules present in the nucleus of a cell, such as ribonucleic acid, deoxyribonucleic acid, or nuclear proteins). The measurements aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (a multisystem autoimmune disease in which antibodies attack the victim's own tissues), hepatitis (a liver disease), rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren's syndrome (arthritis with inflammation of the eye, eyelid, and salivary glands), and systemic sclerosis (chronic hardening and shrinking of many body tissues).

Submission Summary (Full Text)

{0}

1

# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION MEMORANDUM ASSAY AND INSTRUMENT COMBINATION TEMPLATE

A. 510(k) Number:
K153117

B. Purpose for Submission:
Assay and instrument

C. Measurand:
Anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA)

D. Type of Test:
Qualitative and semi-quantitative, indirect immunofluorescence

E. Applicant:
AESKU SYSTEMS GmbH & Co.KG (instrument and software)
AESKU DIAGNOSTICS GmbH & Co.KG (assay)

F. Proprietary and Established Names:
HELIOS® AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM
AESKUSLIDES® ANA HEp-2-Gamma

G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 §CFR 866.5100–Antinuclear antibody immunological test system
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
DHN – Antinuclear Antibody, Indirect Immunofluorescent, Antigen, Control

{1}

PIV – Automated indirect immunofluorescence microscope and software-assisted system for clinical use

4. Panel:

Immunology (82)

H. Intended Use:

1. Intended use(s):

Instrument:
The HELIOS® AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM is an automated system for immunofluorescence processing with an integrated fluorescence microscope and software for routine laboratory use by professional users under controlled environmental conditions. All suggested results obtained with the HELIOS® AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM must be confirmed by trained operator.

Assay:
AESKUSLIDES® ANA HEp-2-Gamma is an indirect fluorescent antibody assay utilizing HEp-2 cell coated slides as a substrate for the qualitative and/or semi-quantitative determination of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in human serum by manual microscopy or with HELIOS® AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM. This in vitro diagnostic assay is used as an aid in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings. All suggested results obtained with the HELIOS® AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM instrument must be confirmed by trained operator.

2. Indication(s) for use:

Same as intended use

3. Special conditions for use statement(s):

- For prescription use only
- This device is only for use with reagents that are indicated for use with the device.
- The device is for use by a trained operator in a clinical laboratory setting.
- All software-aided results must be confirmed by a trained operator
- Special instrument requirement: for use only with the HELIOS AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM

I. Device Description:

Assay kit components:

- Slides, each containing 12 wells coated with ANA HEp-2 cells, package of 2, 10, 50 or 100
- One 4.0 ml vial containing Fluorescein (FITC) labeled goat anti-human IgG (Gamma Chain) conjugate in a solution of BSA and Evans Blue, ready for use

2

{2}

- One $0.5 \mathrm{ml}$ vial of positive control (homogenous pattern) containing human serum, ready for use
- One $0.5 \mathrm{ml}$ vial of negative control containing diluted human serum, ready for use
- One $7.0 \mathrm{ml}$ vial of mounting medium containing a solution of glycerol and PBS, ready for use
- One $70 \mathrm{ml}$ bottle of sample buffer, containing BSA, PBS, ready for use
- One $100 \mathrm{ml}$ bottle of wash buffer, concentrated buffer 1:10 in distilled water, containing BSA, PBS

# J. Substantial Equivalence Information:

1. Predicate device name(s): AESKUSLIDES® ANA HEp-2
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s): K120889
3. Comparison with predicate:

| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device AESKUSLIDES® ANA HEp-2-Gamma | Predicate AESKUSLIDES® ANA HEp-2 (K120889) |
| Intended Use | Qualitative and/or semi-quantitative determination of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in human serum. This in vitro diagnostic assay is used as an aid in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings. | Same |
| Methodology | Immunofluorescence assay (IFA) | Same |
| Procedure | Standard IFA technique | Same |
| Results | Pattern and titer; qualitative; semi-quantitative titer | Same |
| Sample Matrix | Serum | Same |
| Antigen | HEp-2 cells | Same |
| Slides | 12-well coated with antigen | Same |
| Fluorescence Marker | Fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) | Same |
| Controls | One positive control | Same |

{3}

| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device AESKUSLIDES® ANA HEp-2-Gamma | Predicate AESKUSLIDES® ANA HEp-2 (K120889) |
| | (homogenous pattern) and one negative control | |
| Storage | 2°C–8°C | Same |
| Counterstain | Evans Blue | Same |
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device AESKUSLIDES® ANA HEp-2-Gamma | Predicate AESKUSLIDES® ANA HEp-2 |
| Shelf-Life-Stability | 24 months | 18 months |
| Initial Screening Dilution | 1:40 or 1:80 | 1:40 |
| Analyte | ANA (Fc Gamma, IgG isotype) | ANA (H+L, IgG isotype) |
| Conjugate | Fluorescein (FITC) labelled goat anti-human IgG (Fc Gamma Chain) | Fluorescein (FITC) labelled goat anti-human IgG (H+L Chain) |
| Interpretation of Results | Manual fluorescence microscopy or HELIOS AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM with trained operator verification | Manual fluorescence microscopy |

# K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):

- CLSI EP07 A2 Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry
- CLSI EP17-A2 Evaluation of Detection Capability for Clinical Laboratory Measurement Procedures
- CLSI EP25-A Evaluation of Stability of In Vitro Diagnostic Reagents
- CLSI EP28-A3c CLSI Defining, Establishing and Verifying Reference Intervals in the Clinical Laboratory
- CLSI EP06-A CLSI Evaluation of the Linearity of Quantitative Measurement Procedures A Statistical Approach
- ISO 14971 - Medical Devices - Application of risk management to medical devices, Second Edition
- IEC 62366 - Medical Devices; Part 1: Application Of Usability Engineering To Medical Devices, Edition 1.0
- ISO15223-1 - Medical Devices - Symbols To Be Used With Medical Device Labels, Labelling, And Information To Be Supplied - Part 1: General requirements, Second Edition
- Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Recommendations for Anti-Nuclear Antibody (ANA) Test System Premarket (510k) Submissions (January 22, 2009)

{4}

- Guidance for the Content of Premarket submission for Software Contained in Medical Devices (May 11, 2005)

## L. Test Principle:

The AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2-Gamma assay is an indirect immunofluorescent antibody assay technique. Patient sera is diluted in wash/sample buffer and applied to a well on the slide. ANA antibodies, if present, will bind to antigens coated on the slide. After washing with wash/sample buffer, a conjugate specific for human IgG is applied that binds to the ANA antibodies immobilized on the slide surface. After a final wash to remove excess conjugate, the slide is mounted and read immediately at 400–800 x total magnification with a fluorescent microscope (490 nm excitation filter, 510 nm barrier filter). If not read immediately, the slide(s) is covered (to protect from light) and stored at 2–8°C/35–46°F.

### Interpretation of results:

#### Manual interpretation of test results:

AESKU recommends a screening dilution of 1:40 or 1:80, followed by serial dilution for semi-quantitative determination and suggests each laboratory establish its own screening dilution and titration scheme based on its population and instrumentation.

The fluorescence intensity (FI) level is the intensity of the specific fluorescence expressed as a numeric value. These values, if present, are reported as a number between “0” (no specific fluorescence) and “4+” (very strong visible reaction).

A sample is considered negative for ANA antibodies if the cells exhibit < 1+ fluorescence and no discernible pattern at the chosen screening (1:40 or 1:80) and all greater dilutions. A sample is considered positive for ANA antibodies if it exhibits ≥ 1+ fluorescence and a discernible pattern at a sample dilution of 1:40 or greater. Operators should report all titers and patterns seen. Note: Pattern refers to the predefined immunofluorescent patterns that are described in section M below.

#### Qualitative evaluation

A titer of 1:40 or greater that has results in a discernable pattern is considered positive.

#### Semi-quantitative evaluation:

The endpoint titer is defined as the highest sample dilution factor for which a specific pattern is identifiable. The titers are classified as in the table below:

| Dilution | Titer |
| --- | --- |
| 1:40 and 1:80 | Low |
| 1:160 and 1:320 | Medium |
| 1:640 and greater | High |

#### Instrument interpretation of test results:

The HELIOS DEVICE SOFTWARE provides positive or negative results, and can produce estimated end point titers and pattern suggestions for the positive results. All software

5

{5}

suggested results must be confirmed by a trained operator (OP).

Additional instrument and software information is in sections N and O.

