Comprehensive SDTM Review

-
Comprehensive SDTM Review

Mastering the SDTM Review Process: Comprehensive Insights with Real-World Examples

The process of ensuring compliance with Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) standards can be challenging due to the diverse requirements and guidelines that span across multiple sources. These include the SDTM Implementation Guide (SDTMIG), the domain-specific assumptions sections, and the FDA Study Data Technical Conformance Guide. While automated tools like Pinnacle 21 play a critical role in detecting many issues, they have limitations. This article provides an in-depth guide to conducting a thorough SDTM review, enhanced by real-world examples that highlight commonly observed pitfalls and solutions.

1. Understanding the Complexity of SDTM Review

One of the first challenges in SDTM review is recognizing that SDTM requirements are spread across different guidelines and manuals. Each source offers a unique perspective on compliance:

  • SDTMIG domain specifications: Provide detailed variable-level specifications.
  • SDTMIG domain assumptions: Offer clarifications for how variables should be populated.
  • FDA Study Data Technical Conformance Guide: Adds regulatory requirements for submitting SDTM data to health authorities.

Real-World Example: Misinterpreting Domain Assumptions

In a multi-site oncology trial, a programmer misunderstood the domain assumptions for the "Events" domains (such as AE – Adverse Events). The SDTMIG advises that adverse events should be reported based on their actual date of occurrence, but the programmer initially used the visit date, leading to incorrect representation of events.

2. Leveraging Pinnacle 21: What It Catches and What It Misses

Pinnacle 21 is a powerful tool for validating SDTM datasets, but it has limitations:

  • What it catches: Missing mandatory variables, incorrect metadata, and value-level issues (non-conformant values).
  • What it misses: Study-specific variables that should be excluded, domain-specific assumptions that must be manually reviewed.

Real-World Example: Inapplicable Variables Passing Pinnacle 21

In a dermatology study, the variable ARM (Treatment Arm) was populated for all subjects, including those in an observational cohort. Since observational subjects did not receive a treatment, this variable should have been blank. Pinnacle 21 didn’t flag this, but a manual review revealed the issue.

3. Key Findings in the Review Process

3.1 General Findings

  • Incorrect Population of Date Variables: Properly populating start and end dates (--STDTC, --ENDTC) is challenging.
  • Missing SUPPQUAL Links: Incomplete or incorrect links between parent domains and SUPPQUAL can lead to misinterpretation.

Real-World Example: Incorrect Dates in a Global Trial

In a global cardiology trial, visit start dates were incorrectly populated due to time zone differences between sites in the U.S. and Europe. A manual review of the date variables identified these inconsistencies and corrected them.

3.2 Domain-Specific Findings

  • Incorrect Usage of Age Units (AGEU): Misuse of AGEU in pediatric studies can lead to incorrect data representation.
  • Inconsistent Use of Controlled Terminology: Discrepancies in controlled terminology like MedDRA or WHO Drug Dictionary can cause significant issues.

Real-World Example: Incorrect AGEU in a Pediatric Study

In a pediatric vaccine trial, the AGEU variable was incorrectly populated with "YEARS" for infants under one year old, when it should have been "MONTHS." This was not flagged by Pinnacle 21 but was discovered during manual review.

4. Optimizing the SDTM Review Process

To conduct an effective SDTM review, follow these steps:

  • Review SDTM Specifications Early: Identify potential issues before SDTM datasets are created.
  • Analyze Pinnacle 21 Reports Critically: Don’t rely solely on automated checks—investigate warnings and study-specific variables manually.
  • Manual Domain Review: Ensure assumptions are met and variables are used correctly in specific domains.

5. Conclusion: Building a Holistic SDTM Review Process

By combining early manual review, critical analysis of automated checks, and a detailed review of domain-specific assumptions, programmers can significantly enhance the accuracy and compliance of SDTM datasets. The real-world examples provided highlight how even small errors can lead to significant downstream problems. A holistic SDTM review process not only saves time but also ensures higher data quality and compliance during regulatory submission.

"""

Popular posts from this blog

SAS Interview Questions and Answers: CDISC, SDTM and ADAM etc

-
1) What do you know about CDISC and its standards? CDISC stands for Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium and it is developed keeping in mind to bring great deal of efficiency in the entire drug development process. CDISC brings efficiency to the entire drug development process by improving the data quality and speed-up the whole drug development process and to do that CDISC developed a series of standards, which include Operation data Model (ODM), Study data Tabulation Model (SDTM) and the Analysis Data Model ADaM ). 2) Why people these days are more talking about CDSIC and what advantages it brings to the Pharmaceutical Industry? A) Generally speaking, Only about 30% of programming time is used to generate statistical results with SAS®, and the rest of programming time is used to familiarize data structure, check data accuracy, and tabulate/list raw data and statistical results into certain formats. This non-statistical programming time will be significantly reduced...
Read more

Comparing Two Methods for Removing Formats and Informats in SAS: DATA Step vs. PROC DATASETS

-
Comparing Two Approaches to Removing Formats and Informats in SAS Comparing Two Approaches to Removing Formats and Informats in SAS When working with SAS datasets, there are times when you need to remove formats and informats that have been previously assigned to variables. Two primary approaches can be used for this task: Using the DATA Step Using the PROC DATASETS Procedure This article compares and contrasts these two approaches to help you determine which method is most appropriate for your needs. Approach 1: Using the DATA Step The DATA step is a versatile and commonly used method for removing formats and informats. By assigning variables to a null format or informat, you can effectively remove these attributes from your dataset. Example: data mydata_clean; set mydata; format _all_; informat _all_; run; In this example, the mydata dataset is processed in the DATA step, and...
Read more

Studyday calculation ( --DY Variable in SDTM)

-
USE OF THE “STUDY DAY” VARIABLES The permissible Study Day variables (--DY, --STDY, and --ENDY) describe the relative day of the observation starting with the reference date as Day 1. They are determined by comparing the date portion of the respective date/time variables (--DTC, --STDTC, and --ENDTC) to the date portion of the Subject Reference Start Date (RFSTDTC from the Demographics domain). The Subject Reference Start Date (RFSTDTC) is designated as Study Day 1. The Study Day value is incremented by 1 for each date following RFSTDTC. Dates prior to RFSTDTC are decremented by 1, with the date preceding RFSTDTC designated as Study Day -1 (there is no Study Day 0). This algorithm for determining Study Day is consistent with how people typically describe sequential days relative to a fixed reference point, but creates problems if used for mathematical calculations because it does not allow for a Day 0. As such, Study Day is not suited for use in subsequent numerical computations...
Read more