How to process data from clinical trials and their open label extensions PhUSE, Berlin, October 2010 Thomas Grupe and Stephanie Bartsch, Clinical Data.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Study conduct in a global integrated SAS Environment PhUSE, Berlin, October 2010 Martin Probach, Global Clinical Data Center Bayer Vital GmbH, Leverkusen.
Advertisements

1 US Investigator Meeting DIAS-4, Chicago, July 2011 Good Clinical Practice (GCP) for Investigators and the Research Team.
Tips to a Successful Monitoring Visit
Presentation of BE data in a product dossier Drs. Jan Welink Training workshop: Training of BE assessors, Kiev, October 2009.
SUCCESSFULLY EMBRACING CHANGES TO CDISC STANDARDS Dr. Elke Sennewald Director, Biometrics Operating Standards Group.
Quick tour of CDISC’s ADaM standard
Kendle Implementation of Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonization Dr Elke Sennewald Kendle 9th German CDISC User Group Meeting Berlin, 28 September.
Data Migration- Two Separate Databases Michael Odawa.
Standardisation of Trial Design Definitions in CDW at Novo Nordisk
John Porter Why this presentation? The forms data take for analysis are often different than the forms data take for archival storage Spreadsheets are.
NagyResearch-MEACRO is a leading multi-country CRO in the MENA region, with over 14 years of experience in Data Management and 5.
Life Sciences Accelerated R&D Services The Science of Getting Products to Patients Faster Study Data Standardization Plan Use Case Experience Dave Izard.
Using EDC-Rave to Conduct Clinical Trials at Genentech
Survey Methodology Survey data entry/cleaning EPID 626 Lecture 10.
Clinical Data Management is involved in all aspects of processing the clinical data, working with a range of computer applications, database systems.
REDCap Overview Institute for Clinical and Translational Science Heath Davis Fred McClurg Brian Finley.
Page 1 ISMT E-120 Desktop Applications for Managers Introduction to Microsoft Access.
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,
ArtClinica Address: 1175 Marlkress Rd, #2632, Cherry Hill, NJ 08034, USAPhone: Fax: ARTClinica.
CTRP User Call April 3, 2013 Gene Kraus CTRP Program Director.
Implementation of a harmonized, report-friendly SDTM and ADaM Data Flow General by Marie-Rose Peltier Experience by Marie Fournier Groupe Utilisateurs.
ODM-SDTM mapping Nicolas de Saint Jorre, XClinical June 20, 2008 French CDISC User Group Bagneux/Paris © CDISC & XClinical, 2008.
CDASh : A Primer and Guide to Implementation
CTEP, NCI Adverse Event Reporting Programmatic & Workflow Processes Prepared by: Ann Setser May 24, 2010.
Electronic Transfer of Serious Adverse Events to Global Pharmacovigilance PhUSE, Berlin, October 2010 Eva Bervar Bayer Vital GmbH, Leverkusen.
A monitoring data summary tool Alan Williams Alan Williams 2008 GIS / Data Management Conference March 31 – April 3, 2008 Fort Collins, CO.
Joint Research & Enterprise Office Training The team, the procedures, the monitor and the Sponsor Lucy H H Parker Clinical Research Governance Manager.
MODULE B: Case Report Forms Jane Fendl & Denise Thwing April 7, Version: Final 07-Apr-2010.
Data Management in Clinical Trials. E-CRF design / P-CRF Data entryData validation Data import Clinical coding DATABASE CLOSURE Database Closure Documents.