# M. Performance Characteristics:

Nomenclature and acronyms used in the studies:

The HELIOS Microscope and Software system includes a slide processing module (the HELMED). The system allows for automated imaging or manual imaging by the microscope. All studies were evaluated by comparing the four possible reading methods (Method A, B, D and E) as shown in the table below; these modes are consistent throughout this document. All results generated by the HELIOS software must be confirmed by a trained operator.

Modes of operations that were evaluated in the study:

| Method | Processing | Imaging | Reading/Evaluation of Slides |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A | Automated | Automated | Automated (software interpretation) |
| B | Automated | Automated | Manual (read of digital image) |
| D | Manual | Manual | Manual (read of microscope field) |
| E | Manual (Predicate) | Manual | Manual (read of microscope field) |

Method E is the predicate device/assay, AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2 assay.

Methods A, B, and D are performed with AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2-Gamma assay.

Methods A and B use the HELMED slide processing module.

Note that there is no Method C.

The HELIOS software identifies the following immunofluorescence (IF) patterns:

| Abbreviation | Pattern |
| --- | --- |
| hom or ho | homogeneous |
| sp | speckled (granular) |
| nuc or nu | nucleolar |
| cen or ce | centromere |
| num or nm | nuclear membrane |
| nud or nudo | nuclear dots |
| cyt | cytoplasmic |

Names of diseases present in samples and their abbreviations:

| Disease Group/Diagnosis | Abbreviations |
| --- | --- |
| Group 0: Healthy | |
| Normal Controls | n/a |
| Group 1: Rheumatic Diseases associated with ANA positivity Connective Tissue Disease) + Autoimmune Liver disease | CTD + AIL |
| Autoimmune Hepatitis | n/a |
| Calcinosis, Raynaud phenomenon, Esophageal dysmotility, Sclerodactyly, and Telangiectasia | CREST |
| Mixed Connective Tissue Disease | MCTD |

{6}

7

| Myositis | n/a |
| --- | --- |
| Scleroderma | n/a |
| Sjoegren’s Syndrome | n/a |
| Systemic Lupus Erythematosus | SLE |
| Undifferentiated Collagenosis | Undif. |
| Group 2: Other diseases not associated with ANA positivity | |
| Antiphospholipid Syndrome | APS |
| Celiac Disease | n/a |
| Diverse I (Fibromyalgia, Type 1 Diabetes, & Lumbago) | n/a |
| Hepatitis B Virus | HBV |
| Hepatitis C Virus | HCV |
| Rheumatoid Arthritis | RA |
| Spondyloarthritis | SpA |
| Vasculitis | n/a |
| Group 3: Diverse samples
(selected due to ANA positivity or rare patterns) | |
| Diverse II (unknown disease with rare ANA pattern) | n/a |
| Total | |

Interpretation of Fluorescent Intensity (FI):

| Intensity | Interpretation | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4+ | high positive | Maximal fluorescence, very strong visible reaction; brilliant yellow-green |
| 3+ | positive | strong visible reaction; less brilliant as 4+; yellow-green fluorescence |
| 2+ | positive | moderate visible reaction; definite but dull yellow-green fluorescence |
| 1+ | positive | weak visible reaction, very dim subdued fluorescence |

1. Analytical performance:

The Manufacturer’s acceptance criteria were met for all studies.

a. Precision/Reproducibility:

The AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2-Gamma kit and the predicate AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2 kit contain the same materials with the exception that the AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2-Gamma kit incorporates an IgG Fc-gamma-specific FITC conjugate whereas the predicate incorporates an IgG H+L specific FITC conjugate.

Reproducibility/Inter-assay

All studies were performed according to the Instructions for Use.

Method D vs. E:

Reproducibility was evaluated with 12 samples (10 positive, 2 negative) representing

{7}

the seven patterns at two dilutions each. Samples were run in duplicate over five days, morning and evening for a total of 40 replicates per sample/per dilution, 480 total per dilution. Samples were evaluated at 1:40 and 1:80 dilutions, by two independent readers at each site, one instrument per site. Results for within-run, run-to-run and day-to-day precision were analyzed and are summarized below. There was a 100% positive/negative agreement at 1:40. At 1:80 there were discrepancies due to three sera that are low positive with an end point titer of 1:40; therefore, these would be expected to be negative at a 1:80 dilution. There was 100% pattern and FI agreement.

Method D vs. E reproducibility agreement:

| % Agreement (95% CI) | 1:40 Dilution Method D vs. E | 1:80 Dilution Method D vs. E |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Positive Agreement | 100 (99.5–100) | 100 (99.3–100) |
| Negative Agreement | 100 (97.7–100) | 89.0 (85.6–91.7) |
| Overall Agreement | 100 (99.6–100) | 95.4 (93.9–96.6) |
| Pattern Agreement | 100 (99.5–100.0) | 100 (99.3–100.0) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| F.I. Agreement | 100 (99.6–100) | 100 (99.6–100) |

Methods A, B and D vs. E:

Reproducibility was evaluated with 15 samples (10 positive, 5 negative). For Methods A and B, 10 replicates were tested per sample per run, a total of 100 replicates per sample per dilution (at 1:40 and 1:80 dilutions) for a total of 1500 total readings per dilution. For Method D, two replicates were tested per sample per run for a total of 20 replicates per sample per dilution, for a total of 300 total readings, using sample dilutions of 1:40 and 1:80.

Methods A, B, and D vs. E reproducibility agreements

| % Agreement (95% CI) | 1:40 Dilution | 1:80 Dilution |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Method A vs. E | |
| Positive Agreement | 100 (99.6–100) | 99.2 (98.4–99.6) |
| Negative Agreement | 99.6 (98.6–99.9) | 100 (99.2–100) |
| Overall Agreement | 99.9 (99.5–100) | 99.5 (99.0–99.7) |
| Total Pattern Agreement | 98.8 (97.9–99.3) | 99.1 (98.3–99.5) |
| | Method B vs. E | |
| Positive Agreement | 100 (99.6–100) | 100 (99.6–100) |
| Negative Agreement | 100 (99.2–100) | 100 (99.2–100) |
| Overall Agreement | 100 (99.7–100) | 100 (99.7–100) |
| Total Pattern Agreement | 100 (99.6–100) | 100 (99.6–100) |
| | Method D vs. E | |
| Positive Agreement | 100 (98.1–100) | 100 (98.1–100) |
| Negative Agreement | 100 (96.3–100) | 100 (96.3–100) |
| Overall Agreement | 100 (98.7–100) | 100 (98.7–100) |
| Total Pattern Agreement | 100 (98.1–100) | 100 (98.1–100) |

{8}

Repeatability/Intra-assay

# Method D vs. E:

12 samples (10 positive, 2 negative) were tested within the same run, with 20 replicates per sample, per dilution, and evaluated by two independent, blinded readers for each Method, for a total of 40 replicates per dilution and 480 total readings per dilution, using sample dilutions at 1:40 and 1:80.

Method D vs. E repeatability agreements:

| % Agreement (95% CI) | 1:40 Dilution Method D vs. E | 1:80 Dilution Method D vs. E |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Positive Agreement | 100 (99.5–100) | 99.6 (98.7–99.9) |
| Negative Agreement | 100 (97.7–100) | 94.5 (91.8–96.3) |
| Overall Agreement | 100 (99.6–100) | 97.5 (96.3–98.3) |
| Pattern Agreement | 100 (99.5–100) | 100 (99.3–100) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| FI Agreement | 100 (99.6–100) | 100 (99.6–100) |

Methods A, B and D vs. E repeatability was tested with eight characterized samples (seven positive representing the seven different patterns and one negative) were tested in 30 replicates per dilution (1:40 and 1:80), and evaluated by two readers (for Method B and D) for a total of 240 samples analyzed per dilution. Tests were performed, using sample dilutions of 1:40 and 1:80.

