Un esperienza di Data Submission con FDA usando gli Standard CDISC

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dimitri Kutsenko (Entimo AG)
Advertisements

CDISC based eSubmission Key Points of the CDISC SDTM/ADaM Pilot
Principal Statistical Programmer Accovion GmbH, Marburg, Germany
ADaM Implementation Guide: It’s Almost Here. Are You Ready?
FDA/Industry Statistics Workshop - 29 September 2006
Experience and process for collaborating with an outsource company to create the define file. Ganesh Sankaran TAKE Solutions.
The Importance of CDASH
Quick tour of CDISC’s ADaM standard
An Introduction to Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonization (CDASH) Loryn Thorburn © 2010 PAREXEL International | Confidential.
Study Data Standardization Plan Kick0ff Meeting 23 July 2014.
Life Sciences Accelerated R&D Services The Science of Getting Products to Patients Faster Study Data Standardization Plan Use Case Experience Dave Izard.
© 2008 Octagon Research Solutions, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 1 PhUSE 2010 Berlin * Accessing the metadata from the define.xml using XSLT transformations.
Moving from US FDA focus to Global focus – Importance of Standards Margaret Minkwitz Sept 16, 2010.
Bay Area CDISC Implmentation Network – July 13, 2009 How a New CDISC Domain is Made Carey Smoak Team Leader CDISC SDTM Device Team.
Monika Kawohl Statistical Programming Accovion GmbH Tutorial: define.xml.
23 August 2015Michael Knoessl1 PhUSE 2008 Manchester / Michael Knoessl Implementing CDISC at Boehringer Ingelheim.
Dominic, age 8, living with epilepsy SDTM Implementation Guide : Clear as Mud Strategies for Developing Consistent Company Standards PhUSE 2011 – CD02.
JumpStart the Regulatory Review: Applying the Right Tools at the Right Time to the Right Audience Lilliam Rosario, Ph.D. Director Office of Computational.
CBER CDISC Test Submission Dieter Boß CSL Behring, Marburg 20-Mar-2012.
© 2011 Octagon Research Solutions, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this document are confidential and proprietary to Octagon Research Solutions,
PhUSE SDE, 28-May A SAS based Solution for define.xml Monika Kawohl Statistical Programming Accovion.
© 2008 Octagon Research Solutions, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 2 Octagon Research Solutions, Inc. Leading the Electronic Transformation of Clinical R&D ©
Overview and feed-back from CDISC European Interchange 2008 (From April 21 st to 25 th, COPENHAGEN) Groupe des Utilisateurs Francophones de CDISC Bagneux.
Confidential - Property of Navitas Accelerate define.xml using defineReady - Saravanan June 17, 2015.
Second Annual Japan CDISC Group (JCG) Meeting 28 January 2004 Julie Evans Director, Technical Services.
SDTM Validation Delaware Valley CDISC user network Ketan Durve Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Reasearch and Development May 11 th 2009.
Alun, living with Parkinson’s disease QS Domain: Challenges and Pitfalls Knut Müller UCB Biosciences Conference 2011 October 9th - 12th, Brighton UK.
CONFIDENTIAL The Ultimate Integration Challenge Jennifer Chin, Covance Hester Schoeman, Covance PhUSE Conference Berlin 2010 Paper DH06.
RCRIM Projects: Protocol Representation and CDISC Message(s) January 2007.
Implementation of CDISC Standards at Nycomed PhUSE, Basel (19-21 October 2009) Nycomed GmbH, Dr. B Traub CDISC Implementation at Nycomed.
Dave Iberson-Hurst CDISC VP Technical Strategy
Research based, people driven CDISC ADaM Datasets - from SDTM to submission CDISC Experience Exchange and ADaM Workshop 15 Dec 2008 Zoë Williams, LEO Pharma.
WG4: Standards Implementation Issues with CDISC Data Models Data Guide Subteam Summary of Review of Proposed Templates and Next Steps July 23, 2012.
Optimizing Data Standards Working Group Meeting Summary
Study Data Reviewer’s Guide (SDRG): Recommendations on Use of the Clinical SDRG Model for Nonclinical Data Submission Nonclinical Working Group, SDRG Project.
Research Study Data Standards Standards for research study data for submission to regulatory authorities Standard development divided into three parts:
April ADaM define.xml - Metadata Design Analysis Results Metadata List of key analyses (as defined in change order) Analysis Results Metadata per.
How Good is Your SDTM Data? Perspectives from JumpStart Mary Doi, M.D., M.S. Office of Computational Science Office of Translational Sciences Center for.
ADaM or SDTM? A Comparison of Pooling Strategies for Integrated Analyses in the Age of CDISC Joerg Guettner, Lead Statistical Analyst, Bayer Pharma, Wuppertal,
Submission Standards: The Big Picture Gary G. Walker Associate Director, Programming Standards, Global Data Solutions, Global Data Management.
End-to-End With Standards – A Regulatory Reviewer’s Perspective
A need for prescriptive define.xml
Dave Iberson-Hurst CDISC VP Technical Strategy
« Lost » in Traceability, from SDTM to ADaM …
Monika Kawohl Statistical Programming Accovion GmbH
Traceability Look for the source of your analysis results
The Information Professional’s Role in Product Safety
Experience and process for collaborating with an outsource company to create the define file. Ganesh Sankaran TAKE Solutions.
December 16th TC CDISC Italian UN.
Accelerate define.xml using defineReady - Saravanan June 17, 2015.
Monika Kawohl Statistical Programming Accovion GmbH
Why use CDISC for trials not submitted to regulators?
Traceability between SDTM and ADaM converted analysis datasets
Quality Control of SDTM Domain Mappings from Electronic Case Report Forms Noga Meiry Lewin, MS Senior SAS Programmer The Emmes Corporation Target: 38th.
In-Depth Report from Optimizing Data Standards Working Group
What can we do? Answers from CSS Nonclinical Topics WG
SDTM and ADaM Implementation FAQ
Introduction to IPUMS NYTS and IPUMS YRBSS
CDISC UK Network Jun-16 – Welwyn
To change this title, go to Notes Master
Visualizing Subject Level Data in Clinical Trial Data
SDTM and ADaM Implementation FAQ
Introduction to IPUMS NYTS and IPUMS YRBSS
Presenters Emily Woolley
Monika Kawohl Statistical Programming Accovion GmbH
An FDA Statistician’s Perspective on Standardized Data Sets
Data Submissions Douglas Warfield, Ph.D. Technical Lead, eData Team
PhUSE: Pooling WHODrug B3 Format
PhilaSUG Spring Meeting June 05, 2019
Jared Christensen and Steve Gilbert Pfizer, Inc July 29th, 2019
Presentation transcript:

Un esperienza di Data Submission con FDA usando gli Standard CDISC Italian CDISC User Network Milano – 21/10/2016 Angelo Tinazzi Cytel Inc. Geneva – Switzerland angelo.tinazzi@cytel.com

Introduction (1) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions

Introduction (2) How? FDA Study Data Techinical Conformance Guide My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions How? http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DataStandards/StudyDataStandards FDA Study Data Techinical Conformance Guide FDA Standards Catalog Exchange Format i.e. SAS XPT, XML, PDF, ASCII Regulatory Applications Electronic Common Techinical Document (eCTD) Data Exchange Format SDTM, ADAM (Clinical Study Datasets) Define.xml (Study Data Definition) Terminology Standards CDISC Controlled Terminology MedDRA, WHO-DD SDTM Metadata Submission Guidelines

My recent submission (1) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Indication: Pain in a « specific » indication Scope of Work: FDA NDA submission ISS: Integrated Summary of Safety ISE: Integrated Summary of Efficacy Nr. Of studies: 6 3 only ISE: 1018 Randomized patients 6 ISS: 1155 Randomized patients Screening Failure Patients not included in the SDTM packages

My recent submission (2) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Standards Used SDTM Ig 3.2 + SDRG (Study Data Reviewer Guide) as per latest PhUSE template ADAM Ig 1.1 + ADAM Draft for ADSL Integration Define.xml 2.0 (without results metadata) + ADRG (Analysis Data Reviewer Guide) as per latest PhUSE template CDISC Controlled Terminology december 2015 MedDRA 18.0

The Data Package (1) eCTD Module 5 : Clinical Study Reports Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions eCTD Module 5 : Clinical Study Reports One folder per study, plus potentially one for ISS and for ISE Standard Folders ADaM Analysis Datasets and Programs Non ADaM Analysis Datasets and Programs Other datasets i.e. look-up datasets Subject Profiles Non-SDTM Tabulation Datasets SDTM Tabulation Datasets ISS/ISE Pooling Folders Electronic Commot Technical Document Specifications - http://estri.ich.org/eCTD/eCTD_Specification_v3_2_2.pdf FDA Data Technical Conformance Guide - http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/DataStandards/StudyDataStandards/UCM384744.pdf

The Data Package (2) Clinical Study Datasets Study Data Definition Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Clinical Study Datasets Study Data Definition Supportive Documents to Study Data Definition Data Validation Reports

The Data Package (3) ../m5/datasets/001/tabulations/sdtm Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions ../m5/datasets/001/tabulations/sdtm

The Data Package (4) ../m5/datasets/ISE/analysis/adam/datasets Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions ../m5/datasets/ISE/analysis/adam/datasets ../m5/datasets/ISS/analysis/misc Lookup datasets used in the creation of some ADAM datasets

