1 / 63

Regulatory Submission Datasets in the World of Evolving Standards

C. C. Regulatory Submission Datasets in the World of Evolving Standards. Dave Christiansen, DrPH Christiansen Consulting, CDISC Founding Director . Christiansen Consulting. “Safety and the Critical Path“ Sept 14-16, 2005

menefer
Télécharger la présentation

Regulatory Submission Datasets in the World of Evolving Standards

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. C C Regulatory Submission Datasets in the World of Evolving Standards Dave Christiansen, DrPH Christiansen Consulting, CDISC Founding Director Christiansen Consulting “Safety and the Critical Path“ Sept 14-16, 2005 2005 FDA/Industry Statistics Workshop Washington, DC

  2. Acknowledgments • Sally Cassel, Lincoln Technologies • Kaye Fendt, Data Quality Research Institute • Wayne Kubick, Lincoln Technologies • Rebecca Kush, CDISC • Randy Levin, FDA • Bob O’Neil, FDA • Bill Qubeck, Pfizer • Norm Stockbridge, FDA • Steve Wilson, FDA • CDISC ADaM and SDS Teams © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  3. Disclaimer Views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker and not, necessarily, of the Food and Drug Administration, CDISC or any other organization. © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  4. State of Clinical Trial Research - 1995 • FDA-regulated products accounted for about 25 cents of every consumer dollar spent in the United States • Yet each company established its own clinical trials content standards independent of other companies in the industry • Technological advances were available to make the submission and review process more efficient © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  5. Challenges for Adoption of Standards • Requirements for our industry not clearly defined and articulated • Past efforts not focused on overall clinical data management requirements • Organizations have focused on internal standards vs.industry-level; resistance to share internal standards • May require a change in processfor the organization • Clinical data standards must accommodate scientific context and complexity inherent in clinical research © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  6. Operational Database A Operational Database B Operational Database CRO Operational Database A Out-license In-license Statistical Analysis SAS Statistical Analysis in S+ CRO Statistical Analysis Statistical Analysis SAS In-license Output and Report Output and Report Output and Report In-license Output and Report Out-license Multiple Organizations with Shifting Standards 1-6 Kaye Fendt, 2001

  7. Initial Solutions to the Problem • Remote Data Entry (RDE) processes emerged in the 1970s, but languished for 20 years without significantly impacting the Clinical Trials arena. • CANDAs/ CAPLAs – Too many different standards • The FDA CARS (Computer Assisted Review of Safety) and SMART (Submission Management and Review Tracking) initiatives took initial steps to develop Electronic Review tools. © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  8. Operational Database A Operational Database A Operational Database A Operational Database B Operational Database B Operational Database B Statistical Analysis SAS Statistical Analysis SAS Statistical Analysis SAS Statistical Analysis in S+ Statistical Analysis in S+ Statistical Analysis in S+ Computer Assisted NDAs (CANDAs) and Computer Assisted Product License Applications (CAPLAs) CANDA from Company A CANDA from Company B CAPLA from BioTech X 1-8

  9. SMART Initiative at FDA Operational Database From Company A Operational Database From Company C Operational Database From Company B Conversion to FDA Standard DB Structure FDA Standard Database FDA Tools 1-9 Kaye Fendt, 2001

  10. Regulatory Environment • Applicants were required to provide CRTs with submissions – CFR 314.50 • Clinical reviews were primarily a paper process task – even for CRTs • 1992 PDUFA – Initial Prescription Drug User Fee Act added time commitment pressures to reviewers © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  11. Regulatory Environment • Constant pressure for FDA scientists to make the “right” decisions in a timely fashion • ICH / ESTRI discussions • Electronic submission of CRFs/CRTs • Guidance for Industry on Electronic Submissions – General Considerations 1999 © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  12. Setting was Perfect for … • Development and acceptance of clinical trials content standards • Industry acceptance and participation in standards development • Regulatory participation in the standards development process © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  13. The Solution(s) • 1990s Electronic Data Capture (EDC) tools reemerged as a serious interest • 21CFR 11 published in March 1997 • CDISC started in 1997 • FDA Guidance for Industry: Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Trials published in April 1999 • FDA Guidance for Industry: Electronic Submission of NDAs/BLAs, 1999 © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  14. A Shared Vision Pharma Tech/Software Labs Data Standards Other Vendors Biotech Public Regulatory CROs © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen Steve Wilson, 2002