Methods A, B and D vs. E repeatability agreement:

| % Agreement (95% CI) | 1:40 Dilution | 1:80 Dilution |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Method A vs. E | |
| Positive Agreement | 100 (98.2–100) | 99 (96.6–99.7) |
| Negative Agreement | 100 (88.6–100) | 100 (88.6–100) |
| Overall Agreement | 100 (98.4–100) | 99.2 (97–99.8) |
| Total Pattern Agreement | 96.7 (93.3–98.4) | 96.2 (92.7–98.1) |
| | Method B vs. E | |
| Positive Agreement | 100 (99.1–100) | 100 (99.1–100) |
| Negative Agreement | 100 (94–100) | 100 (94–100) |
| Overall Agreement | 100 (99.2–100) | 100 (99.2–100) |
| Total Pattern Agreement | 100 (99.1–100) | 100 (99.1–100) |
| | Method D vs. E | |
| Positive Agreement | 100 (99.1–100) | 100 (99.1–100) |
| Negative Agreement | 100 (94–100) | 100 (94–100) |
| Overall Agreement | 100 (99.2–100) | 100 (99.2–100) |
| Total Pattern Agreement | 100 (99.1–100) | 100 (99.1–100) |

# Lot-to-Lot

# Method D vs. E:

Three lots of complete AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2-Gamma kits and three lots of the Predicate Device were processed and evaluated manually. Each was assayed

{9}

using 12 serum samples (10 positive and 2 negative) for a total of 144 total replicates per dilution. Tests were performed 1:40 and 1:80 in duplicate. Slides were evaluated by two independent readers. There were two low positive samples at 1:40 dilution (FI = 1+) that were either negative or low positive (FI = 1+) at 1:80 dilution across the three lots and both readers. The discrepancies were attributed to the low titer samples at 1:40 dilution and were not immunofluorescent pattern-specific.

Method D vs. E Lot-to-Lot agreement:

| % Agreement (95% CI) | 1:40 Dilution Method D vs. E | 1:80 Dilution Method D vs. E |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Positive Agreement | 99.6 (97.7–99.9) | 100 (97.8–100.0) |
| Negative Agreement | 100 (92.6–100.0) | 81.7 (73.8–87.6) |
| Overall Agreement | 99.7 (98.1–99.9) | 92.4(88.7–94.9) |
| Pattern Agreement | 100 (98.4–100.0) | 100 (97.8–100.0) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| F.I. Agreement | 100 (98.7–100.0) | 100 (98.7–100.0) |

Instrument-to-Instrument Precision

Methods A and B vs. E:

Instrument-to-Instrument reproducibility was evaluated with 15 characterized samples that were tested in 10 replicates in a single run on three HELIOS instruments with AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2-Gamma. The samples were evaluated by Method A and Method B and compared separately with Method E at 1:40 and 1:80 dilutions. Positive, Negative, Overall, Single Pattern and Total Pattern Agreement were $\geq 90\%$. Results are summarized in the table below:

| | Method A vs. E | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| % Agreement (95% CI) | 1:40 Dilution | 1:80 Dilution |
| Positive Agreement | 100 (98.7–100) | 100 (98.7–100) |
| Negative Agreement | 99.3 (96.3–99.9) | 100 (97.5–100) |
| Overall Agreement | 99.8 (98.8–100) | 100 (99.2–100) |
| Total Pattern Agreement | 98.3 (96.2– 99.3) | 98.7 (96.6–99.5) |
| | Method B vs. E | |
| % Agreement (95% CI) | 1:40 Dilution n = 450 | 1:80 Dilution n = 450 |
| Positive Agreement | 100 (98.7–100) | 100 (98.7–100) |
| Negative Agreement | 100 (97.5–100) | 100 (97.5–100) |
| Overall Agreement | 100 (99.2–100) | 100 (99.2–100) |
| Total Pattern Agreement | 100 (98.7–100) | 100 (98.7–100) |

b. Linearity/assay reportable range:

Methods A, B, D and E:

{10}

To determine linearity, 10 high positive samples (End-point-Titer higher than 1:640) were serially diluted and evaluated. The sera were tested starting at 1:40 dilution and titrated through 1:10,240 dilutions. Slides were evaluated on one instrument with Methods A and B (samples were run in duplicates and evaluated by one reader) and with Methods D and E with two independent readers. Results are reported as the pattern detected and the highest titer at which a pattern is recognized (e.g., hom 640 indicated homogeneous pattern at 1:640). Patterns did not change when the samples were diluted. All results were within $\pm 1$ expected titer level.

Linearity Results for Methods D and E:

| Expected Result | Method D | | Method E | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Reader 1 | Reader 2 | Reader 1 | Reader 2 |
| ho 640 | hom 640 | hom 640 | hom 640 | hom 640 |
| ho 640 | hom 640 | hom 640 | hom 640 | hom 640 |
| sp 2560 | spe 2560 | spe 2560 | spe 1280 | spe 2560 |
| sp 5120 | spe 5120 | spe 5120 | spe 2560 | spe 2560 |
| ce 2560 | cen 2560 | cen 2560 | cen 1280 | cen 1280 |
| ce 1280 | cen 1280 | cen 1280 | cen 640 | cen 1280 |
| nu 2560 | nuc 2560 | nuc 2560 | nuc 1280 | nuc 1280 |
| nm 640 | num 640 | num 640 | num 640 | num 640 |
| nud 5120 | nud 5120 | nud 5120 | nud 2560 | nud 2560 |
| cyt 5120 | cyt 5120 | cyt 5120 | cyt 2560 | cyt 5120 |

Linearity Results for Methods A and B:

| Expected Result | Method A | | Method B | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Replicate 1 | Replicate 2 | Replicate 1 | Replicate 2 |
| ho 640 | ho 1280 | ho 1280 | ho 1280 | ho 1280 |
| ho 640 | ho 1280 | ho 1280 | ho 1280 | ho 1280 |
| sp 2560 | sp 2560 | sp 5120 | sp 5120 | sp 5120 |
| sp 5120 | sp 2560 | sp 2560 | sp 5120 | sp 5120 |
| ce 2560 | ce 1280 | ce 2560 | ce 2560 | ce 2560 |
| ce 1280 | ce 2560 | ce 1280 | ce 2560 | ce 2560 |
| nu 2560 | nu 1280 | nu 2560 | nu 2560 | nu 2560 |
| nm 640 | nm 320 | nm 320 | nm 320 | nm 320 |
| nud 5120 | nud 2560 | nud 2560 | nud 2560 | nud 2560 |
| cyt 5120 | cyt 2560 | cyt 2560 | cyt 2560 | cyt 2560 |

The upper limit of the measuring range is 1:10,240.

c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):

Traceability:

There is no recognized standard for anti-nuclear antibodies.

{11}

# Stability:

# Stability Studies: Method D

The reagents for this assay are the same as those in the predicate device, except for changes to the conjugate; therefore, an accelerated stability study was performed to verify that there was no change to the stability of the conjugate. Shelf life stability is extended from 18 to 24 months. Open bottle stability is currently seven months when stored at $4^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ . Real time stability testing is ongoing for Shelf life (closed bottle) and open bottle stability and will continue for two years. Open-bottle stability for Wash Buffer is one week. The results are summarized in the table below:

| Type of stability | Stability claim |
| --- | --- |
| Shelf life stability | 2 years at 2–8°C |
| Transport stability | 6 weeks at up to 37°C |
| Open bottle (ready to use reagents) | 7 months at 2–8°C |
| Open bottle (Wash Buffer) | 1 week at 2–8°C |
| Freeze/thaw | 4 cycles |

# Controls:

Positive and negative controls are included in the AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2-Gamma kit. They are the same as in the predicate device. The positive control is ready-to-use and consists of pre-diluted human serum selected for the presence of anti-nuclear antibodies exhibiting a strong homogenous staining in the nucleus. The negative control consists of ready-to-use pre-diluted human serum selected for the absence of autoantibodies. AESKU recommends use of both positive and negative controls in each run. Negative Control: the cells should exhibit less than $1+$ fluorescence and appear green. Positive Control: the cells should exhibit a homogeneous staining pattern with a fluorescent intensity of $3+$ .

# d. Detection limit:

Not applicable

# e. Analytical specificity:

# Interfering substances:

The effects of interfering substances on assay results were tested by spiking 10 serum samples with Bilirubin, Hemoglobin and Triglycerides. Serum samples spiked and tested by Method D and E by the same technician on the same day at 1:40 and 1:80 dilutions. The results are summarized below:

| Interferents Tested | Patterns Tested | No interference up to concentrations |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Hemoglobin | ho, sp, ce, nu, nm, cyt, nd, neg | 500 mg/dL |
| Triglycerides | ho, sp, ce, nu, nm, cyt, nd, neg | 2000 mg/dL |
| Conjugated Bilirubin | ho, sp, ce, nu, nm, cyt, nd, neg | 40 mg/dL |

{12}

| Unconjugated Bilirubin | ho, sp, ce, nu, nm, cyt, nd, neg | 40 mg/dL |
| --- | --- | --- |
| RF | ho, sp, ce, nu, nm, cyt, nd, neg | 500 IU/mL |

## Cross-reactivity:

To determine analytical cross-reactivity of the conjugate in non-ANA samples, 16 CDC ANA reference samples were evaluated manually (Method D and E) on both devices. In addition, clinically defined samples for celiac disease (20), ANCA-associated vasculitis (18), Crohn’s disease (10) and infectious disease (20) were tested. These samples were tested at dilutions of 1:40 and 1:80. Slides were evaluated by two independent readers. The sponsor stated that no cross reactivity was observed for either assay, at both 1:40 and 1:80 dilutions.

