Nucleic Acid Amplification Test For The Quantitation Of Bk Virus (Bk) Dna (QMI) — FDA decisions, comparisons and evidence
The 2021–2025 analysis contains 1 selected substantially-equivalent FDA decisions under primary product code QMI. Use it to compare documented submissions and evidence with your product. A separate 2026 update contains 0 decisions through 2026-09-27. The latest selected decision across the acquired endpoint is dated 2025-03-24. Neither set establishes a suitable predicate or the route for your device. The complete-year window has 1 decisions; the separate all-observed-date count is 2. These denominators describe different date ranges.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
Recorded scope and its declared regulatory reference
An exact FDA-record regulation_number match to one acquired Title 21 section. Records with the same normalized scope definition, class, regulation and recorded submission/GMP flags are grouped. Sparse definitions and generic exemption boilerplate do not qualify. No text-similarity equivalence or legal applicability is inferred.
What scope does the FDA record describe?
An in vitro nucleic acid amplification test for the quantitation of BK virus (BKV) DNA in human samples intended for use as an aid in the management of BKV in transplant patients. In patients undergoing monitoring of BKV, serial DNA measurements can be used to indicate the need for potential treatment changes and to assess viral response to treatment. Test results are intended to be read and analyzed by a qualified licensed healthcare professional in conjunction with clinical signs and symptoms and relevant laboratory findings. Test results must not be the sole basis for patient management decisions.
Compare the proposed indication, user, anatomy, technology and operating principle with this actual scope; record differences and unresolved facts.
§ 866.3183 Quantitative viral nucleic acid test for transplant patient management. (a) Identification. A quantitative viral nucleic acid test for transplant patient management is identified as a device intended for prescription use in the detection of viral pathogens by measurement of viral DNA or RNA using specified specimen processing, amplification, and detection instrumentation. The test is intended for use as an aid in the management of transplant patients with active viral infection or at risk for developing viral infections. The test results are intended to be interpreted by qualified healthcare professionals in conjunction with other relevant clinical and laboratory findings. (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: (1) The labeling required under § 809.10(b) of this chapter must include: (i) A prominent statement that the device is not intended for use as a donor screening test for the presence of viral nucleic acid in blood or blood products. (ii) Limitations which must be updated to reflect current clinical practice. These limitations must include, but are not limited to, statements that indicate: (A) Test results are to be interpreted by qualified licensed healthcare professionals in conjunction with clinical signs and symptoms and other relevant laboratory results; and (B) Negative test results do not preclude viral infection or tissue invasive viral disease and that test results must not be the sole basis for patient management decisions. (iii) A detailed explanation of the interpretation of results and acceptance criteria must be provided and include specific warnings regarding the potential for variability in viral load measurement when samples are measured by different devices. Warnings must include the following statement, where applicable: “Due to the potential for variability in [analyte] measurements across different [analyte] assays, it is recommended that the same device be used for the quantitation of [analyte] when managing individual patients.” (iv) A detailed explanation of the principles of operation and procedures for assay performance. (2) Design verification and validation must include the following: (i) Detailed documentation of the device description, including all parts that make up the device, ancillary reagents required for use with the assay but not provided, an explanation of the methodology, design of the primer/probe sequences, rationale for the selected gene target, and specifications for amplicon size, guanine-cytosine content, and degree of nucleic acid sequence conservation. The design and nature of all primary, secondary and tertiary quantitation standards used for calibration must also be described. (ii) A detailed description of the impact of any software, including software applications and hardware-based devices that incorporate software, on the device's functions; (iii) Documentation and characterization ( e.g., determination of the identity, supplier, purity, and stability) of all critical reagents and protocols for maintaining product integrity throughout its labeled shelf-life. (iv) Stability data for reagents provided with the device and indicated specimen types, in addition to the basis for the stability acceptance criteria at all time points chosen across the spectrum of the device's