CONFIDENTIAL The Ultimate Integration Challenge Jennifer Chin, Covance Hester Schoeman, Covance PhUSE Conference Berlin 2010 Paper DH06.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Statistical Analysis Plan and Clinical Study Report
Advertisements

CBER Isolagen Therapy (IT) BLA FDA Clinical Review Agnes Lim, MD Yao-Yao Zhu, MD, PhD DCEPT/OCTGT/CBER, FDA October 9, 2009 Advisory Committee Meeting.
National Center for Health Statistics DCC CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION Changes in Race Differentials: The Impact of the New OMB Standards.
Kendle Implementation of Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonization Dr Elke Sennewald Kendle 9th German CDISC User Group Meeting Berlin, 28 September.
Copyright © 2013, SAS Institute Inc. All rights reserved. LEVERAGE THE CDISC DATA MODEL TO STREAMLINE ANALYTICAL WORKFLOWS KELCI J. MICLAUS, PH.D. RESEARCH.
QTc Trials Presented By: Ad Roffel, Ph.D. PRA International EDS NL P.O. Box 200, 9470 AE Zuidlaren, The Netherlands Tel: Fax:
Area 4 SHARP Face-to-Face Conference Phenotyping Team – Centerphase Project Assessing the Value of Phenotyping Algorithms June 30, 2011.
Common Problems in Writing Statistical Plan of Clinical Trial Protocol Liying XU CCTER CUHK.
PARENT/CAREGIVER DEMOGRAPHICS OPT Form 96 V1 (1-3) MAR 06 Clinical Unit: Form Date: -- MonthDayYear attach PID label here Patient ID: -- Coordinator Code:
Bay Area CDISC Implmentation Network – July 13, 2009 How a New CDISC Domain is Made Carey Smoak Team Leader CDISC SDTM Device Team.
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.
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,
How to process data from clinical trials and their open label extensions PhUSE, Berlin, October 2010 Thomas Grupe and Stephanie Bartsch, Clinical Data.
The Role of the CPCDMS in QM Activities Elizabeth Love, MPH Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services Department HIV Services Section.
Testing People Scientifically.  Clinical trials are research studies in which people help doctors and researchers find ways to improve health care. Each.
Clinical causality assessment I. Ralph Edwards R.H.B Meyboom.
Qualification Process for Standard Scripts Hosted in the Open Source Repository ABSTRACT Dante Di Tommaso 1 and Hanming Tu 2 Tehran 1 F. Hoffmann-La Roche.
Implementation of a harmonized, report-friendly SDTM and ADaM Data Flow General by Marie-Rose Peltier Experience by Marie Fournier Groupe Utilisateurs.
Stefan Franzén Introduction to clinical trials.
1CDISC 2002 RCRIM – Standard Domains Agenda NCI Presentation Standard Domains Working Group Goals Introduction to FDA Information Model (FIM) Discussion:
1 Sex/Gender and Minority Inclusion in NIH Clinical Research What Investigators Need to Know! Presenter: Miriam F. Kelty, PhD, National Institute on Aging,
Study design P.Olliaro Nov04. Study designs: observational vs. experimental studies What happened?  Case-control study What’s happening?  Cross-sectional.
HL7 RCRIM Meeting: 9 January 2007 CDISC-RCRIM Vocab Update: Related CDISC Terminology Projects Bron Kisler, CDISC Terminology Program Director
1Presentation Name Pre-Marketing Safety Assessment: The Safety Review Guidance Armando Oliva, M.D. Associate Director for Policy Office of New Drugs.
American Community Survey Maryland State Data Center Affiliate Meeting September 16, 2010.