## Carry over study:

A study was done to show that the HELIOS does not carry over a positive sample to a negative well. Seven high positive samples (≥ 1:1280 representing the seven different patterns) were run in alternate with seven negative samples and were evaluated by Methods A, B and D at 1:40 and 1:80 dilutions. There was no carry-over seen. All positive samples were identified as positive. All negative samples were identified as negative.

## f. Assay cut-off:

AESKU recommends a screening dilution of 1:40 or 1:80, followed by serial dilutions for semi-quantitative determinations, but suggests each laboratory establish its own screening dilution and titration scheme based on its population. The titers of 1:40 and 1:80 are considered low titers, 1:160 and 1:320 are considered medium titers, and 1:640 and greater are considered high titers.

## 2. Comparison studies:

### a. Method comparison with predicate device:

The samples from two separate Clinical Studies were used for the Method Comparison Evaluation. In the first study, 288 Clinical samples were evaluated at three different sites (two U.S. and one German), comparing Methods A, B, D, and E. An additional 268 clinical samples (for a total of 556 samples) were evaluated at the same two U.S. sites, comparing Methods A, B, and D. The results are summarized in the tables below.

### Method D vs. Method E, Manual to Manual Comparison

288 samples were assayed with the predicate device (Method E) and the new manual device mode (Method D) at three sites at 1:40 and 1:80 dilutions. The results were evaluated by two independent readers at each site, six readers total. Different numbers of each pattern were evaluated at the different sites per the table below.

{13}

The following samples were tested:

| Definition | Total | Diagnosis | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Group 0: Healthy | 30 | Normal Controls | 30 |
| Group 1: Rheumatic Diseases associated with ANA positivity | 104 | Autoimmune Hepatitis | 1 |
| | | CREST | 1 |
| | | MCTD | 3 |
| | | Myositis | 12 |
| | | Scleroderma | 10 |
| | | Sjoegren's Syndrome | 31 |
| | | SLE | 40 |
| | | undiff. Collagenosis | 6 |
| Group 2: Other diseases not associated with ANA positivity | 143 | APS | 5 |
| | | Celiac Disease | 20 |
| | | Diverse I (fibromyalgia, type I diabetes, lumbargo) | 5 |
| | | RA | 60 |
| | | SpA | 35 |
| | | Vasculitis | 18 |
| Group 3 Diverse samples I (selected due to ANA positivity or rare patterns) | 11 | Diverse II (unknown disease with rare ANA pattern) | 11 |
| Total | 288 | | 288 |

The results are summarized in the tables below:

Method D vs. E at 1:40 dilution, two readers per site:

| % Agreement (95% CI) | Site A (D vs. E) n = 288 | Site B (D vs. E) n = 288 | Site C (D vs. E) n = 288 | All Sites |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Positive Agreement | 97.5 (95.2–98.7) | 98.1 (96–99.1) | 98.1 (95.9–99.1) | 97.9 (96.8–98.6) |
| Negative Agreement | 96.1 (92.9–97.8) | 96.9 (94–98.4) | 96.9 (94–98.4) | 96.6 (95.1–97.7) |
| Overall Agreement | 96.9 (95.1–98) | 97.6 (96–98.5) | 97.6 (96–98.5) | 97.3 (96.5–98.0) |
| Total Pattern Agreement | 97.2 (94.8-98.5) | 96.9 (94.4-98.3) | 97.2 (94.8-98.5) | 97.1 (95.8-98.0) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Endpoint | 96.6 | 98.1 | 94.7 | 96.5 |
| Titer Agreement | (94–98.1) | (96–99.1) | (91.7–96.7) | (95.1–97.5) |

Method D vs. E at 1:80 dilution, two readers per site:

| % Agreement (95% CI) | Site A (D vs. E) n = 288 | Site B (D vs. E) n = 288 | Site C (D vs. E) n = 288 | All Sites |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Positive | 96.1 | 92.2 | 91.5 | 93.4 |

{14}

Method D and E: Individual patterns identified at three sites at 1:40 dilution:

| Patterns 1:40 | Site A | | | Site B | | | Site C | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Method D | | Method E | Method D | | Method E | Method D | | Method E |
| | n/556 | | n/566 | n/566 | | n/288 | n/288 | | n/288 |
| | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 |
| | n | n | n | n | n | n | n | n | n |
| hom | 74 | 74 | 75 | 75 | 74 | 75 | 40 | 39 | 40 |
| spe | 130 | 131 | 132 | 132 | 128 | 127 | 61 | 59 | 60 |
| cen | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 34 | 35 | 10 | 11 | 10 |
| nuc | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 29 | 29 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| num | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| nud | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| cyt | 45 | 45 | 46 | 44 | 44 | 45 | 26 | 24 | 25 |
| undef | 20 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 5 | 6 | 6 |
| neg | 203 | 203 | 203 | 203 | 203 | 203 | 127 | 127 | 127 |
| Total | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 288 | 288 | 288 |
| False negative | 5 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 3 |

Method D and E: Individual patterns identified across three sites at 1:80 dilution:

| Patterns 1:80 | Site A | | | | Site B | | | | Site C | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Method D | | Method E | | Method D | | Method E | | Method D | | Method E | |
| | n/556 | | n/556 | | n/556 | | n/288 | | n/288 | | n/288 | |
| | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 |
| | n | n | n | n | n | n | n | n | N | n | N | n |
| hom | 73 | 71 | 71 | 69 | 66 | 70 | 36 | 33 | 36 | 33 | 35 | 32 |
| spe | 104 | 103 | 104 | 103 | 106 | 104 | 56 | 54 | 54 | 52 | 54 | 49 |
| cen | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 33 | 35 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 10 |
| nuc | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 26 | 27 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| num | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| nud | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| cyt | 34 | 35 | 35 | 34 | 33 | 34 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 16 | 19 |
| undef | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| neegative | 259 | 259 | 259 | 259 | 297 | 297 | 143 | 143 | 143 | 143 | 143 | 143 |
| Total | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 288 | 288 | 288 | 288 | 288 | 288 |
| False negative | 0 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 14 | 8 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 11 | 18 |

{15}

# Method A vs. Method B vs. Method D Method Comparison:

The comparison was done by analyzing 556 clinical serum samples (288 samples from study above and 268 additional samples) at 1:40 and 1:80 screening dilutions at two different U.S. locations with two independent, blinded readers and one HELIOS instrument at each site. The samples are described in the table below:

| Disease Group: Diagnosis | Total |
| --- | --- |
| Group 0: Healthy | |
| Normal Controls | 80 |
| Group 1: Rheumatic Diseases associated with ANA positivity | |
| Autoimmune Hepatitis | 18 |
| Calcinosis, Raynaud phenomenon, esophageal dysmotility, sclerodactyly, and telangiectasia | 4 |
| Mixed Connective Tissue Disease | 8 |
| Myositis | 35 |
| Scleroderma | 39 |
| Sjögren's Syndrome | 64 |
| Systemic Lupus Erythematosus | 90 |
| Undifferentiated Collagenosis | 6 |
| Group 2: Other diseases not associated with ANA positivity | |
| Antiphospholipid Syndrome | 5 |
| Celiac Disease | 20 |
| Diverse I (Fibromyalgia, Type 1 Diabetes, and Lumbago) | 5 |
| Hepatitis B Virus | 30 |
| Hepatitis C Virus | 28 |
| Rheumatoid Arthritis | 60 |
| Spondyloarthritis | 35 |
| Vasculitis | 18 |
| Group 3: Diverse samples (selected due to ANA positivity or rare patterns) | |
| Diverse II (unknown disease with rare ANA pattern) | 11 |
| Total | 556 |

The results are summarized in the tables below:

Methods A, B, D, Sites A, B, C, two readers per site total agreement

| Method | Positive/negative total agreement 1:40 dilution | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | % Total Agreement (95% CI) | | |
| | Site A (n = 556) | Site B (n = 556) | Site C (n = 288) |
| D vs. A | 96.0 (94.6–97) | 96.0 (94.6–97) | 98.3 (96.8–99.1) |
| D vs. B | 95.7 (94.5–96.6) | 96.9 (95.8–97.8) | 98.1 (96.6–98.9) |
| B vs. A | 96.2 (94.9–97.2) | 97.1 (96.0–98.0) | 98.8 (97.5–99.4) |
| | Positive/negative total agreement 1:80 dilution | | |
| D vs. A | 93.6 (92.2–94.7) | 95.7 (94.3–96.7) | 93.1 (90.7–94.9) |
| D vs. B | 95.2 (93.8–96.3) | 95.4 (94–96.5) | 93.6 (91.3–95.3) |
| B vs. A | 97.7 (96.7–98.3) | 95.4 (94.1–96.4) | 96.7 (94.9–97.9) |

{16}

Methods A, B, D, sites A, B, C at 1:40 Pattern Agreement

| Method | Pattern agreement 1:40 dilution | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | % Total Agreement (95% CI) | | |
| | Site A (n = 556) | Site B (n = 556) | Site C (n = 288) |
| D vs. A | 94.2 (92.2–95.7) | 92.6 (90.5–94.3) | 97.5 (95.2–98.7) |
| D vs. B | 96.0 (94.3–97.2) | 94.8 (92.9–96.2) | 97.5 (95.2–98.7) |
| B vs. A | 95.0 (93.2–96.4) | 94.1 (92.1–95.6) | 98.8 (96.8–99.5) |
| | Pattern agreement 1:80 dilution | | |
| D vs. A | 93.6 (91.3–95.3) | 91.8 (89.3–93.7) | 91.7 (88–94.4) |
| D vs. B | 95.5 (93.5–96.9) | 92.4 (90–94.3) | 90.7 (86.8–93.5) |
| B vs. A | 96.1 (94.3–97.4) | 92.1 (89.6–94) | 95.9 (92.9–97.6) |

Method A, B, D: Individual patterns identified for each site and each method at 1:40: compared to Method E:

| Patterns 1:40 (n) | Method A | | Method B | | | | Method D | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Site A | Site B | Site A | | Site B | | Site A | | Site B | |
| | Instr. 1 | Instr. 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 |
| | n | n | n | n | n | n | n | n | n | n |
| hom (75)* | 74 | 75 | 73 | 72 | 73 | 75 | 74 | 74 | 74 | 75 |
| spe (132) | 130 | 125 | 134 | 132 | 132 | 125 | 130 | 131 | 128 | 127 |
| cen (35) | 32 | 33 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 34 | 35 |
| nuc (30) | 26 | 26 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 30 | 30 | 29 | 29 |
| num (7) | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 |
| nud (7) | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
| cyt (46) | 45 | 50 | 43 | 43 | 47 | 41 | 45 | 45 | 44 | 45 |
| undef (20) | 19 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 17 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 |
| neg (203) | 203 | 203 | 203 | 203 | 203 | 203 | 203 | 203 | 203 | 203 |
| Total (556) | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 | 556 |
| False negative | 13 | 13 | 8 | 11 | 9 | 17 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 10 |

*The number of samples associated with each pattern is the number detected by Method E (predicate)

Methods A, B, D: Individual patterns identified for each site and each method at 1:80

| Patterns 1:80 (n) | Method A | | Method B | | | | Method D | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Site A | Site B | Site A | | Site B | | Site A | | Site B | |
| | Instr.1 | Instr.2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 3 | OP 4 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 3 | OP 4 |
| | n | n | n | n | n | n | n | n | n | n |
| hom (75)* | 72 | 77 | 71 | 71 | 75 | 74 | 73 | 71 | 66 | 70 |
| spe (103) | 101 | 97 | 105 | 103 | 102 | 98 | 104 | 103 | 106 | 104 |
| cen (35) | 34 | 31 | 36 | 35 | 35 | 36 | 35 | 35 | 33 | 35 |
| nuc (30) | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 29 | 26 | 29 | 29 | 26 | 27 |
| num (6) | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| nud (5) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| cyt (35) | 33 | 34 | 31 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 34 | 35 | 33 | 34 |
| undef (10) | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 9 |
| neg (259) | 259 | 259 | 259 | 259 | 259 | 259 | 259 | 259 | 259 | 259 |

{17}

*The number of samples associated with each pattern is the number detected by Method E (Predicate)

b. Matrix comparison: Not applicable

# 3. Clinical studies:

To determine clinical sensitivity and specificity (Se/Sp), a cohort of 288 clinically characterized samples were tested at the three sites (A, B, and C). 268 additional samples were tested at sites A and B only. Sensitivity and Specificity of the assay was analyzed for each site with 460 samples (normal controls and "diverse" samples used in the method comparison study were excluded from this analysis). The number and distribution of the samples are shown below:

Samples (Site A and B):

| Disease Group | Diagnosis | Total | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Group 1 Rheumatic Diseases associated with ANA positivity (CTD + AIL) | SLE | 90 | 264 |
| | Autoimmune Hepatitis | 18 | |
| | CREST | 4 | |
| | MCTD | 8 | |
| | Myositis | 35 | |
| | Scleroderma | 39 | |
| | Sjögren's Syndrome | 64 | |
| | undiff. Collagenosis | 6 | |
| Group 2 Other diseases not associated with ANA positivity | APS | 5 | 196 |
| | Celiac Disease | 20 | |
| | HBV | 30 | |
| | HCV | 28 | |
| | RA | 60 | |
| | SpA | 35 | |
| | Vasculitis | 18 | |
| Total | | 460 | 460 |

Samples (Site C).

| Disease Group | Diagnosis | Total | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Group 1 Rheumatic Diseases associated with ANA positivity (CTD + AIL) | Autoimmune Hepatitis | 1 | 104 |
| | CREST | 1 | |
| | MCTD | 3 | |
| | Myositis | 12 | |
| | Scleroderma | 10 | |
| | Sjögren's Syndrome | 31 | |
| | SLE | 40 | |
| | Undiff. Collagenosis | 6 | |
| Group 2 Other diseases not associated with ANA positivity | APS | 5 | 143 |
| | Celiac Disease | 20 | |
| | Diverse | 5 | |

{18}

The results are summarized in the tables below:

Se/Sp Summary, Methods A, B, D and E at 1:40 dilution

| Site OP | % Sensitivity at 1:40 | | | | | | | | % Specificity at 1:40 | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | SLE | | | | CTD+ AIL | | | | Non-Healthy Controls | | | |
| | Method | | | | Method | | | | Method | | | |
| | A | B | D | E | A | B | D | E | A | B | D | E |
| A1 | 88.9 | 88.9 | 90.0 | 87.8 | 86.0 | 86.0 | 86.7 | 86.4 | 58.2 | 58.2 | 56.6 | 56.1 |
| A2 | | 88.9 | 88.9 | 87.8 | | 85.6 | 86.0 | 86.0 | | 59.2 | 54.1 | 56.6 |
| B1 | 87.8 | 87.8 | 87.8 | 80.0 | 85.6 | 86.0 | 85.6 | 80.8 | 57.1 | 57.1 | 57.1 | 58.7 |
| B2 | | 88.9 | 87.8 | 80.0 | | 85.2 | 85.6 | 80.8 | | 56.6 | 55.6 | 59.4 |
| C1 | 82.5 | 80.0 | 82.5 | 80.0 | 82.7 | 81.7 | 83.7 | 81.7 | 58.7 | 58.7 | 60.1 | 58.7 |
| C2 | | 80.0 | 80.0 | 80.0 | | 81.7 | 81.7 | 78.9 | | 59.4 | 60.9 | 60.9 |

Se/Sp Summary, Methods A,B, D and E at 1:80 dilution:

| Site OP | % Sensitivity at 1:80 | | | | | | | | % Specificity at 1:80 | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | SLE | | | | CTD+AIL | | | | Non-Healthy Controls | | | |
| | Method | | | | Method | | | | Method | | | |
| | A | B | D | E | A | B | D | E | A | B | D | E |
| A1 | 78.9 | 80.0 | 82.2 | 82.2 | 78.8 | 79.2 | 82.6 | 82.2 | 70.9 | 69.4 | 68.9 | 67.9 |
| A2 | | 80.0 | 83.3 | 82.2 | | 78.8 | 82.2 | 81.4 | | 68.9 | 67.9 | 70.9 |
| B1 | 77.8 | 80.0 | 81.1 | 77.5 | 79.2 | 80.3 | 79.5 | 78.8 | 70.9 | 68.4 | 71.4 | 66.7 |
| B2 | | 75.6 | 81.1 | 80.0 | | 77.7 | 79.2 | 78.8 | | 68.9 | 70.9 | 67.4 |
| C1 | 77.5 | 77.5 | 77.5 | 75.0 | 76.9 | 77.9 | 74.0 | 76.9 | 63.0 | 63.8 | 65.2 | 67.4 |
| C2 | | 77.5 | 70.0 | 72.5 | | 79.8 | 77.9 | 78.9 | | 65.2 | 68.8 | 65.9 |