indicated life cycle, which must include a time point at the end of shelf life. (v) All stability protocols, including acceptance criteria. (vi) Final lot release criteria along with documentation of an appropriate justification that lots released at the extremes of the specifications will meet the claimed analytical and clinical performance characteristics as well as the stability claims. (vii) Risk analysis and documentation demonstrating how risk control measures are implemented to address device system hazards, such as Failure Mode Effects Analysis and/or Hazard Analysis. This documentation must include a detailed description of a protocol (including all procedures and methods) for the continuous monitoring, identification, and handling of genetic mutations and/or novel viral stains ( e.g., regular review of published literature and annual in silico analysis of target sequences to detect possible primer or probe mismatches). All results of this protocol, including any findings, must be documented. (viii) Analytical performance testing that includes: (A) Detailed documentation of the following analytical performance studies: limit of detection, upper and lower limits of quantitation, inclusivity, precision, reproducibility, interference, cross reactivity, carry-over, quality control, specimen stability studies, and additional studies as applicable to specimen type and intended use for the device; (B) Identification of the viral strains selected for use in analytical studies, which must be representative of clinically relevant circulating strains; (C) Inclusivity study results obtained with a variety of viral genotypes as applicable to the specific assay target and supplemented by in silico analysis; (D) Reproducibility studies that include the testing of three independent production lots; (E) Documentation of calibration to a reference standard that FDA has determined is appropriate for the quantification of viral DNA or RNA ( e.g., a recognized consensus standard); and (F) Documentation of traceability performed each time a new lot of the standardized reference material to which the device is traceable is released, or when the field transitions to a new standardized reference material. (ix) Clinical performance testing that includes: (A) Detailed documentation from either a method comparison study with a comparator that FDA has determined is appropriate, or results from a prospective clinical study demonstrating clinical validity of the device; (B) Data from patient samples, with an acceptable number of the virus-positive samples containing an analyte concentration near the lower limit of quantitation and any clinically relevant decision points. If an acceptable number of virus-positive samples containing an analyte concentration near the lower limit of quantitation and any clinically relevant decision cannot be obtained, contrived samples may be used to supplement sample numbers when appropriate, as determined by FDA; (C) The method comparison study must include predefined maximum acceptable differences between the test and comparator method across all primary outcome measures in the clinical study protocol; and (D) The final release test results for each lot used in the clinical study. [89 FR 75954, Sept. 17, 2024]
Read the identification, classification, conditions and referenced limitations in the cited section. A numeric reference match is not a buyer classification or exemption determination.
Deduplicate by official submission ID across the complete current manifest partitions. Select exact primary product code, K-number format and the stated SE decision codes with valid dates. Recent distributions use the five complete calendar years preceding the latest valid endpoint decision year. Partial-year counts compare equal January-to-cutoff periods. Quartiles use linear interpolation at (n-1)*p and are withheld below 20 valid date pairs. The analysis n describes only its declared complete-year window; selected_se_n separately counts all selected recorded dates through the cutoff.
2 selected records across all observed dates; 0 other/invalid identifier or decision-date records excluded. 0 missing or invalid date pairs in the five-year window.
Date fields: date_received → decision_date. Quantiles: Hyndman–Fan type 7: linear interpolation at (n − 1) × p; displayed to one decimal; n ≥ 20 valid pairs.
Receipt-to-decision calendar elapsed time includes time outside active FDA review; it is not FDA review time, a promised project timeline or an estimate of future clearance. This selected recorded cohort does not include all applications or establish a success probability, predicate suitability, market size, current market availability or legal authorization for another product.
Calculation fda-buyer-research-3 · database cutoff 2026-09-27. CSV rows identify each official K-number, cohort, date pair, exclusion reason and source version.
Separate partial-year update
2026 decisions through 2026-09-27
0 selected decisions from 2026-01-01 to 2026-09-27. The equivalent previous-year period contains 1 decisions through 2025-09-27. These counts describe the records; they are not market growth or submission success rates.
