Respiratory Panel (QDP) — FDA decisions, comparisons and evidence
The 2021–2025 analysis contains 1 selected substantially-equivalent FDA decisions under primary product code QDP. 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 2021-09-22. 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?
The panel is a multiplexed nucleic acid test intended for use with systems for the simultaneous detection and identification of multiple respiratory viral and bacterial nucleic acids, as well as select antimicrobial resistance genes, in sputum-like specimens (induced or expectorated sputum, or endotracheal aspirates) or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)-like specimens (BAL or mini-BAL) obtained from individuals suspected of lower respiratory tract infection.
Compare the proposed indication, user, anatomy, technology and operating principle with this actual scope; record differences and unresolved facts.
§ 866.3985 Device to detect and identify microorganisms and associated resistance marker nucleic acids directly in respiratory specimens. (a) Identification. A device to detect and identify microorganisms and associated resistance marker nucleic acids directly from respiratory specimens is an in vitro diagnostic device intended for the detection and identification of microorganisms and associated resistance markers in respiratory specimens collected from patients with signs or symptoms of respiratory infection. The device is intended to aid in the diagnosis of respiratory infection in conjunction with clinical signs and symptoms and other laboratory findings. These devices do not provide confirmation of antibiotic susceptibility since mechanisms of resistance may exist other than those detected by the device. (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: (1) The intended use for the 21 CFR 809.10 labeling must include a detailed description of what the device detects, the type of results provided to the user, the clinical indications appropriate for test use, and the specific population(s) for which the device is intended. (2) The 21 CFR 809.10(b) labeling must include: (i) A detailed device description, including all device components, control elements incorporated into the test procedure, instrument requirements, ancillary reagents required but not provided, and a detailed explanation of the methodology, including all pre-analytical methods for processing of specimens. (ii) Performance characteristics from analytical studies, including, but not limited to, limit of detection, inclusivity, reproducibility, cross reactivity, interfering substances, competitive inhibition, carryover/cross contamination, specimen stability, and linearity, as applicable. (iii) A limiting statement that the device is intended to be used in conjunction with clinical history, signs and symptoms, and results of other diagnostic tests, including culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. (iv) A detailed explanation of the interpretation of test results for clinical specimens and acceptance criteria for any quality control testing. (v) A limiting statement that negative results for microorganisms do not preclude the possibility of infection, and should not be used as the sole basis for diagnosis, treatment, or other patient management decisions. (vi) If applicable, a limiting statement that detected microorganisms may not be the cause of lower respiratory tract infection and may be indicative of colonizing or normal respiratory flora. (vii) If applicable, a limiting statement that detection of resistance markers cannot be definitively linked to specific microorganisms and that the source of a detected resistance marker may be an organism not detected by the assay, including colonizing flora. (viii) If applicable, a limiting statement that detection of antibiotic resistance markers may not correlate with phenotypic gene expression. (3) The 21 CFR 809.10(b) labeling and any test report generated by the device must include a limiting statement that negative results for resistance markers do not indicate susceptibility of detected microorganisms. (4) Design verification and validation must include: (i) Performance characteristics from clinical studies that include prospective (sequential) samples and, if appropriate, additional characterized samples. The study must be performed on a study population consistent with the intended use population and compare the device performance to results obtained from an FDA accepted reference method and/or FDA accepted comparator method, as appropriate. Results from the clinical studies must include the clinical study protocol (including predefined statistical analysis plan, if applicable), clinical study report, and results of all statistical analyses. (ii) A detailed device description including the following: (A) Thorough description of the assay methodology including, but not limited to, primer/probe sequences, primer/probe design, and rationale for target sequence selection, as applicable. (B) Algorithm used to generate a final result from raw data (e.g., how raw signals are converted into a reported result). (iii) A detailed description of device software, including, but not limited to, validation activities and outcomes. (iv) As part of the risk management activities, an appropriate end user device training program must be offered as an effort to mitigate the risk of failure from user error. [84 FR 9228, Mar. 14, 2019]
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 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.
The panel is a multiplexed nucleic acid test intended for use with systems for the simultaneous detection and identification of multiple respiratory viral and bacterial nucleic acids, as well as select antimicrobial resistance genes, in sputum-like specimens (induced or expectorated sputum, or endotracheal aspirates) or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)-like specimens (BAL or mini-BAL) obtained from individuals suspected of lower respiratory tract infection. [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 QDP 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.