Se/Sp Summary, Methods A, B, D and E, combined for sites A, B, C at 1:40 Dilution

| Method | SLE | CTD + AIL | Non-Healthy Controls |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Specificity (95% CI) |
| A | 86.4 (76.1–92.7) | 84.8 (78.8–89.3) | 58 (50.6–65.1) |
| B | 85.7 (75.4–92.3) | 84.4 (78.4–88.9) | 58.2 (50.8–65.3) |
| D | 86.2 (75.8–92.6) | 84.9 (79–89.4) | 57.4 (50–64.5) |
| E | 82.6 (70–90.7) | 82.4 (74–88.5) | 58.4 (50.5–65.9) |

Se/Sp Summary, Methods A, B, D and E, combined for sites A, B, C at 1:80 Dilution

| Method | SLE | CTD + AIL | Non-Healthy Controls |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Specificity (95% CI) |
| A | 78.1 (66.7–86.3) | 78.3 (71.8–83.6) | 68.3 (61.1–74.8) |
| B | 78.4 (67.1–86.6) | 78.9 (72.5–84.2) | 67.4(60.1–74) |
| D | 79.2 (68–87.3) | 79.2 (72.8–84.5) | 68.9 (61.6–75.3) |
| E | 78.2 (65.1–87.4) | 79.5 (70.9–86) | 67.7 (60.0–74.6) |

{19}

More detailed Se/Sp results are summarized in the tables below:

Se/Sp for Methods A and B at 1:40 Dilution:

| 1:40 Dilution | | SLE | CTD + AIL | Non-Healthy Controls |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Site | Operator | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Specificity (95% CI) |
| Method A (HELIOS) (1:40) | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | n = 90 | n = 264 | n = 196 |
| Site A | Inst.1 | 88.9 (80.7–93.9) | 86 (81.3–89.7) | 58.2 (51.2–64.8) |
| Site B | Instr. 2 | 87.8 (79.4–93) | 85.6 (80.9–89.3) | 57.1 (50.1–63.9) |
| | | n = 40 | n = 104 | n = 143 |
| Site C | Instr. 3 | 82.5 (68–91.3) | 82.7 (74.3–88.8) | 58.7 (50.4–66.6) |
| Method B (HELIOS + operator evaluation) (1:40) | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | n = 90 | n = 264 | n = 196 |
| Site A | OP 1 | 88.9 (80.7–93.9) | 86 (81.3–89.7) | 58.2 (51.2–64.8) |
| | OP2 | 88.9 (80.7–93.9) | 85.6 (80.9–89.3) | 59.2 (52.2–65.8) |
| Site B | OP 3 | 87.8 (79.4–93) | 86 (81.3–89.7) | 57.1 (50.1–63.9) |
| | OP 4 | 88.9 (80.7–93.9) | 85.2 (80.4–89) | 56.6 (49.6–63.4) |
| | | N = 40 | N = 104 | N = 143 |
| Site C | OP 5 | 80 (65.2–89.5) | 81.7 (73.2–88) | 58.7 (50.4–66.6) |
| | OP 6 | 80 (65.2–89.5) | 81.7 (73.2–88) | 59.4 (51.1–67.3) |

Se/Sp for Methods D and E at 1:40 Dilution:

| 1:40 Dilution | | SLE | CTD + AIL | Non-Healthy Controls |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Site | Operator | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Specificity (95% CI) |
| Method D (manual) (1:40) | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | n = 90 | n = 264 | n = 196 |
| Site A | OP 1 | 90 (82.1–94.6) | 86.7 (82.1–90.3) | 56.6 (49.6–63.4) |
| | OP2 | 88.9 (80.7–93.9) | 86 (81.3–89.7) | 54.1 (47.1–60.9) |
| Site B | OP 3 | 87.8 (79.4 - 93) | 85.6 (80.9–89.3) | 57.1 (50.1–63.9) |
| | OP 4 | 87.8 (79.4 - 93) | 85.6 (80.9 - 89.3) | 55.6 (48.6–62.4) |
| | | n = 40 | n = 104 | n = 143 |
| Site C | OP 5 | 82.5 (68–91.3) | 83.7 (75.4–89.5) | 60.1 (51.8–67.9) |
| | OP 6 | 80 (65.2–89.5) | 81.7 (73.2–88) | 60.9 (52.5–68.6) |
| Method E (manual predicate) 1:40 | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | N = 90 | N = 264 | N = 196 |
| Site A | OP 1 | 87.8 (79.4–93) | 86.4 (81.7–90) | 56.1 (49.1–62.9) |
| | OP 2 | 87.8 (79.4–93) | 86 (81.3–89.7) | 56.6 (49.6–63.4) |
| | | n = 40 | n = 104 | n = 143 |
| Site B | OP 3 | 80 (65.2–89.5) | 80.8 (72.2–87.2) | 58.7 (50.4–66.6) |
| | OP 4 | 80 (65.2–89.5) | 80.8 (72.2–87.2) | 59.4 (51.1–67.3) |

{20}

21

| Site C | OP 5 | 80 (65.2–89.5) | 81.7 (73.2–88) | 58.7 (50.4–66.6) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | OP 6 | 80 (65.2–89.5) | 78.9 (63.7–88.9) | 60.9 (52.5–68.6) |

Se/Sp for Methods A and B at 1:80 Dilution:

| 1:80 Dilution | | SLE | CTD + AIL | Non-Healthy Controls |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Site | Operator | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Specificity (95% CI) |
| Method A (1:80) | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | n = 90 | n = 264 | n = 196 |
| Site A | Instr. 1 | 78.9 (69.4–86) | 78.8 (73.5–83.3) | 70.9 (64.2–76.8) |
| Site B | Instr. 2 | 77.8 (68.2–85.1) | 79.2 (73.9–83.6) | 70.9 (64.2–76.8) |
| | | n = 40 | n = 104 | n = 143 |
| Site C | Instr. 3 | 77.5 (62.5–87.7) | 76.9 (68.0–84.0) | 63 (54.7–70.6) |
| Method B (1:80) | | | | |
| | | n = 90 | n = 264 | n = 196 |
| Site A | OP 1 | 80 (70.6–87) | 79.2 (73.9–83.6) | 69.4 (62.6–75.4) |
| | OP 2 | 80 (70.6–87) | 78.8 (73.5–83.3) | 68.9 (62.1–74.9) |
| Site B | OP 3 | 80 (70.6–87) | 80.3 (75.1–84.7) | 68.4 (61.6–74.5) |
| | OP 4 | 75.6 (65.8–83.3) | 77.7 (72.3–82.3) | 68.9 (62.1–74.9) |
| | | n = 40 | n = 104 | n = 143 |
| Site C | OP 5 | 77.5 (62.5–87.7) | 77.9 (69–84.8) | 63.8 (55.5–71.3) |
| | OP 6 | 77.5 (62.5–87.7) | 79.8 (71.1–86.4) | 65.2 (57–72.7) |