Named records to investigate
Latest decisions across the database
These dated records may come from 2026 or earlier years. They are a separate investigation list, not the five-year statistical cohort. Compare the actual indications and technology before considering a record as a comparator.
K202215 ↗cobas BKV, cobas EBV/BKV Control Kit, cobas Buffer Negative Control Kit
Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
2020-09-02
Traditional
27
Supporting documents actually acquired
Go beyond the database row
Read the source context, then compare the evidence with your design. Topic locations below are text matches, including possible limitations or negative statements; they are not a mandatory test list.
Nucleic Acid Amplification Test For The Quantitation Of Bk Virus (Bk) Dna [1]
Recorded scope
An in vitro nucleic acid amplification test for the quantitation of BK virus (BKV) DNA in human samples intended for use as an aid in the management of BKV in transplant patients. In patients undergoing monitoring of BKV, serial DNA measurements can be used to indicate the need for potential treatment changes and to assess viral response to treatment. Test results are intended to be read and analyzed by a qualified licensed healthcare professional in conjunction with clinical signs and symptoms and relevant laboratory findings. Test results must not be the sole basis for patient management decisions. [1]
Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.
Which specific part of the recorded scope fits or differs?
Put your proposed label and design beside the quoted definition. Record matching facts, differences and missing facts separately; naming the category alone cannot resolve scope.
Useful evidence: Proposed indication/design and a definition-to-product comparison with source locators.
Have the cited section and its limitations been reviewed?
Record the applicable paragraph, conditions and cross-referenced limitations after specialist review. Keep a claimed exemption separate from actual establishment, listing and quality-system responsibilities.
Useful evidence: Dated classification/route rationale and the current provisions relied on, with unresolved conditions.
Compare your intended use with a named decision
Choose a named record above. Put your proposed claim beside its actual indications-for-use statement. Record different patients, users, anatomy, settings and output claims; do not treat a shared code as proof of equivalence.
Useful evidence: Your draft indications for use + the selected official summary and its exact page.
Explain the technology and evidence differences
For each comparison, record the different materials, hardware, software functions and operating conditions. Link each difference to existing evidence or an unresolved evaluation task.
Useful evidence: A three-column matrix: comparator fact / your design fact / evidence or unresolved gap.
Prepare a scope-based schedule without a sparse timing benchmark
This recent cohort has fewer than 20 valid date pairs, so it supplies no median or percentile benchmark. Ask for a schedule based on actual preparation, evidence gaps, interactions and response assumptions; keep any historical decision context separately dated.
Useful evidence: Document/test readiness, unresolved route/evidence tasks and the assumptions behind the specialist’s proposed sequence.
Work packages and dependencies
Conditional: FDA 510(k) Submission Services — Review the supplied facts and evidence gaps before confirming the service scope.
Optional: Find FDA US Agent Services | Compare & Get Quotes — Include only if your product, actor and delivery needs justify this additional scope. Confirm the responsibility and evidence handoff with the coordinating specialist.
Optional: FDA QMSR Transition & Inspection Readiness (ISO 13485 Alignment) — Include only if your product, actor and delivery needs justify this additional scope. Confirm the responsibility and evidence handoff with the coordinating specialist.
What needs to happen first
FDA 510(k) Submission Services → Find FDA US Agent Services | Compare & Get Quotes: Confirm the main product/actor scope and evidence gaps before deciding whether to commission this additional service.
FDA 510(k) Submission Services → FDA QMSR Transition & Inspection Readiness (ISO 13485 Alignment): Confirm the main product/actor scope and evidence gaps before deciding whether to commission this additional service.
Questions for providers
Which of the named QMI decisions are actually comparable to our proposed indications and technology, and which would you exclude?
Which evidence differences prevent us from using the comparison yet, and what deliverable resolves each one?
Does your schedule separate submission preparation, testing, FDA interactions and customer response time? What assumptions change it?
Sources and data dates
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