  15. CDISC History • Began in 1997 as a volunteer organization • DIA Special Interest Area Community (SIAC) from 1998-1999 • Incorporated as a non-profit organization in 2000 • Members and sponsors today include over 150 companies (biopharmaceuticals, CROs, academic institutions, IT providers, etc.) • Global reach, with CDISC Coordinating Committees in Europe and Japan © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  16. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) CDISC is an open, multidisciplinary, non-profit organization committed to the development of worldwide industry standards to support the electronic acquisition, exchange, submission and archiving of clinical trials data and metadata for medical and biopharmaceutical product development. The CDISC mission is to lead the development of global, vendor-neutral, platform-independent standards to improve data quality and accelerate product development in our industry. © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  17. CDISC Collaborations with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) • Liaisons on SDS, ADaM, SEND, Protocol Representation Teams • SDTM referenced in eCDT Study Data Specification – July 2004 • Analysis Dataset Guidance under development at FDA with input from ADaM • DEFINE.XML for SDTM submission metadata referenced in eCDT Study Data Specification – March, 2005 • Co-chair HL7 RCRIM Technical Committee with CDISC and HL7 Rebecca Kush, 2004 © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  18. FDA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) • Warehouse physical design • IBM CRADA • Data loader, front-end for reviewer • Lincoln Technologies CRADA • Patient Profile Viewer • PPD Informatics CRADA • Integrating animal tox data • PharmQuest CRADA Randy Levin, 2004 © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  19. Alphabet Soup • ICH – International Committee on Harmonisation • ICH has developed a Common Technical Document (CTD) that provides for a harmonised structure and format for new product applications • FDA has a draft guidance on a Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD), including structures for datasets and programs • ICH E3, E6 and E9 provide some models • XML allows navigation and “smart” datasets © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  20. More Alphabet Soup • HIPAA - Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 • Standards for the electronic exchange, privacy and security of health information. Collectively these are known as the Administrative Simplification provisions • HL7 - Health Level 7 • Electronic messaging standards for medical practice data • HHS supports standardized model of an electronic health record • FDA is a sponsor • CDISC and HL7 have a formal affiliation © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  21. More Alphabet Soup • SNoMed - Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine • Purchased by HHS for $34M • National Library of Medicine will make it available without charge throughout the U.S • XML - eXtensible Markup Language • Used by ICH for the electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) backbone • Used by FDA for the electronic Table of Contents (eTOC) • Proposed by CDISC and FDA to replace pdf for metadata (DEFINE.XML) © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  22. More Alphabet Soup • JANUS • Janus is intended to capture all clinical data collected from a clinical trial along with enough of a machine-interpretable description of the study protocol to permit a high degree of automated analysis • A database with a structured data that will utilize tools being developed for FDA medical reviewers • FDA specified vertical data structures for SDTM V3.1 datasets • SDTM (and Janus) currently explicitly exclude Statistical Analysis Datasets © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  23. Primary Reviewer Tasks Involving Submission Datasets • Statisticians • Replicate analyses • Test assumptions • Perform alternative analyses • Medical Reviewers • View data used for a specific table • View patient profiles • Auditors • Compare source data values to CRFs or source documents • Verify derivations © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  24. Submission Dataset Concepts • Datasets and documentation should be adequate to allow reviewers to answer the following questions: (1) Do the submitted data and documentation clearly describe the conduct and results of the trial? (Can the reviewer understand the data and results?) (2) Is the clinical evidence of sufficient quality to ensure that the reported results are accurate and true? (Does the reviewer believe the data and results?) © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  25. CDISC Data Models and the Clinical Trial Research Process with Drafts as of May, 2005 • Regulatory Submission • Datasets • Machine Readable Metadata(Partial) • Study Data Tabulations • Statistical Analysis Datasets • SEND • Data Sources • Site CRFs • Laboratories • Contract Research • Organizations • Development • Partners Submission Data Interchange: SMM SDTM ADaM SEND Operational Data Interchange: ODM LAB • Operational • Database • Metadata • Study Data • Audit Trail • Archive ODM = Operational Data Model SMM = Submission Metadata Model LAB = Laboratory Data Model SDS = Submission Domain Standards SEND= Standards for the Exchange ADaM = Analysis Dataset Models of Non-clinical Data © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  26. Evolution of Case Report Tabulations • Code of Federal Regulation: 21 CFR 314.50 • 1988 Guideline on the Statistical Sections • 1997 Guidance on Archiving Data: 21 CFR 11 • 1999 Guidance on Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format • ICH E3 - Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports • ICH Common Technical Document • eCTD and Study Data Specification • Guidance for Review Staff and Industry - Good Review Management Principles and Practices for PDUFA Products © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  27. Regulation and Guidance: Case Report Tabulations (CRTs) • 21CFR 314.50 (f) (1) “The tabulations are required to include the data on each patient in each study, except that the applicant may delete those tabulations which the agency agrees, in advance, are not pertinent to a review of the drug`s safety or effectiveness.” • 1988 Guideline for the Format and Content of the Clinical and Statistical Sections of an Application defines CRTs as: • “These case report tabulations contain, in an organized fashion , essentially all data (efficacy, safety, pharmacology) collected in the case report.” • “…being entirely comprehensive, (they) serve as an archival or reference document, not as listings suitable for ordinary review.” • “These tabulations are distinct from, and more extensive than, the tabulations of individual patient data called for as parts of the full reports of controlled clinical studies…” © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  28. Guidance: Data Listings • 1988 Guideline defines patient data listings as: • Demographic and baseline data, effectiveness data, and safety data from “full reports of controlled clinical studies and the safety portions of reports of all studies.” • The data listings requested as part of the report (in an appendix to it) are focused on the particular variables critical to the analyses carried out, allowing the reviewer to examine the individual patient data underlying critical group measurements. • These report listings are generally “subsets of relevant effectiveness and safety variables used in analyses and tables.” © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  29. 