The Data Package (5) Submitting Programs FDA Requirements Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Submitting Programs FDA Requirements

The Data Package (6) ../m5/datasets/ISE/analysis/adam/programs Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions ../m5/datasets/ISE/analysis/adam/programs ADaM Programs Tables Programs

Interaction with FDA Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Sponsors or Applicants http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/ucm153222.pdf

Interaction with FDA – Pre (1) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Type of Meetings Type A: a meeting needed to help an otherwise stalled product development program proceed i.e. meetings for discussing clinical holds Type B: pre-IND, end-of-Ph-I, pre-NDA Type C: any non Type A / Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product

Interaction with FDA – Pre (1) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Pre-NDA Type C Meeting Seek for agreement on strategy for clinical efficacy and safety in support to the registration i.e. type of trials i.e. efficacy endpoints i.e. pooling strategy ISS and ISE SAP feedback

Interaction with FDA – Pre (3) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Pre-NDA Type C Meeting (cont) Does the FDA concur with the Sponsor’s plan regarding the composition and format of the clinical data submission for the XXXXXXX eCTD NDA? Do not use «Open Question», always propose solutions and ask for confirmation

Interaction with FDA – Pre (4) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Pre-NDA Type B Meeting – Data Submission Strategy Additional feedback

Interaction with FDA – Pre (5) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Pre-NDA Type B Meeting – Data Submission Strategy Additional feedback

Interaction with FDA – Pre (6) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Pre-NDA Type B Meeting – Data Submission Strategy Additional feedback

Interaction with FDA – Pre (7) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Pre-NDA Type B Meeting - By site investigator listings for investigator sites audit purpose

Interaction with FDA – Pre (8) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Pre-NDA Type B Meeting - By site investigator listings for investigator sites audit purpose

Interaction with FDA – Pre (9) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Pre-NDA Type B Meeting – Data Submission Strategy Additional Details/requirements Lab with Normal Ranges Use WHO drug dictionary Unique coding / nomenclature for Placebo across studies Common variables across datasets Case summaries and CRF for all SAEs, deaths and Discontinuation due to Adverse Events

Interaction with FDA – Pre (10) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Pre-NDA Type B Meeting – Data Submission Strategy Additional Details/requirements (cont) Site Level Dataset (optional for now!) For Pivotal studies: Number of subjects screened for each site by site Number of subjects randomized for each site by site, if appropriate Number of subjects treated who prematurely discontinued for each site by site

Interaction with FDA – During (1) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Data Submision Testing with one Study SDTM Sent to edata@fda.hhs.gov Late Feedback!!!! They ‘simply’ run the Pinnacle21 Community v2.2.0 tool and they did not look at the Reviewer Guide Some good suggestions on define.xml Invalid Codelist YN applied to flags…should be only Y Supplemental Qualifier and Value Level Metadata (VLM) Origin Mismatch When origins for all VLM items within one variable are not the same an Origin for Variable should have a missing value with all details provided on VLM

Interaction with FDA – During (2) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Some good suggestions on SDTM Content RACE=‘OTHER’ in DM domain assessment « CAMBODIAN » should be represented as « ASIAN » « NATIVE CANADIAN » should be represented as « AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE » « MIDDLE EAST » and « PALESTINIAN » should be represented as « WHITE » Ref. FDA Guidance on Collection of Race and Ethnicity Data in Clinical Trials http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidan ces/ucm126396.pdf NO ACTION Sponsor decision and also RACE issue controversial  But anyhow OTHER Races correctly grouped in pooled ISS/ISE ADaM for subgroup analyses White Asian Non White / Non Asian

SDTM Mapping – Gap Analysis (1) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Initiated prior to commencing migration activities How to perform gap analysis Itemization and evaluation of files to support migration activities Document inventory Study documents CDISC Standards Company Standards / Company Implementation Guidance Validate sample CRF fields versus source data External data requirements e.g. central labs or local labs Comparison of protocol amendments/versions against CRF versions Clarifies the scope and challenges of migration activities Identifies differences in data collection formats

SDTM Mapping – Gap Analysis (2) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Documents and Data Inventory

SDTM Mapping (1) Relatively Easy to handle A lot of Questionnaires Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Relatively Easy to handle A lot of Questionnaires Pain Assessment WOMAC GIC SF-12 KOOS  Most of them are not covered by any CDISC standards Easy treatment exposure - one single day injection

SDTM Mapping (2) Be Harmonized visit/visitnum Cosistent terminology Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Be Harmonized visit/visitnum Cosistent terminology Consistent QNAM in SUPPxx

