The Cytel blog keeps you up to speed with the latest developments in biostatistics and clinical biometrics.
Can I submit software programs other than SAS? What software programs should I submit? Are sponsors required to submit executable programs?
Do I need to rename my software programs so that they all have the same extension e.g. “.txt”?
Can I make use of macros in my software programs and if so, should macros be part of the submission package?
What kind of documentations for software programs should I include in the submission package?
Do I need to follow any particular style and conventions when writing software programs that will be part of a submission package?
A single topic generates so many questions! Get the answers in this blog.
The Virtual PHUSE-EU CONNECT Conference was held from November 8 to 13 and the event was a great success, despite all of us missing the face-to-face contact.
The conference kicked-off on Sunday night with a Social Virtual event with a “Numerologist Show”. Of course this could not replace and compete with the usual “toast” we were used to do live, so we did it virtually (check out my LinkedIn post where I offer some cocktails recommendations and share the recipe of my favorite cocktail “The Negroni” with a bit of history. But please don’t do it before Friday night, you will need the weekend to recover).
Like every year, Cytel significantly contributed to the event as one of the official sponsors, running a workshop (“Predictive Analytics Using R”), chairing and co-chairing two streams (Machine Learning & Connected Health and Scripts and Macros), preparing four on demand presentations (in Application and Development, Coding and Tricks and Data Standards and Governance streams) and two posters.
In this blog, I focus on presentations related to data standards and data submission to agency, in general.
The Missing Link: Risking your Traceability (and “Credibility”) when your ADaM package is not traceable back to SDTM
About three years ago, Cytel was helping a sponsor on a project where I had to conduct surveillance of some CRO deliverables, mainly for SDTM and ADaM packages. At first, I was involved in the review cycle of SDTM, and began by reviewing some initial mapping specifications including a draft SDTM Annotated CRF. The CRO in charge was quite experienced and there was nothing major to spot in all the different versions I had to review.
Surprisingly, it was not the case some months later, when I had to provide the same review support for the Biostatistics deliverables, specific to the ADaM package. The ADaM datasets overall were well designed, and there were no major open non-conformance issues. However, it was clear from the very beginning that there was something missing - a missing link between SDTM and ADaM.
“A good start is half the battle” (the Before) when submitting data to the FDA and there are a couple of cherries to put on top (the After) when your regulatory group has finally submitted the eCTD to the FDA . A good start is to have early discussions with the agency by regularly meeting them and sharing the status of your clinical data standards. While, the cherry on the top is the continuous support you need to guarantee to your submission project to promptly react when the reviewers come back with questions and additional requests during the review process.
In the first part of this two-parts blog, I speak about how the European CDISC Committee (E3C) together with CDISC converted our physical event into a virtual one and was held on April 1-2, 2020. I provided a summary of the updates received from the three main health authorities - the US FDA, the Japanese PMDA and the European EMA.
This post offers an overview of the other sessions I attended at the 2020 Virtual CDISC EU Interchange. The agenda was well planned and organized. The distinguished speakers were extremely prepared and answered numerous questions after their presentations. Continue reading for further highlights from the event.
In early March, when countries around the world started implementing lockdowns, the European CDISC Committee (E3C) together with CDISC decided to cancel our physical event in Berlin, planned for April 1-2, 2020. It was a tough decision, but unavoidable and necessary.
We did not let this dampen our spirits and immediately came up with an alternative plan – go virtual with the event! In only two weeks the team managed to pull together a revised program and the registrations were opened on the CDISC website. The scale of the event went from being Europe-only to Global, and around 300 people attended it worldwide. In the end, the event was a hit. Everything worked out very well, with no major technical disruptions and the speakers respecting the allocated time slots.
In this two-part blog post, I share a summary of the sessions I was able to attend, while simultaneously ensuring business continuity for my regular projects.