Se/Sp for Methods D and E at 1:80 Dilution:

| 1:80 Dilution | | SLE | CTD + AIL | Non-Healthy Controls |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Site | Operator | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | % Specificity (95% CI) |
| Method D (1:80) | | | | |
| | | n = 90 | n = 264 | n = 196 |
| Site A | OP 1 | 82.2 (73.1–88.8) | 82.6 (77.5–86.7) | 68.9 (62.1–74.9) |
| | OP 2 | 83.3 (74.3–89.6) | 82.2 (77.1–86.3) | 67.9 (61–74) |
| Site B | OP 3 | 81.1 (71.8–87.9) | 79.5 (74.3–84) | 71.4 (64.7–77.3) |
| | OP 4 | 81.1 (71.8–87.9) | 79.2 (73.9–83.6) | 70.9 (64.2–76.8) |
| | | n = 40 | n = 104 | n = 143 |
| Site C | OP 5 | 77.5 (62.5–87.7) | 74.0 (64.9–81.5) | 65.2 (57–72.7) |
| | OP 6 | 70 (54.6–81.9) | 77.9 (69–84.8) | 68.8 (60.7–76) |
| Method E (1:80) | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | n = 90 | n = 264 | n = 196 |
| Site A | OP 1 | 82.2 (73.1–88.8) | 82.2 (77.1–86.3) | 67.9 (61–74) |
| | OP 2 | 82.2 (73.1–88.8) | 81.4 (76.3–85.7) | 70.9 (64.2–76.8) |
| | | n = 40 | n = 104 | n = 143 |
| Site B | OP 3 | 77.5 (62.5–87.7) | 78.8 (70–85.6) | 66.7 (58.4–74) |
| | OP 4 | 80 (65.2–89.5) | 78.8 (70–85.6) | 67.4 (59.2–74.6) |
| Site C | OP 5 | 75 (59.8–85.8) | 76.9 (68–84) | 67.4 (59.2–74.6) |

{21}

Percent positive samples per site per diagnosis:

Site A (Methods A, B, D, and E) at 1:40 dilution

| Site A 1:40 | | % Positive samples with diagnosis (n = 556) | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Disease Group / Diagnosis | N | Method A | Method B | | Method D | | Method E | |
| | | HELIOS Instr. 1 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP 1 | OP 2 | OP1 | OP 2 |
| Group 0: Healthy controls | | | | | | | | |
| Normal Controls | 80 | 33% | 36% | 35% | 34% | 34% | 35% | 34% |
| Group 1: Rheumatic Diseases associated with ANA positivity | | | | | | | | |
| CREST | 4 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| MCTD | 8 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Myositis | 35 | 69% | 71% | 71% | 74% | 71% | 74% | 71% |
| Scleroderma | 39 | 90% | 90% | 90% | 90% | 90% | 90% | 90% |
| SLE | 90 | 89% | 89% | 89% | 90% | 89% | 88% | 88% |
| undiff. Collagenosis | 6 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Sjögren’s Syndrome | 64 | 84% | 83% | 83% | 84% | 84% | 84% | 84% |
| Autoimmune Hepatitis | 18 | 89% | 89% | 83% | 83% | 83% | 89% | 89% |
| Group 2: Other diseases not associated with ANA positivity | | | | | | | | |
| APS | 5 | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% |
| Celiac Disease | 20 | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% |
| RA | 60 | 53% | 50% | 52% | 50% | 53% | 50% | 50% |
| SpA | 35 | 40% | 43% | 37% | 37% | 40% | 40% | 37% |
| Vasculitis | 18 | 22% | 22% | 22% | 22% | 28% | 28% | 22% |
| HCV | 28 | 43% | 46% | 46% | 43% | 46% | 39% | 39% |
| HBV | 30 | 40% | 40% | 37% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 63% |
| Diverse I | 5 | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% |
| Group 3: Diverse samples (selected due to ANA positivity or rare patterns) | | | | | | | | |
| Diverse II | 11 | 91% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Total | 556 | 62% | 63% | 62% | 63% | 64% | 64% | 63% |

Site B (Methods A, B, D, and E) at 1:40 dilution

| Site B 1:40 | | % Positive samples with diagnosis | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Disease group/ Diagnosis | N | Method A | Method B | | Method D | | Method E | |
| | | n = 556 | | | | | n = 288 | |
| | | HELIOS Instr. 1 | OP 3 | OP 4 | OP3 | OP 4 | OP 3 | OP 4 |
| Group 0: Healthy controls | | | | | | | | |
| Normal Controls | 80 | 28% | 33% | 25% | 28% | 28% | 27% | 23% |
| Group 1: Rheumatic Diseases associated with ANA positivity | | | | | | | | |

{22}

Site C (Methods A, B, D, and E) at 1:40 dilution

| Site C 1:40 | | % Positive samples with diagnosis (n = 288) | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Disease group / Diagnosis | n | Method A | Method B | | Method D | | Method E | |
| | | HELIOS Instr. 1 | Op 5 | Op 6 | Op 5 | Op 6 | Op 5 | Op 6 |
| Group 0: Healthy controls | | | | | | | | |
| Normal Controls | 30 | 27% | 27% | 27% | 27% | 27% | 27% | 23% |
| Group 1: Rheumatic Diseases associated with ANA positivity | | | | | | | | |
| CREST | 1 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| MCTD | 3 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Myositis | 12 | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% |
| Scleroderma | 10 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| SLE | 40 | 83% | 80% | 80% | 83% | 80% | 80% | 80% |
| Undiff. Collagenosis | 6 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 83% |
| Sjögren's Syndrome | 31 | 77% | 77% | 77% | 81% | 77% | 77% | 74% |
| Autoimmune Hepatitis | 1 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Group 2: Other diseases not associated with ANA positivity | | | | | | | | |
| APS | 5 | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 40% |
| Celiac Disease | 20 | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% |
| RA | 60 | 52% | 52% | 50% | 52% | 48% | 52% | 50% |
| SpA | 35 | 40% | 40% | 40% | 37% | 37% | 40% | 37% |
| Vasculitis | 18 | 22% | 22% | 22% | 22% | 22% | 22% | 22% |
| HCV | 28 | 39% | 39% | 39% | 39% | 39% | n/a | n/a |
| HBV | 30 | 53% | 53% | 53% | 60% | 67% | n/a | n/a |
| Diverse I | 5 | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% |

{23}

Site A (Methods A, B, D, and E) at 1:80 dilution

| Site A 1:80 | | Percent positive samples (n = 556) | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Disease Group/Diagnosis | n | Method A | Method B | | Method D | | Method E | |
| | | HELIOSInstr. 1 | Op 1 | Op 2 | Op 1 | Op 2 | Op 1 | Op 2 |
| Group 0: Healthy controls | | | | | | | | |
| Normal Controls | 80 | 23% | 23% | 20% | 21% | 25% | 23% | 21% |
| Group 1: Rheumatic Diseases associated with ANA positivity | | | | | | | | |
| CREST | 4 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| MCTD | 8 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Myositis | 35 | 66% | 63% | 63% | 66% | 66% | 66% | 66% |
| Scleroderma | 39 | 82% | 82% | 82% | 90% | 90% | 87% | 87% |
| SLE | 90 | 79% | 80% | 80% | 82% | 83% | 82% | 82% |
| Undiff. Collagenosis | 6 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Sjögren's Syndrome | 64 | 77% | 78% | 77% | 83% | 81% | 83% | 81% |
| AutoimmuneHepatitis | 18 | 83% | 83% | 83% | 83% | 78% | 83% | 78% |
| Group 2: Other diseases not associated with ANA positivity | | | | | | | | |
| APS | 5 | 40% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% |
| Celiac Disease | 20 | 20% | 20% | 20% | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% |
| RA | 60 | 45% | 47% | 47% | 45% | 48% | 47% | 40% |
| SpA | 35 | 34% | 34% | 34% | 34% | 34% | 37% | 37% |
| Vasculitis | 18 | 11% | 17% | 17% | 17% | 22% | 22% | 17% |
| HCV | 28 | 14% | 14% | 14% | 14% | 11% | 14% | 11% |
| HBV | 30 | 20% | 20% | 23% | 23% | 23% | 20% | 20% |
| Diverse I | 5 | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% |
| Group 3: Diverse samples (selected due to ANA positivity or rare patterns) | | | | | | | | |
| Diverse II | 11 | 73% | 82% | 73% | 91% | 82% | 100% | 73% |
| Total | 556 | 53% | 53% | 53% | 55% | 56% | 56% | 54% |

Site B (Methods A, B, D, and E) at 1:80 dilution

| Site B 1:80 | | Percent positive samples | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Diagnosis | n | Method A | Method B | | Method D | | Method E | |
| | | n = 556 | | | | | n = 228 | |
| | | Instr. 1 | Op 3 | Op 4 | Op 3 | Op 4 | Op 3 | Op 4 |
| Group 0: Healthy controls | | | | | | | | |
| Normal Controls | 80 | 18% | 21% | 21% | 16% | 20% | 20% | 13% |
| Group 1: Rheumatic Diseases associated with ANA positivity | | | | | | | | |
| CREST | 4 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| MCTD | 8 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |

{24}

Site C (Methods A, B, D and E) at 1:80 dilution

| Site C 1:80 | | % Positive Samples at 1:80 (n = 288) | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Disease Group/Diagnosis | n | Method A | Method B | | Method D | | Method E | |
| | | HELIOSInstr. | Op 5 | Op 6 | Op 5 | Op 6 | Op 5 | Op 6 |
| Group 0: Healthy controls | | | | | | | | |
| Normal Controls | 30 | 17% | 23% | 20% | 13% | 10% | 17% | 17% |
| Group 1: Rheumatic Diseases associated with ANA positivity | | | | | | | | |
| CREST | 1 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| MCTD | 3 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Myositis | 12 | 58% | 58% | 67% | 42% | 67% | 58% | 50% |
| Scleroderma | 10 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| SLE | 40 | 78% | 78% | 78% | 78% | 70% | 75% | 73% |
| Undiff. Collagenosis | 6 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 67% |
| Sjögren's Syndrome | 31 | 68% | 71% | 74% | 65% | 77% | 71% | 61% |
| Autoimmune Hepatitis | 1 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Group 2: Other diseases not associated with ANA positivity | | | | | | | | |
| APS | 5 | 60% | 60% | 60% | 40% | 60% | 60% | 40% |
| Celiac Disease | 20 | 20% | 20% | 20% | 25% | 20% | 20% | 25% |
| RA | 60 | 43% | 48% | 47% | 42% | 45% | 42% | 42% |
| SpA | 35 | 34% | 34% | 37% | 34% | 34% | 34% | 31% |
| Vasculitis | 18 | 11% | 17% | 17% | 11% | 6% | 11% | 17% |
| HCV | 28 | 14% | 14% | 14% | 14% | 14% | n/a | n/a |
| HBV | 30 | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | n/a | n/a |
| Diverse I | 5 | 20% | 20% | 20% | 0% | 20% | 20% | 20% |
| Group 3: Diverse samples (selected due to ANA positivity or rare patterns) | | | | | | | | |
| Diverse II | 11 | 82% | 91% | 82% | 73% | 73% | 73% | 64% |
| Total | 556 | 52% | 54% | 53% | 52% | 52% | 50% | 48% |

{25}

The discrepant samples in this study had lower end-point titers. The discrepancy seen when comparing the Se/Sp for 1:40 dilution vs. 1:80 dilution is due to the number of low positive (low titer) samples analyzed in this study. At 1:40 dilution, these sera were identified as positive while at 1:80 dilution, these sera were identified as negative. This impacts the sensitivity calculation. Additionally, there is a known inverse relationship between sensitivity and specificity (Lalkhen AG, et. al. 2008). Thus, at 1:80 dilution compared to 1:40 dilution, sensitivity decreases while specificity increases.

# b. Clinical specificity:

See clinical sensitivity

# 4. Clinical cut-off:

See assay cut-off

# 5. Expected values/Reference range:

To determine the prevalence of ANA in the general population 151 sera from healthy controls were tested with AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2-Gamma. Each serum was tested at dilutions of 1:40 and 1:80. Slides were processed manually according to the IFU and subsequently analyzed by two independent readers (medical technologists) that manually evaluated the IFA results using a microscope. In a healthy population, there may be some percentage of the population with true positive ANAs. The number of positive ANA samples found with AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2-Gamma (Method D) in this reference range study correlate well with numbers reported in the literature. The results are summarized in the table below:

| Reference Range Study AESKUSLIDES ANA HEp-2 Fc Gamma | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sample type | 1:40 | | | | 1:80 | | | |
| | Reader 1 | | Reader 2 | | Reader 1 | | Reader 2 | |
| | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
| Negative | 109 | 71.7 | 104 | 68.4 | 120 | 78.9 | 119 | 78.3 |
| Positive | 43 | 28.3 | 48 | 31.6 | 32 | 21.1 | 33 | 21.7 |
| * Densely Fine Speckled (DFS) 70 | 9 | 5.9 | 11 | 7.2 | 9 | 5.9 | 11 | 7.2 |
| anti-mitochondrial antibodies (AMA) | 11 | 7.2 | 12 | 7.9 | 6 | 3.9 | 6 | 3.9 |
| Cytoplasmic | 2 | 1.3 | 4 | 2.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Speckled | 12 | 7.9 | 12 | 7.9 | 11 | 7.2 | 8 | 5.3 |
| Nucleolar | 3 | 2.0 | 3 | 2.0 | 1 | 0.7 | 3 | 2.0 |
| homogeneous | 3 | 2.0 | 3 | 2.0 | 2 | 1.3 | 2 | 1.3 |
| undefined positive | 3 | 2.0 | 3 | 2.0 | 3 | 2.0 | 3 | 2.0 |
| Total | 152 | 100.0 | 152 | 100.0 | 152 | 100.0 | 152 | 100.0 |

*The significance of DFS is not clear at this time. Published studies show DFS 70 has no clinical significance. However, there is an ongoing discussion among the experts in ANA testing about the DFS 70 pattern and if it is a characteristic pattern for healthy individuals (Mahler et al.; 2016).

{26}

Of the 151 tested sera, there were 43 (28.5%) sera positive at a dilution of 1:40 and 32 (21.2%) at a dilution of 1:80. In comparison, Tan et al. (1997) found 31.7% ANA positives at 1:40 and 13.3% at 1:80 in a total of 125 normal sera.

## N. Instrument Name:

HELIOS AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM

## O. System Descriptions:

Instrument (main components):

- HELIOS
- HELIOS Device Software
- HELIOS Pattern Recognition
- All in One PC
- Sample Racks
- Reagent Rack

The HELIOS AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM is an automated system including a pipetting unit with microscope and software that acquires, interprets, stores and displays digital images of stained indirect immunofluorescence slides. The HELIOS DEVICE SOFTWARE is designed to support input of results from the AESKUSLIDES into electronic laboratory data management systems. The HELIOS AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM should only be used with AESKUSLIDES assays that are cleared or approved for use on the instrument. All suggested results obtained with the HELIOS DEVICE SOFTWARE must be confirmed by trained operator.

Automated assay on the HELIOS instrument:

The workflow of the HELIOS AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM is based on the manual procedure of indirect immunofluorescent antibody assays. This method entails all protocols and analyses are performed by HELIOS system. Each serum is tested at 1:40 or 1:80 dilutions. From these screening runs HELIOS classifies each image as positive or negative. In addition estimated end point titer and pattern are suggested.

1. Modes of Operation:

| Mode | Description |
| --- | --- |
| HELIOS | automated processing with automated imaging and automated reading |
| HELIOS User Evaluation | automated processing with automated imaging and manual reading of the image (read of the digital image) |
| Manual Mode | manual processing with manual imaging and manual reading (read of microscope field) |

{27}

Does the applicant’s device contain the ability to transmit data to a computer, webserver, or mobile device?

Yes ☐ X ☐ or No ☐

Does the applicant’s device transmit data to a computer, webserver, or mobile device using wireless transmission?

Yes ☐ or No ☐ X ☐

2. Software:

General:

The HELIOS AUTOMATED IFA SYSTEM is an automated system for immunofluorescence processing with an integrated camera with an optic (microscope) and software for routine laboratory use by professional users under controlled environmental conditions.

The software consists of three modules (pipetting, image capturing and analysis documentation) and a separate tool for estimating patterns. The pipetting sequences are specified with the corresponding volumes and incubation times, as are the pipetting positions and their mechanical paths. Digital images are taken by a camera and stored on the computer system. The separate software tool recognizes the pattern of the captured image by using SVM technique (Support Vector Machine). After image pre-processing, feature extraction and classification the software tool delivers the results of determination to the analysis documentation module. The software performs a positive/negative and pattern classification of the cells. The software suggests the result as a qualitative result (positive, negative) and, for positive samples, suggests a pattern and titer. All suggested results obtained with the software must be confirmed within the documentation module by trained operator.

Device and Software Description:

Software: Version 3.1 R2

Level of Concern:

Level of concern was determined according to the “Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices” dated May 11, 2005. Following the recommendations of this standard, the HELIOS software is assigned moderate level of concern.

FDA has reviewed applicant’s Hazard Analysis and software development processes for this line of product types:

Yes ☐ X ☐ or No ☐

3. Specimen Identification:

28

{28}

Manual sample identification and/or Barcode

4. Specimen Sampling and Handling:
Not applicable

5. Calibration:
There is no calibration of the instrument by the user.

6. Quality Control:
Positive and negative controls are supplied with the assay reagents.

P. Other Supportive Instrument Performance Characteristics Data Not Covered In The "Performance Characteristics" Section above:

Q. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Part 809.10.

R. Conclusion:
The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.

29