1997 NDA Guidance: Archiving Submissions in Electronic Format • 21 CFR Part 11 - Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures regulation provides for the voluntary submission of parts or all of an application in electronic format • Case Report Tabulations may be submitted as PDF files in two forms: • Domain Profiles - commonly referred to as patient line listings or patient data listings, domain profiles consist of all data collected for a CRF domain (such as demographics, vital signs, labs, efficacy measures) from one study. • Patient Profiles - one or more pages that contain all of the study data collected for an individual patient. © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  30. 1999 NDA Guidance: Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format • Each dataset is a single SAS transport file and, in general, includes a combination of raw and derived data. • Each CRF domain (e.g.,demographics, vital signs, adverse events) should be provided as a single dataset. • In addition, datasets suitable for reproducing and confirming analyses may also be needed. • Patient profiles can also be provided as PDF files © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  31. Common Usage of CRT until 2003 • CRTs were interpreted by many (including CDISC) as the CRF domain datasets • Analysis datasets were not CRTs • Listings were defined by some as the printed or PDF representation of a dataset with some additional “selection” variables • There was no clear distinction between CRTs and data listings for datasets • In 2003 FDA interpreted 21 CFR 314.50(f)(1) as defining CRTs to include: • Study Data Tabulations • Statistical Analysis Datasets • Data Listings • Patient Profiles © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  32. International Committee on Harmonization (ICH): “E3 Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports” • ICH E3 study reports provide for: • Selected Patient Data Listings (Appendix 16.2) including discontinued patients, protocol deviations, exclusions, demography, compliance, AEs, etc. • Individual Patient Data Listings (Appendix 16.4) • “Data listings (tabulations) of patient data utilized by the sponsor for statistical analyses and tables supporting conclusions and major findings. These data listings are necessary for the regulatory authority's statistical review, and the sponsor may be asked to supply these patient data listings in a computer-readable form.” © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  33. FDA Guidances Relating to the ICH Common Technical Document (CTD) • M4: Common Technical Document for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use • M2: eCTD: Electronic Common Technical Document Specification • ICH E3: Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports • Draft FDA eCTD Guidance: Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format - Human Pharmaceutical Product Applications and Related Submissions • This guidance makes recommendations regarding the use of eCTD document information backbone files described ICH M2 and M4 and the clinical study report content described in ICH E3. © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  34. Draft eCTD Guidance:Case Report Tabulations • Data tabulations • Data tabulations datasets • Data definitions • Data listings • Data listing datasets • Data definitions • Analysis datasets • Analysis datasets • Analysis programs • Data definitions • Subject profiles • IND safety reports © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  35. eCTD Study Data Specifications V 1.1 March, 2005 • “Data tabulationsare datasets in which each record is a single observation for a subject.” • Specifications are located in the Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) developed by CDISC at www.cdisc.org/models/sds/v3.1/index.html. • Each dataset is provided as a SAS Transport (XPORT) file. • “Data listings are datasets in which each record is a series of observations collected for each subject during a study or for each subject for each visit during the study organized by domain.” • Currently, there are no further specifications for organizing data listing datasets. General information about creating datasets can be found in the SDTM implementation guides referenced in the data tabulation dataset specifications. • Each dataset is provided as a SAS Transport (XPORT) file. © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  36. eCTD Study Data Specifications V 1.1 March, 2005 (cont) • “Analysis datasets are datasets created to support specific analyses. Programs are scripts used with selected software to produce reported analyses based on these datasets.” • Each dataset is provided as a SAS Transport (XPORT) file. • Programs should be provided as both ASCII text and PDF files and should include sufficient documentation to allow a reviewer to understand the submitted programs. • It is not necessary to provide analysis datasets and programs that will enable the reviewer to directly reproduce reported results using agency hardware and software. Currently, there are no other additional specifications for creating analysis datasets. • “Subject profiles are displays of study data of various modalities collected for an individual subject and organized by time.” • Each individual patient’s complete patient profile is in a single PDF file or a book-marked section of a single PDF file for all patients. © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  37. So what are CRTs? • Original regulation was written in the era of paper submissions • At one point, CRTs were collected or raw data • Currently defined as all data submitted • No clear distinction between data tabulations and listings • No clear distinction between derived variables on data tabulations and analysis datasets © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  38. Statistical Reviewof Clinical Trials Data • Efficacy and safety • Confirmatory/Exploratory– focus on evaluating sponsor’s results • Check appropriateness of statistical models and conclusions – programs & analysis datasets • Assess quality/completeness of data • Evaluate the impact of sponsor’s analytical decisions – derived variables, missing/messy data (“quirks” – R. Helms) – sensitivity analyses • Answer new, review-related statistical questions • Communication with sponsors • Archive results © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen Steve Wilson, 2005

