Qualitative And Quantitative Hepatitis B Virus Antibody Assays (SEI) — FDA decisions, comparisons and evidence
The acquired FDA endpoint has no selected substantially-equivalent K-number decisions under primary product code SEI during 2021–2025. Its latest selected record across the endpoint is dated 2026-04-07. Use that dated record only as historical context. Check the recorded scope and current route separately; these data do not provide a recent timing benchmark. The complete-year window has 0 decisions; the separate all-observed-date count is 4. 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?
In vitro diagnostic devices intended for use in the detection of antibodies to HBV. These devices are intended to aid in the diagnosis of HBV infection in persons with signs and symptoms of hepatitis and in persons at risk for HBV infection. Anti-HBs assay results may be used as an aid in the determination of susceptibility to HBV infection in individuals prior to or following HBV vaccination or when vaccination status is unknown.
Compare the proposed indication, user, anatomy, technology and operating principle with this actual scope; record differences and unresolved facts.
§ 866.3173 Hepatitis B virus antibody assays. (a) Identification. A hepatitis B virus (HBV) antibody assay is identified as an in vitro diagnostic device intended for prescription use in the detection of antibodies to HBV in human serum, plasma, or other matrices, and as a device that aids in the diagnosis of HBV infection in persons with signs and symptoms of hepatitis and in persons at risk for hepatitis B infection. Results from assays may be qualitative or quantitative, such as quantitative anti-HBs. In addition, results from an anti-HBc IgM (IgM antibodies to core antigen) assay indicating the presence of anti-HBc IgM are indicative of recent HBV infection. Anti-HBs (antibodies to surface antigen) assay results may be used as an aid in the determination of susceptibility to HBV infection in individuals prior to or following HBV vaccination or when vaccination status is unknown. The assay is not intended for screening of blood, plasma, cells, or tissue donors. The assay is intended as an aid in diagnosis in conjunction with clinical findings and other diagnostic procedures. (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 assay is not intended for the screening of blood, plasma, cells, or tissue donors. (ii) A detailed explanation of the principles of operation and procedures for performing the assay. (iii) A detailed explanation of the interpretation of results. (iv) Limitations, which must be updated to reflect current clinical practice and disease presentation and management. The limitations must include statements that indicate: (A) When appropriate, performance characteristics of the assay have not been established in populations of immunocompromised or immunosuppressed patients or other special populations where assay performance may be affected. (B) Detection of HBV antibodies to a single viral antigen indicates a present or past infection with hepatitis B virus, but does not differentiate between acute, chronic, or resolved infection. (C) The specimen types for which the device has been cleared, and that use of the assay with specimen types other than those specifically cleared for this device may result in inaccurate assay results. (D) Diagnosis of hepatitis B infection should not be established on the basis of a single assay result but should be determined by a licensed healthcare professional in conjunction with the clinical presentation, history, and other diagnostic procedures. (E) A non-reactive assay result may occur early during acute infection, prior to development of a host antibody response to infection, or when analyte levels are below the limit of detection of the assay. (F) Results obtained with this assay may not be used interchangeably with results obtained with a different manufacturer's assay. (v) For devices intended for the quantitative detection of HBV antibodies (anti-HBs), in addition to the special controls listed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, labeling required under § 809.10(b) of this chapter must include: (A) The assay calibrators' traceability to a standardized reference material that FDA has determined is appropriate ( e.g., a recognized consensus standard) and the limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), limit of quantitation (LoQ), linearity, and precision to define the analytical measuring interval. (B) Performance results of the analytical sensitivity study testing a standardized reference material that FDA has determined is appropriate ( e.g., a recognized consensus standard). (2) Design verification and validation must include the following: (i) Detailed device description, including all parts that make up the device, ancillary reagents required but not provided, an explanation of the device methodology, and design of the antigen(s) and capture antibody(ies) sequences, rationale for the selected epitope(s), degree of amino acid sequence conservation of the target, and the design and composition of all primary, secondary and subsequent standards used for calibration. (ii) Documentation and characterization ( e.g., supplier, determination of identity, and stability) of all critical reagents (including description of the antigen(s) and