Research based, people driven CDISC ADaM Datasets - from SDTM to submission CDISC Experience Exchange and ADaM Workshop 15 Dec 2008 Zoë Williams, LEO Pharma.
Is for Epi Epidemiology basics for non-epidemiologists.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم جامعة أم درمان الإسلامية كلية الطب و العلوم الصحية - قسم طب المجتمع مساق البحث العلمي / الدفعة 21 Basics of Clinical Trials.
The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Effect of Diabetes Education During Retinal Ophthalmology Visits on Diabetes Control (Protocol M) 11.
Research Study Data Standards Standards for research study data for submission to regulatory authorities Standard development divided into three parts:
U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010 March 2011.
INPULSIS® trial design and baseline characteristics
Modeling and Simualtion: challenges for the clinical programmer and for the group leader Vincent Buchheit PHUSE 2010.
White Papers to Fill the Gaps of Standardization of Tables, Figures, and Listings (Creating Standard Targets) Analyses and Displays for Vital Signs, ECG,
1 Efficacy of Acamprosate: Clinical Issues Celia Jaffe Winchell, M.D. Medical Team Leader Addiction Drug Products.
1 CDISC HL7 Project FDA Perspective Armando Oliva, M.D. Office of Critical Path Programs FDA.
Faculty Demographics Faculty Demographics Table 8 Faculty Demographics Prof. Ed. Faculty in Initial Teacher Preparation Programs*
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.
Treatment-Naïve Adults
Un esperienza di Data Submission con FDA usando gli Standard CDISC
Fentanyl Pectin Nasal Spray: Successful Dose Titration in a Broad Range of Patients with Breakthrough Cancer Pain Luis Torres,1 Carlo Reale,2 Eberhard.
Secondary Uses Primary Use EHR and other Auhortities Clinical Trial
by M.Fournier Groupe Utilisateurs Francophones du CDISC – 08/02/05
Why use CDISC for trials not submitted to regulators?
NUR 482 Enthusiastic Studysnaptutorial.com
Creating ADaM Friendly Analysis Data from SDTM Using Meta-data by Erik Brun & Rico Schiller (CD ) H. Lundbeck A/S 13-Oct
It’s about Time! (to Event)
New Insights Into Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension
Snapshot of the Clinical Trials Enterprise as revealed by ClinicalTrials.gov Content downloaded: September 2012.
Introduction to IPUMS NYTS and IPUMS YRBSS
Engagement Survey Results: Demographics
Supplementary Data Tables, Community Health Indicators
Visualizing Subject Level Data in Clinical Trial Data
Introduction to IPUMS NYTS and IPUMS YRBSS
How Closely Do New York’s RN Graduates Reflect the State’s Diversity?
E-CRF Overview Oracle® Clinical Remote Data Capture Training (Version 4.6 HTML) e-CRF Completion John McDonach Manager CDM, PPD.
Total Faculty by Race and Ethnicity,
Model Enhanced Classification of Serious Adverse Events
How Closely Do New York’s RN Graduates Reflect the State’s Diversity?
How Closely Do Alaska’s RN Graduates Reflect the State’s Diversity?
Safety analysis of clinical trials in NDA submissions JSM 2018, Jul
Safety Analytics Workshop – Computational Science Symposium 2019
How Closely Do Alaska’s RN Graduates Reflect the State’s Diversity?
How Closely Do Maine’s RN Graduates Reflect the State’s Diversity?
How Closely Do Alaska’s RN Graduates Reflect the State’s Diversity?
Efficacy of guselkumab in subpopulations of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: A pooled analysis of the Phase 3 VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE.
Presentation transcript:

CONFIDENTIAL The Ultimate Integration Challenge Jennifer Chin, Covance Hester Schoeman, Covance PhUSE Conference Berlin 2010 Paper DH06

CONFIDENTIAL 2 Topics Overview –Provides high level overview of CDISC compliant data warehouse Integration Challenges –Data Variation and Harmonization –Derivations Conclusion Questions

CONFIDENTIAL 3 Overview This Presentation Data challenges while CDISC compliant data warehouse was built for submission to FDA & EMA Challenges are limited on integration data associated with safety analyses High level overview of approach in dealing with large and complex data integration –Key data variation & harmonisation issues, how they were being dealt with –Some examples of derivations, how we overcame difficulties Best enhancement solutions for data displays –Consistency across phases

CONFIDENTIAL 4 Overview (Cont.) More About the Integration 30 + Phases I – III studies 162 SDTMs, 226 ADaMs and 6,747 patients By Study Patients Phase III 12% 41% Phase II 15% 40% Phase I 73% 19% Two phase III studies with > 12 months long-term data 70% of Phase I are clinical pharmacology PK & PD studies in healthy volunteers Special concerns and special populations

CONFIDENTIAL 5 Data Variation and Harmonization

CONFIDENTIAL 6 Data Variation and Harmonization Study 1 White  [1] Black  [2] Asian  [3] American Indian  [5] Other  [6] Study 2 Caucasian  [1] African  [2] Oriental  [6] Other  [6] Study 3 American Indian or Alaska Native  [5] Asian [3] Black or African American or of African Heritage  [2] Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander  [4] White or Caucasian [1] Other [6] Standard Race list for the demographic tables 1. White/Caucasian 2.Black/African American or of African Heritage 3. Asian 4. Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander 5. America Indian/Alaska Native 6. Other Race Studies with SDTM, two step approach: Raw  SDTM  ADaM Studies with No SDTM: Raw  ADaM

CONFIDENTIAL 7 Data Variation and Harmonization (Cont.) Study 3 Resolved no sequelae  [1] Unresolved  [3] Death  [5] Unknown  [6] Standard AE Outcome list for tables 1. Recovered/Resolved 2. Recovering/Resolving 3. Not Recovered/Not Resolved 4. Recovered/Resolved with sequelae 5. Fatal 6. Unknown 7. Not Recorded 8. Not Collected Study 1 Recovered  [1] Recovering  [2] Not recovered  [3] Recovered with sequelae  [4] Fatal  [5] Unknown  [6] Study 2 Recovered  [1] Not Recovered  [3] Recovered with sequelae  [ 4] Lost to follow-up  [6] Death  [5] AE outcome The following illustrates the variations in recording AE outcome across studies and the mapping from individual study to a standard list.

CONFIDENTIAL 8 Day 1Day 2Day 3Week 1Assmt No.Description Visit Given to all measurements at screening visit (visit 1) Before dose71 Given to all measurements taken before first IP dose at visit 2 1h after72 71Given to extra safety monitoring measurements taken before dose at visits 2.5, 3, 4 2h after73 72Given to extra safety monitoring measurements taken 1 hour after dose at visits 2, 2.5, 3 2-3h after7573Given to extra safety monitoring measurements taken 2 hour after dose at visits 2, 2.5, 3 3h after74 Given to extra safety monitoring measurements taken 3 hour after dose at visits 2, 2.5, 3 4h after76 75Given to extra safety monitoring measurements taken 2-3 hour after dose at visit 4 5h after77 76Given to extra safety monitoring measurements taken 4 hour after dose at visits 2, 2.5, 3 6h after78 77Given to extra safety monitoring measurements taken 5 hour after dose at visits 2, 2.5, 3 78Given to extra safety monitoring measurements taken 6 hour after dose at visits 2, 2.5, 3 xxFor all measurements of supine BP and Pulse after 15 mins of resting xx.10For all measurements of standing BP and Pulse after 2 mins of standing xx.20For all measurements of standing BP and Pulse after 5 mins of standing xx = Assessment Number Vital Signs Assessment numbers corresponding to each visit denoted the vital signs recording positions and the time interval between multiple tests Data Variation and Harmonization (Cont.)

CONFIDENTIAL 9 Variables in the Dataset VSPOSVISITVSTPT1VSTPT2 Supine2Before intake of IPAfter 15 mins of Resting Standing2.51 hour after administration of IPAfter 2 mins of Standing 32 hours after administration of IPAfter 5 mins of Standing 43 hours after administration of IP 4 hours after administration of IP 5 hours after administration of IP 6 hours after administration of IP No format is available to decode the assessment numbers in order to identify the position and the time interval between two readings of the same BP test. Format had to be created using the study flow chart. Data Variation and Harmonization (Cont.)

