SEND Standard for the Exchange of Nonclinical Data

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CLINTON W. BROWNLEY AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PH.D. CANDIDATE SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 BRIDGing CDASH to SAS: How Harmonizing Clinical Trial and Healthcare Standards.
Advertisements

Dimitri Kutsenko (Entimo AG)
Principal Statistical Programmer Accovion GmbH, Marburg, Germany
CDISC Open Source and low-cost Solutions
Communicating with Standards Keeping it Simple Pamela Ryley Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. September 29, 2006.
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.
A Coherent and Practical End-to-End Metadata Strategy using Existing Standards and Tools for Clinical Research Stephane AUGER Danone Research, FRANCE.
Selecting a CRO for Creating and Integrating SEND Datasets from Multiple Organizations Interorganizational SEND Note: The opinions expressed in this poster.
What’s New with CDISC Wayne R. Kubick CDISC CTO.
“Compliance” for Analysis Data Chris Decker, Vice-President, Life Sciences Practice, d-Wise Technologies Randall Austin, Manager, Data Standards, GlaxoSmithKline.
CDER IND/NDA Reviews Guidance, The Common Technical Document and Good Review Practice John K. Leighton, Ph.D., DABT CDER/FDA.
Standardized Study Data: An Update Presented at the DCDISC Meeting Ron Fitzmartin, PhD, MBA Office of Strategic Programs Center for Drug Evaluation and.
Requirements for Standardized Study Data: Update on Guidance Ron Fitzmartin, PhD, MBA Data Standards Program Office of Strategic Programs Center for Drug.
Updates on CDISC Standards Validation
Accenture Accelerated R&D Standards Metadata Management – version control and its governance Kevin Lee CDISC NJ Meeting at 01/28/2015 We help our Clients.
© 2011 Octagon Research Solutions, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this document are confidential and proprietary to Octagon Research Solutions,
HL7 Study Data Standards Project Crystal Allard CDER Office of Computational Science Food and Drug Administration February 13,
Contents Integrating clinical trial data Working with CROs
Antje Rossmanith, Roche 14th German CDISC User Group, 25-Sep-2012
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.
1 RCRIM Vocab-BRIDG Session Wednesday, Session Q2 19 September 2007.
SDTM Validation Delaware Valley CDISC user network Ketan Durve Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Reasearch and Development May 11 th 2009.
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
Overview of CDISC standards and use cases along the E2E data management process Dr. Philippe Verplancke ESUG Marlow, UK 27 May 2009.
Kopenhagen, 22 April 2008 German CDISC User Group.
WG4: Standards Implementation Issues with CDISC Data Models Data Guide Subteam Summary of Review of Proposed Templates and Next Steps July 23, 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.
Practical Image Management for Pharma Experiences and Directions. Use of Open Source Stefan Baumann, Head of Imaging Infrastructure, Novartis.
CDISC©2009 February CDISC INTRAchange Carey Smoak Device Team Leader Li Zheng Submission Data Standards Team Member Thurday, April 2, 2009.
From PDF to RDF – Representing the CDISC Foundational Standards
Research Study Data Standards Standards for research study data for submission to regulatory authorities Standard development divided into three parts:
CDISC User Group in Deutschland/Japan Hajime Shimizu (nickname: Akiba) CDISC Japan User Group introduction to team activity.
1 CDISC HL7 Project FDA Perspective Armando Oliva, M.D. Office of Critical Path Programs FDA.
Geneva Branch INTRODUCTION TO CDISC Biometristi Italiani Associati – Seminario BIAS CDISC SDTM and ADaM: Moving from theory to practice SAS Institute –
With OpenCDISC Validator 1. What is 2 OpenCDISC Validator Open source project Freely Available Commercial-quality Facilitate compliance with CDISC standards.
DIA Electronic Submissions Meeting Olga Alfieri 26 April 2016
How good is your SEND data? Timothy Kropp FDA/CDER/OCS 1.
© CDISC 2015 Paul Houston CDISC Europe Foundation Head of European Operations 1 CTR 2 Protocol Representation Implementation Model Clinical Trial Registration.
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.
© 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.
Regulated Product Submission Eileen M. Girten, MS i3 Statprobe 1DIA Education SIAC.
Validation Gary Gensinger Deputy Director Office of Business Process Support Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Submission Standards: The Big Picture Gary G. Walker Associate Director, Programming Standards, Global Data Solutions, Global Data Management.
Paul Houston CDISC Europe Foundation Head of European Operations
A need for prescriptive define.xml
Dave Iberson-Hurst CDISC VP Technical Strategy
Validation of CDISC data sets, current practice and future
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.
Accenture Accelerated R&D Standards Metadata Management – version control and its governance Kevin Lee CDISC NJ Meeting at 01/28/2015 We help our Clients.
MAKE SDTM EASIER START WITH CDASH !
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.
Freundschaft Konferenz
e-data Implementation Impact
PhUSE Computational Science
Study Data Reviewers’ Guide – Nonclinical Assessment
CDISC UK Network Jun-16 – Welwyn
Fabienne NOEL CDISC – 2013, December 18th
PhUSE Computational Science Working Groups
Carolina Mendoza-Puccini, MD
SDTM and ADaM Implementation FAQ
Metadata The metadata contains
An FDA Statistician’s Perspective on Standardized Data Sets
Data Submissions Douglas Warfield, Ph.D. Technical Lead, eData Team
Presentation transcript:

SEND Standard for the Exchange of Nonclinical Data Basel, Switzerland 2014 SDE Christina Würmlin – PDS Inc.