capture antibody(ies)), and protocols for maintaining product integrity throughout its labeled shelf life. (iii) Risk analysis and management strategies, such as Failure Modes Effects Analysis and/or Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points summaries and their impact on assay performance. (iv) Final release criteria to be used for manufactured assay lots with appropriate evidence that lots released at the extremes of the specifications will meet the identified analytical and clinical performance characteristics as well as stability. (v) Stability studies for reagents must include documentation of an assessment of real-time stability for multiple reagent lots using the indicated specimen types and must use acceptance criteria that ensure that analytical and clinical performance characteristics are met when stability is assigned based on the extremes of the acceptance range. (vi) All stability protocols, including acceptance criteria. (vii) When applicable, analytical sensitivity of the assay that is the same or better than that of other cleared or approved assays. (viii) Analytical performance studies and results for determining the limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), cutoff, precision (reproducibility), including lot-to-lot and/or instrument-to-instrument precision, interference, cross reactivity, carryover, hook effect, seroconversion panel testing, matrix equivalency, specimen stability, reagent stability, and cross-genotype antibody detection sensitivity, when appropriate. (ix) For devices intended for the detection of antibodies for which a standardized reference material (that FDA has determined is appropriate) is available, the analytical sensitivity study and results testing the standardized reference material. Detailed documentation of that study and its results must be provided, including the study protocol, study report, testing results, and all statistical analyses. (x) For devices with associated software or instrumentation, documentation must include a detailed description of device software, including software applications and hardware-based devices that incorporate software. The detailed description must include documentation of verification, validation, and hazard analysis and risk assessment activities, including an assessment of the impact of threats and vulnerabilities on device functionality and end users/patients as part of cybersecurity review. (xi) Detailed documentation of clinical performance testing from a clinical study with an appropriate number of HBV reactive and non-reactive samples in applicable risk categories and conducted in the appropriate settings by the intended users. Performance must be analyzed relative to an FDA cleared or approved HBV antibody assay or a comparator that FDA has determined is appropriate. Additional relevant patient groups must be validated as appropriate. The samples must include prospective (sequential) samples for each identified specimen type and, as appropriate, additional characterized clinical samples. Samples must be sourced from geographically diverse areas. (3) For any HBV antibody assay intended for quantitative detection of anti-HBV antibodies, the following special controls, in addition to those special controls listed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, also apply: (i) Detailed documentation of the metrological calibration traceability hierarchy to a standardized reference material that FDA has determined is appropriate. (ii) Detailed documentation of the following analytical performance studies conducted, as appropriate to the technology, specimen types tested, and intended use of the device, including upper and lower limits of quantitation (UloQ and LloQ, respectively), linearity using clinical samples, and an accuracy study using the recognized international standard material. [90 FR 44976, Sept. 18, 2025]
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.
4 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
4 selected decisions from 2026-01-01 to 2026-09-27. The equivalent previous-year period contains 0 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.
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.
Qualitative And Quantitative Hepatitis B Virus Antibody Assays [1]
Recorded scope
In vitro diagnostic devices intended for use in the detection of antibodies to HBV. These devices are intended to aid in the diagnosis of HBV infection in persons with signs and symptoms of hepatitis and in persons at risk for HBV infection. Anti-HBs assay results may be used as an aid in the determination of susceptibility to HBV infection in individuals prior to or following HBV vaccination or when vaccination status is unknown. [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.
Separate historical research from a recent comparator
No selected decision falls in the complete-year window. Any named records shown are separately dated historical or current-year research. Obtain their actual indications and assess the current route before using a comparator; the absence of a recent record does not establish an exemption or a route.
Useful evidence: Proposed indication/design, the dated named record if available, and a current route/comparator research rationale.
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 SEI 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.