CONFIDENTIAL 10 Data Variation and Harmonization (Cont.) Laboratory Data ▫ Phase II lab data had most inconsistencies and variations - test code values - non standard units - PCS criteria differed

CONFIDENTIAL 11 Derivations

CONFIDENTIAL 12 Derivations Study Group Four study groups (Groups 1 – 4). Each group had sub-groups. Different studies contributed to different treatment groups within each study group. Multiple sub-groups were based on population studied, study design, treatment exposure and period of interest.. For example, within Group 1 (SG10, 11, 12, 13 and 14). Sub-GroupDescription SG-10Completed Phase 2/3 Clinical Studies SG-11All Placebo-Controlled Studies (all data up to 13 Weeks) SG-11AAll Placebo-Controlled Studies (all data up to 13 Weeks) by Age, Gender, Race SG-11BAll Placebo-Controlled Studies (all data up to 13 Weeks) by Specific Body Site … etc for other characteristics of interest SG-12Open-Label (Extension) SG-13Only patients with ≥ 26 weeks of treatment exposure SG-14Only patients with ≥ 52 weeks of treatment exposure SG-20Placebo-Controlled Studies in Healthy Subjects SG-31Single-Dose Studies in Healthy Subjects SG-32Multiple-Dose Studies in Healthy Subjects SG-41Blood Pressure Monitoring Studies SG-42Special Populations

CONFIDENTIAL Weeks Study Group SG-10 PL/Act-Con Active Study ABC 123Study ABC 123 Extension 13 Weeks Study Group SG-11 & SG-11G Further 52 Weeks – Open label Extension Study Group SG-12 Derivations (Cont.) Example

CONFIDENTIAL 14 Derivations (Cont.) A patient randomized and treated with different IMPs in both studies. As displayed in the previous slide –For study group SG-11 and SG-11G, the exposure will only include either Placebo (PL) or Active Control (Act-Con) Treatment –For study group SG-12, the exposure will only include Active Treatment –For study group SG-10, the exposure will include both Placebo and Active Treatment. Here, the patient was counted in more than one treatment group A patient randomized and treated with the same IMP in both studies. As displayed in previous slide –For study group SG-11 and SG-11G, the exposure will only include the first study i.e first 13 weeks of Active Treatment –For study group SG-12, the exposure will only include the extension period i.e 52 weeks of Active Treatment –For study group SG-10, the exposure will include the whole Active Treatment Period across both studies ( weeks). Here, the patient was counted just once under the Active Treatment group

CONFIDENTIAL 15 Derivations (Cont.) Adverse Events MedDRA version 11.0 AEs were categorized by System Organ Class (SOC) and Preferred terms (PT). Only treatment emergent AEs were reported Most complex derivations were from phase 1 cross-over studies Onset of event associated to the start of individual treatment phase and not the start of the first dose AE can be associated with more than one treatment if it increased in severity/seriousness/relationship Placebo run-in: any AEs that started during the placebo run-in were not treatment emergent AEs that became treatment-emergent during placebo wash out were assigned to the last active treatment received. The study day of the start of the AEs was created to validate derivations

CONFIDENTIAL 16 Derivations (Cont.) Baseline and Endpoints (Lab, ECG and Vital Signs) Baseline –Initially baseline definitions as per CSR –Discrepancies found where time for tests collected after time of first IMP –Revision of baseline definition for some patients –New flag for baseline Endpoint –Initially applied global endpoint definition –Last post-baseline visit before the follow-up visit. –Exclusion of some endpoint values –Revision was necessary to follow endpoint definition for pivotal studies For each Vital Signs test it was the last non-missing post-baseline visit for each test For ECG and Laboratory test it was using the last non-missing on- treatment post-baseline visit

CONFIDENTIAL 17 Conclusion  Good opportunity  Steep learning curve  Team is more CDISC aware, more knowledgeable and experience  For the next integration, we will –  be able to identify ALL data variations in different studies across all phases and harmonise it before programming commences  identify data issues to be addressed to conform with CDISC requirements

CONFIDENTIAL 18 Questions