What is SEND? In development >10 years by CDISC along with FDA 2012: FDA granted authority to establish & require a standard electronic format for INDs, NDAs, ANDAs, BLAs SEND is the same electronic standard used by Clinical for FDA submissions

What is SEND? SEND is a giant mapping exercise: different sections of a toxicology report get mapped to corresponding domains within SEND DD.xpt Mortality CO.xpt Clin obs, ophth SEND dataset consisting of different domains (separate XPT files) and a define file (XML & PDF). Explain what a domain is SEND domain abbreviations: DD = death diagnosis domain; CO = clinical observations domain, which also includes ophthalmology; BW = body weight domains Make the point that all study data need to be included in SEND. Cal discuss relationships(RELREC between domains Body Weight BW.xpt Final Study Report Bioanalytical PC.xpt Rest of Study Data etc

What is Send? All original findings must be recorded in SEND; some are mapped to controlled terminology Portion of populated Microscopic Domain from SENDIG 3.0: Blue arrows point to columns with controlled terminology Red arrow points to column with findings as recorded by pathologist Green arrow points to column with some findings as recorded by pathologist (lowercase) and other findings (neoplasms) mapped to controlled terminology (uppercase). MIORRES = microscopic original result as collected; MISTRESC = standardized result in character format. Note that this is just a portion of the flat file for a MI domain. MIORRES & MISTRESC for MISEQ 4 are blank because they refer to a missing tissue, which is addressed in columns not shown in this

Timing for SEND Implementation “Trigger” for SEND implementation is finalization of guidances: For NDAs, ANDAs, BLAs: studies starting no sooner than 24 months after issuance of final guidances For INDs: studies starting no sooner than 36 months after issuance of final guidances 3 draft FDA guidances issued in Feb 2014; comment period closed May 7 Implementation expected to begin 4 Q 2016 (start of US fiscal year 2017), assuming guidances are finalized 4 Q 2014 Guidances become binding at time of implementation FDA’s preferred submission format at this time: SEND Timeline info (dates) obtained from Ron Fitzsimmons at March PhUSE CSS meeting

Why is SEND Being Developed? SEND will benefit FDA: Faster submission review – already demonstrated SEND datasets used to analyze submissions – already being done SEND-based data warehouses – already being done FDA wants rapid access to large amounts of data to better understand nonclinical predictability SEND can benefit Sponsor for the same reasons Database

SEND Readiness SEND readiness is a process! Formation of interdisciplinary SEND team Workflow definition LIMS to SEND Integration of different LIMS extracts Strategy for working with CROs QA & validation against SEND model Resources Timelines Budget Study protocol compatibility for SEND mapping Controlled terminology mapping

SEND Readiness - Continued FDA SEND Pilot Projects - Best Way to Assess SEND readiness FDA will accept SEND datasets to validate against SEND model using their validation tools OpenCDISC Validator NIMS If FDA finds validation errors: FDA will send Sponsor a validation report with specific deficiencies Sponsor corrects deficiencies and resubmits SEND datasets to FDA The first few submissions will likely result in errors requiring correction

Value of FDA SEND Pilot Cannot be Underestimated!

Sponsor’s Role in SEND If using a CRO or SEND Vendor, work together! Need to understand partner’s SEND process: Validation of SEND software Domains & variables to be included QC of datasets Controlled terminology Data Standardization Plan: “…sponsors should include a plan (eg, in the IND) describing the submission of standardized study data to FDA…For INDs, the Standardization Plan should be located in the general investigational plan”(1) (1) FDA, CDER, CBER: Draft Study Data Technical Conformance Guide, February 2014 Data Standardization Plan would fall under regulatory with input from other departments Address flexibility of SEND model for Trials Domains

Validation of SEND Datasets Against SEND Model Validation tools used for SEND by FDA: OpenCDISC NIMS FDA validation rules are available on FDA website http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/ datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm http://www.opencdisc.org Open source Extensible Includes FDA validation rules The FDA web page with validation rules is

SEND Implementation Guide Versioning Current SENDIG: v3.0 Based on SDTM (Study Data Tabulation Model) 1.2 Includes single & repeat-dose tox, carcinogenicity Next SENDIG: 3.1 Based on SDTM 1.4 New features: Cardiovascular & respiratory safety pharmacology New variables for microscopic domain Ability to create custom domains Expected release by CDISC end of 2014; timing for FDA acceptance of SENDIG 3.1 datasets to be determined DART SEND A separate SENDIG Model is mature, but timeline for issuance not established MI domain will include CT for nonneoplastic lesions plus chronicity

Controlled Terminology (CT) Versioning CDISC is responsible for CT CT may be revised as often as 4x/year Current version (18) released 27 Jun 2014 Draft CT (version 19) out for review; changes include: Addition of CT code lists for new MI variables: chronicity & distribution Will be issued at the same time as SENDIG 3.1 Addition of CT code list for non-neoplastic lesions (INHAND) CT in different file formats can be found at: CDISC.org No CT for in 3.0 for non-neoplastic lesions

SEND Challenges Toxicology Studies generally conducted over multiple CROs, LIMS: In-life microscopic Bioanalytical PK Harmonization of metadata from different CROs, LIMS Relationships between different domains (RELREC) Controlled terminology mapping and updating Validation against SEND model Trials Domains – more than one correct way to map

Join a SEND Working Group! PhUSE: Pharmaceutical Users Software Exchange http://www.phusewiki.org CDISC: Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium http://www.cdisc.org/ Both groups are active in Europe and Japan Both sites contain a lot of very useful SEND information and updates

This is just the tip of the SEND info iceberg! Additional Information: FDA electronic standards website: http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/ datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm

Sanitized Datasets Sanitized Datasets https://sendexplorer.azurewebsites.net/ http://senddataset.org/