Study Data Standardization Plan Kick0ff Meeting 23 July 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Principal Statistical Programmer Accovion GmbH, Marburg, Germany
Advertisements

Experience and process for collaborating with an outsource company to create the define file. Ganesh Sankaran TAKE Solutions.
Participation Requirements for a Patient Representative.
The Importance of CDASH
SUCCESSFULLY EMBRACING CHANGES TO CDISC STANDARDS Dr. Elke Sennewald Director, Biometrics Operating Standards Group.
TITLE OF PROJECT PROPOSAL NUMBER Principal Investigator PI’s Organization ESTCP Selection Meeting DATE.
August 21,  Subgroup Organization Alignment  Proposal for Target Deliverables  CBER checklist  Additional Suggestions  Next Steps  Questions.
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.
Food and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research The Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Web Seminar Series presents:
Requirements for Standardized Study Data: Update on Guidance Ron Fitzmartin, PhD, MBA Data Standards Program Office of Strategic Programs Center for Drug.
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.
Biostatistics Analysis Center Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Minimum Documentation Requirements.
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.
HL7 Study Data Standards Project Crystal Allard CDER Office of Computational Science Food and Drug Administration February 13,
United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) Revised documents and procedures for assessing Member States’ implementation efforts.
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.
Strategies for Preparing for Meetings with FDA Susan M. Mondabaugh, Ph.D. Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Hurley Consulting Associates Ltd. Chatham,
SDTM Validation Delaware Valley CDISC user network Ketan Durve Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Reasearch and Development May 11 th 2009.
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
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
WG4: Data Guide/Data Description Work Group Meeting August 29, 2012.
1. © CDISC 2014 SDS ELT Rules Team Update Stetson Line 08 Dec
Study Data Reviewer’s Guide (SDRG): Recommendations on Use of the Clinical SDRG Model for Nonclinical Data Submission Nonclinical Working Group, SDRG Project.
1 SDS&ADaM sub-team 28 January 2004 Mineko FUJIMOTO Rieko ICHIHARA Kazue TOMITA Hiroaki MATSUDA.
CDISC©2009 February CDISC INTRAchange Carey Smoak Device Team Leader Li Zheng Submission Data Standards Team Member Thurday, April 2, 2009.
WG4: Standards Implementation Issues with CDISC Data Models Team Update: June 18, 2012.
CDISC User Group in Deutschland/Japan Hajime Shimizu (nickname: Akiba) CDISC Japan User Group introduction to team activity.
FDA ICH Public Meeting 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD May 8, :30 am -- 2:00 pm Implementation of the CTD Update-Issues-Next Steps Justina A. Molzon,
Emerging Technologies Semantic Web and Data Integration This meeting will start at 5 min past the hour As a reminder, please place your phone on mute unless.
Public Health Reporting Initiative November 14, 2012 Dial in: ; #
Updates on CDISC Activities
German Speaking CDISC UG, 22-Sep CDER Common Data Standards Issues Document Motivation CDISC submissions received varied more than expected Contents.
1. © CDISC 2014 Stetson Line, Team Lead CDISC Intrachange SDTM Rules Sub-team Update.
DIA Electronic Submissions Meeting Olga Alfieri 26 April 2016
How good is your SEND data? Timothy Kropp FDA/CDER/OCS 1.
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.
CDISC SDS Oncology Domains: An Orientation to Aid Review & Feedback Barrie Nelson CDISC SDS Oncology Sub Team Lead
© Copyright IBM 2007DIA ERS SIAC Presentation, January 2008 The HL7 RPS and SPL Standards - A High Level View Terry Hardin Sr. IT Architect Emerging Software.
Basel, September 2, 2008 Work Stream Summary define.xml/eSubmissions.
Dave Iberson-Hurst CDISC VP Technical Strategy
Monika Kawohl Statistical Programming Accovion GmbH
Pre-Investigational New Drug (pre-IND) Meeting with FDA
CTD Content Management
define.xml/eSubmissions
Experience and process for collaborating with an outsource company to create the define file. Ganesh Sankaran TAKE Solutions.
Accelerate define.xml using defineReady - Saravanan June 17, 2015.
Monika Kawohl Statistical Programming Accovion GmbH
Maintaining the Clinical & Nonclinical Study Data Reviewer’s Guides
Traceability between SDTM and ADaM converted analysis datasets
BR&R Biomedical Research & Regulation
Freundschaft Konferenz
What can we do? Answers from CSS Nonclinical Topics WG
SDTM and ADaM Implementation FAQ
Study Data Reviewers’ Guide – Nonclinical Assessment
WG4: Data Guide/Data Description Work Group Meeting
SDTM and ADaM Implementation FAQ
Monika Kawohl Statistical Programming Accovion GmbH
GRANT WRITING WORKSHOP
Nonclinical SDRG Goals of the project Project status: Ambition:
Data Submissions Douglas Warfield, Ph.D. Technical Lead, eData Team
Presentation transcript:

Study Data Standardization Plan Kick0ff Meeting 23 July 2014

Agenda Introductions PhUSE Team Best Practice Guideline Overall objective – development of template for Study Data Standardization Plan Relationship to Study Data Reviewers Guide? Development of work plan – Can we break down the work elements? Next Actions/Plan for follow-up meetings

Team Members NameOrganization Bezek, CathyAstellas Pharma Blauwet, Mary BethAstellas Pharma Brennan, MichaelJanssen Chang, TonyAmgen Dwyer, KateFDA Fenaughty, Christine CPfizer Hientzsch, BeateAccovion GmbH Johnson, JamesSummit Analytical Kaufman, LauraPDS, Inc. Kelly, KristinAccenture Kenny, SusanMaximum Likelihood, Inc. Lozano, JaneLilly Naro, NickPfizer Russotto, AnneCelgene Ryley, PamTakeda Simonsson, LindaI-MInd

STUDY DATA TECHNICAL CONFORMANCE GUIDE (February 2014) For clinical and nonclinical studies, sponsors should include a plan (e.g., in the IND) describing the submission of standardized study data to FDA. The Study Data Standardization Plan (Standardization Plan) assists FDA in identifying potential data standardization issues early in the development program. Sponsors may also initiate discussions at the pre-IND stage. For INDs, the Standardization Plan should be located in the general investigational plan. The Standardization Plan should include, but is not limited to the following: 1. List of the planned studies 2. Type of studies (e.g., phase I, II or III) 3. Study designs (e.g., parallel, cross-over, open-label extension) 4. Planned data standards, formats, and terminologies and their versions 5. List of and justification for studies that may not conform to the standards

STUDY DATA TECHNICAL CONFORMANCE GUIDE (February 2014 ) The Standardization Plan should be updated in subsequent communications with FDA as the development program expands and additional studies are planned. The cover letter accompanying a study data submission should describe the extent to which the Standardization Plan was executed.

Additional Topics – Plan for managing pooled analyses – Plan for conversion of legacy study datasets – Relevant controlled terminologies (e.g., MedDRA) and version – by study – Any need for a controlled terminology not addressed by current standards – Targeted questions for FDA – Running summary of discussions and resolutions, meeting minutes

Study Data Reviewer’s Guide(SDRG) “The SDRG is intended to describe SDTM data submitted for an individual study in Module 5 clinical section of eCTD.” “The SDRG purposefully duplicates information found in other submission documentation (e.g., protocol, clinical study report, define.xml) in order to provide FDA Reviewers with a single point of orientation.”

Study Data Reviewer’s Guide(SDRG) Introduction provides an overview and inventory of standards used on the study. Protocol Description provides a brief orientation to the study and, if necessary, additional context for trial design datasets. Subject Data Descriptions section provides additional context for subject-level SDTM domains that are not adequately documented in define.xml or the SDTM implementation guide The Subject Data Descriptions also describes sponsor-specific annotated CRF conventions as needed Data Conformance Summary documents the validation inputs used to evaluate SDTM conformance and summarizes conformance findings.

Example: SDRG Descriptions of Standards and Controlled Terminology Version SDTMSDTM v1.2/SDTM IG v3.1.2 including Amendment 1. Oncology Domains, TU, TR, and RS, have been submitted according to the version released for public comment dated 30-Jan-2011 Controlled TerminologyCDISC Controlled Terminology dated 22- Jul-2011 has been used for all domains except for LB. LBTESTCD and LBTEST use terminology from the 29-Jun-2012 CDISC Controlled Terminology package. Data Definitionsdefine.xml v1.0 Medications DictionaryProprietary sponsor medication dictionary Medical Events DictionaryMedDRA v14.1

Proposed Sub-Teams List of studies – Non-clinical – Clinical Plan for managing pooled analyses Relevant controlled terminologies (e.g., Medra) and version – by study Any need for a controlled terminology not addressed by current standards Targeted questions for FDA Running summary of discussions and resolutions, meeting minutes Completion Guidelines? Samples

Some Points to Consider When should the Study Data Standardization Plan be drafted (review/approval) Who should coordinate and manage the Study Data Standardization Plan When should the Study Data Standardization Plan be submitted What triggers an updated submission of the Study Data Standardization Plan? How does the Study Data Standardization Plan relate to the drafting/approval of Study Data Reviewers Guide?

List of the planned studies Can this list be created/updated once and anticipate use in other contexts – List of studies in IB/Annual Reports – List of studies in NDA/BLA Word Template versus structured content?

Next Steps Draft Project Description – Review by PhUSE Steering Committee – Post to Wiki Meeting Frequency? – Propose once a month – Checking (call/ ) every two weeks with sub-teams Communication within team? Target deadline? – Sub-team commitement – Project Plan – next month

Backup

eCTD Module 5 Table of Studies

Sample Non-Clinical Table Formats (IB)