Complex to integrate in ADaM SDTM Mapping (3) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Medical History Several diagnosis related information and prior procedures / interventions Mapped to MH, SUPPMH and PR Rescue Medications Daily collected in the IVRS – Sponsor Domain Concomitant medications in the CRF form – Standard SDTM CM domain Complex to integrate in ADaM

SDTM Mapping (3) Adverse Events Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Adverse Events Issue with seriousness criteria not properly collected in old studies  FDA wants that  re-collected retrospectively from safety surveillance dept and integrated in SDTM Treatment Emergent flag in SUPPAE. This is something that is usually done during the analysis according to SAP  FDA wants that  implemented same derivation in SDTM and ADaM

SDTM Mapping (4) Study Population i.e. per protocol Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Study Population i.e. per protocol Not fully derivable Peer review process Integrated from xls files into SUPPDM (possible with 3.2) and DV SDTM IG 3.3 Draft Study Population not in SDTM, only in ADaM!!!

SDTM Mapping (5) Unscheduled VISITNUM and EPOCH derivation Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Unscheduled VISITNUM and EPOCH derivation IG gives some suggestion to when unplanned visits to mantain chronology PhUSE CSS provides some more detailed approaches for VISTNUM and EPOCH derivation  Be aware deriving VISITNUM for unscheduled visits can be very time-consuming http://www.phusewiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=VISITNUM_and_EPOCH

SDTM Mapping – CDISC Traceability Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions 3 studies migrated prospectively perfect CDISC traceaility SDTM  ADaM  Analysis Outputs  CSR 3 studies migrated post CSR  traceability issue Traceability Issues mentioned in FDA Study Data Technical Conformance Guidance Original CSR based on legacy raw and analysis data with post SDTM conversion for ISS/ISE pooling

Done in ADaM from single study SDTMs Pooling for ISS and ISE Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Done in ADaM from single study SDTMs  Pooled SDTM done only for techinical reasons but not submitted Adverse Events Medical Coding Upversioning Required  Ref FDA Study Data Technical Conformance Guidance Differences with single study reports where legacy data were used Use of CDISC Controlled Terminology Different Distribution of AE SOC/PT Change in key efficacy windowing algorithm

Pooling Issues – Difference with CSR (1) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Be Transparent make use of Analysis Data Reviewer Guide http://www.phusewiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Analysis_Data_Reviewer%27s_Guide http://www.phusewiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Study_Data_Reviewer%27s_Guide

Pooling Issues – Difference with CSR (3) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Different MedDRA Version

Pooling Issues – Difference with CSR (3) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Different MedDRA Version Bridge Document provided in appendinx

Pooling Issues – Difference with CSR (4) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Different visits windowing in the ISE

Performed with Pinnacle 21 Several ‘false’ positives  RG Validation Issues (1) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Performed with Pinnacle 21 Several ‘false’ positives  RG Validation checks for BDS for non-BDS ADaM Extensible Controlled Terminology

eCTD Limitation to 1000 characters length Validation Issues (2) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions eCTD Limitation to 1000 characters length Additional Documents provided define.xml

Data-issues of locked studies Validation Issues (3) Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions Data-issues of locked studies Documented in the Reviewer Guide « Hard-coding » agreed with sponsor when correction is obvious i.e. start>end but clearly wrong year or confirmation obtained from source document without unlocking data (!! « A Note to File » is needed in the programming documentation and mentioned in the RG)

Conclusions (for sponsor) Adopt CDISC ASAP, starting with CDASH Introduction My Recent Submission The Data Package Interaction with FDA SDTM Pooling Validation Conclusions (for sponsor) Adopt CDISC ASAP, starting with CDASH ‘Lost in Traceability’ has a cost!!! (for sponsor) Vendor Surveillance, make sure they do it right and consistently Plan for the unexpected Reviewer Preferences A lot effort in documenting Before Transformation After Transformation

References «Lost» in Traceability, from SDTM to ADaM …. finally Analysis Results Metadata» A. Tinazzi, CDISC Europe Interchange 2016 «Looking for SDTM migration specialist » A. Tinazzi, PhUSE 2014 «Interpreting CDISC ADaM IG through Users Interpretation» A. Tinazzi, PhUSE 2013 «The do’s and don’ts of Data Submission» A. Tinazzi, BIAS 2013 «Traceability: Plan Ahead for Future Needs» – S. Minjoe, T. Petrowitsch, PhUSE 2014 «Traceability and Data Flow PhUSE-CSS WG» http://www.phusewiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Traceability_and_Data_Flow «Summary of Traceability References PhUSE-CSS Wiki Page» http://www.phusewiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Summary_of_Traceability_References

Cytel, Shaping the Future of Drug Development Angelo Tinazzi – Director – Statistical Programming CDISC E3C Member angelo.tinazzi@cytel.com Cytel, Shaping the Future of Drug Development