  39. Statistical Review Environment • No programmers • Multiple projects • Increasingly electronic world • Understaffed • Without documentation standards, every review is an adventure © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen Steve Wilson, 2005

  40. Data Tabulations Observations in SDTM Standard Format Data Listings Domain views by subject, by visit CRTs Data Submitted to FDA Patient Profiles Complete view of all subject data Define Metadata Description Document Analysis Files Custom datasets to support an analysis Submission Files © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen Steve Wilson, 2005

  41. SDTM & Analysis Files:Today’s Mantra BOTH ARE NEEDED FOR REVIEW! (for now) © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen Steve Wilson, 2005

  42. Specifications: eCTD File Organization © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen Steve Wilson, 2005

  43. SDTM & Analysis Datasets • Currently, SDTM describes observations from a clinical trial • SDTM data (with appropriate tools) are particularly useful in medical officer evaluation of safety • It is well recognized that datasets that are used in the analysis have been restructured and contain additional information (derived variables, flags, comments, etc.) • To facilitate communication between statistical reviewers and sponsors, there is a need to standardize the documentation and content of these datasets • The CDISC/ADaM Team has a guidance describing the documentation of analysis files. © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen Steve Wilson, 2005

  44. Goals of Draft Guidance: Datasets & Documentation Designed for Review • Enable reviewers to understand, replicate, explore, confirm, reuse, etc. • Clear, unambiguous communication of decisions, analysis and results • Underlying principles: • Can a reviewing statistician understand? • Can a reviewing statistician efficiently: • Quality Assure? • Validate? • Analyze? Steve Wilson, 2005 © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  45. Draft Guidance: Standard Metadata/Documentation • Analysis • Analysis Datasets • Analysis Variables Steve Wilson, 2005 © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  46. Challenges • Still need to get reviews done • Transitioning from/adapting to current Industry practice -- Next Steps vs. “Vision” • Getting experience • Work with minimal resources • Good review practice • Moving target – efficacy and safety • Adopting to Change –Training/communication/resources/tools • Science • Communication: External and Internal • Maintaining/improving Collaboration © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen Steve Wilson, 2005

  47. Good Review Management Principles and Practices for PDUFA Products • New guidance for FDA review • Defines FDA reviewing steps • Application completeness • Pre-submission • Application receipt • Filing • Review Planning • Review • Advisory Committee • Wrap-up and Labeling • Action © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  48. Application Completeness • “A complete application will receive a comprehensive and complete review within a specified time frame.” • Must be readable and well organized • Should eliminate the need for unplanned amendments • Incomplete if it “meets the regulatory criteria for filing but lacks important information needed to complete the review and regulatory decision-making process, is disorganized, or does not conform to the recommended format for electronic submissions.” © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  49. Evolution of Analysis-Level Metadata from Statistical Models • ANALYSIS NAME – A unique identifier for this analysis. • DESCRIPTION – A text description of the contents of the display. This will normally contain more information than the title of the display. • REASON – The rationale or authority for performing the analysis. Suggested controlled terminology will facilitate classification and searching. • DATASET – The name of the analysis dataset(s) used should be linked to the analysis dataset used for this analysis. Also may include the specific selection criteria to identify the appropriate records selected for this analysis. • DOCUMENTATION – Contains the information about how the analysis was performed. © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

  50. Analysis-Level Metadata (cont.) • DOCUMENTATION – Contains the information about how the analysis was performed. • Could be a text description, or a link to other documents • Protocol • Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP) • Analysis generation program (i.e., a statistical software program used to generate the analysis result) • Contents will depend on: • The level of detail required to describe the analysis • Whether or not the sponsor will be providing a corresponding analysis generation program • Sponsor-specific requirements and standards © Copyright 2005, David H. Christiansen

More Related