September, 2010 at SMMU, Shanghai
SMART Study Closeout Washington ICC Meeting 03 June 2007.
Data Cleaning. Understanding Discrepancies Discrepancies are “Inconsistencies” found in the clinical trial data which need to be corrected as per the.
SAE data entry: Clinical versus Pharmacovigilance standards Daniel Becker Solvay Pharmaceuticals Hannover, Germany T:
Data Validation OPEN Development Conference September 19, 2008 Sushmita De Systems Analyst.
Thomas Klement, XBRL Germany, Towards More Semantic Accuracy in the Processing of XBRL Facts 5th October 2006, 1st Technical Meeting.
Investigator’s Meeting
REDCap Overview Institute for Clinical and Translational Science Heath Davis Fred McClurg Brian Finley.
Using EDC-Rave to Conduct Clinical Trials at Genentech Susanne Prokscha Principal CDM PTM Process Analyst February 2012.
Mette Krag, MD, coordinating investigator
Methods and Techniques for Integration of Small Datasets September 13-14, 2005 St. Louis, Missouri Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban.
THRio Database Linkage and THRio Database Issues.
24 Nov 2007Data Management and Exploratory Data Analysis 1 Yongyuth Chaiyapong Ph.D. (Mathematical Statistics) Department of Statistics Faculty of Science.
Clinetics Data Merge Overview Andreas Schwarzer and Ralf Schaefer-Pregl – Clinical Data Center, Bayer Vital GmbH, Leverkusen.
Public Libraries Survey Data File Overview. What We’ll Talk About PLS: Public Libraries Survey State level data Public library data (Administrative Entities)
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Ensuring Full Access to Federal Cost Shared Conservation Practices W. Dean Hively, Ph.D. U.S. Geological.
Core Topic 11 Documentation, record keeping and reporting.
1 Information Retrieval and Use De-normalisation and Distributed database systems Geoff Leese September 2008, revised October 2009.
May 2007 CTMS / Imaging Interoperability Scenarios March 2009.
Medidata Rave Start-Up Information
Electronic Data Capture: Introducing Medidata Rave
ADaM or SDTM? A Comparison of Pooling Strategies for Integrated Analyses in the Age of CDISC Joerg Guettner, Lead Statistical Analyst, Bayer Pharma, Wuppertal,
Data Flow in Clinical Trials and Systems
Submission Standards: The Big Picture Gary G. Walker Associate Director, Programming Standards, Global Data Solutions, Global Data Management.
Design of Case Report Forms
A consolidated review of multiple analyses using JMP Clinical
The Role and Responsibilities of the Clinical Research Coordinator
Søren Marker Jensen, MD, coordinating investigator
Clinicaltrials.gov Update
EDC at Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center: Implementing InForm to Support a Bone Marrow Transplant Program Douglas J. Buell Project Specialist Dana-Farber.
Can Statistical monitoring really improve data integrity?
EHR Integration Making Research Efficient
CLINICAL DATA MANAGEMENT
In-Depth Report from Optimizing Data Standards Working Group
Larix – a full service Clinical Research Organisation
Informed Consent (SBER)
E-CRF Overview Oracle® Clinical Remote Data Capture Training (Version 4.6 HTML) e-CRF Completion John McDonach Manager CDM, PPD.
Discrepancy Management
Serious Adverse Event Reconciliation
Presentation transcript:

How to process data from clinical trials and their open label extensions PhUSE, Berlin, October 2010 Thomas Grupe and Stephanie Bartsch, Clinical Data Center Bayer Vital GmbH, Leverkusen

GCO Data Management 19Oct20102 Agenda Introduction The “EDC Approach“ – Pros and Cons The “SAS Approach“ – Pros and Cons Implementation of the “SAS Approach“ -Databases and Split of Study Datasets -Further Implementation -Problems and Solutions Summary

GCO Data Management 19Oct20103 Introduction Definition: open label extension -clinical trial which follows double-blind, controlled trial crucial for submission Different kinds of study designs leading to open label extensions -one study protocol for both, pivotal and extension -two study protocols – one for each (our current scenario) -different study protocols for several double-blind, controlled trials, one open label extension as pool study

GCO Data Management 19Oct20104 Introduction Pre-conditions: -Electronic Data Capture (EDC) as preferred data collection method -Transfer of data to clinical database using SAS -To be considered: Set-up of EDC System/EDC Database Set-up of SAS databases (clinical databases)  Two main options for set-up -The “EDC Approach“ and the “SAS Approach“

GCO Data Management 19Oct20105 Introduction

GCO Data Management 19Oct20106 EDC Approach – Pros EDC Approach: Set-up of double-blind, controlled trial and its open label extension as two separate studies in the EDC system Pros -Clear differentiation of the two studies -Easy database closure/freeze -Other systems access the data in EDC system as usual

GCO Data Management 19Oct20107 EDC Approach – Cons Cons -Transfer of data from pivotal trial to extension eCRF (electronic Case Report Form) e.g. demographics, ongoing adverse events, ongoing concomitant medication -Reconciliation of data at site, by monitors and in data management after transfer -Ongoing reconciliation of transfer (Queries) -Problems with duplicate AEs (if studies pooled)

GCO Data Management 19Oct20108 SAS Approach – Pros SAS Approach: Set-up of double-blind, controlled trial and its open label extension as one study in the EDC system and split with SAS Pros -Much easier to use for sites and monitors -No data transfer -No reconciliation -More flexible in generating databases (pivotal only, combined database, or extension only)

GCO Data Management 19Oct20109 SAS Approach – Cons Cons -Clear differentiation of both trials lost -status of some ongoing AEs/Con Meds at end of pivotal trial might be lost (if patient-wise closure of eCRF not possible)  dependent on capabilities of used EDC system

GCO Data Management 19Oct SAS Approach – Cons (cont.)

GCO Data Management 19Oct SAS Approach – Cons (cont.) Cons (cont.) -Connection of extension to other systems (applicable for extensions with separate protocol) -DB closure of main phase/pivotal trial  dependent on capabilities of used EDC system

GCO Data Management 19Oct Databases Decision to use SAS approach 2 databases required by statistics: -Pivotal trial database only -Combined database with pivotal and extension trial Database including only extension trial requested by Data Management function

GCO Data Management 19Oct Split of Datasets 3 kinds of datasets with different “splitting rules”: -Visit independent datasets like Adverse Events -Visit dependent datasets like ECG -Datasets without visits or start dates e.g. Demography

GCO Data Management 19Oct Visit Independent Datasets Cut-off point for visit independent forms is the date of first study medication intake of extension trial Events occurring on cut-off date are split in the context of start time of study medication and event Start information missing: start time is queried Impossible to track changes during study conduct Status at closure of pivotal trial will be saved in database

GCO Data Management 19Oct Visit Dependent/Special Datasets Visit dependent datasets contain visit information for each record Cut-off point is the first visit of the long term extension trial Clear differentiation between pivotal and extension data possible Special datasets: no visit or date information Splitting by single programs

GCO Data Management 19Oct Further Implementation Depending on structure of the extension set up: -One study number for pivotal and extension trial: Relative days are calculated to start of pivotal and end of extension part in combined database -Two study numbers Relative days are calculated to start of each study and end of each study in combined database All further relative days which are needed for statistical analyses are implemented in the analyses database created by statistical department

GCO Data Management 19Oct Problems and Solutions Implementation of split by SAS macro Macro is called with every transfer of EDC database into the final database structure provided for statistics Output provided by split program: -Query management: List of missing start dates/time at visit independent events and study medication

GCO Data Management 19Oct Problems and Solutions -Validation purposes: List how every dataset is split Comparison of records before and after splitting Check that subjects who did not enter the extension have no records in extension database and vice versa Additional listings are provided by Data Management to insert information of extension trial (like First Patient/First Visit of extension) into study tracking systems

GCO Data Management 19Oct Summary Decided to use SAS approach Primary reasons: -avoiding reconciliation -“investigator friendly” Lost advantages of the EDC approach were outweighed by flexibility of SAS Data are already in use by statistics for Data Monitoring Committee listings and tables

GCO Data Management 19Oct Questions and Answers Your questions, please