Webinars

Regulatory Expectations

These Data Standards Catalogs from the FDA and PMDA show the valid ADaM-IG versions for your submission’s date.

• FDA currently accepts ADaM-IG 1.0 and ADaM-IG 1.1.
  • Note: ADaM-IG 1.0 is only accepted for studies that began prior to the dates below. If your study started on or after these dates, then you can no longer use ADaM-IG 1.0 to submit that study.
    • 03/15/2019 for NDAs, ANDAs, and certain BLAs
    • 03/15/2020 for certain INDs
• PMDA currently accepts ADaM-IG 1.0 only. Note: Unlike the FDA, the PMDA does not grant exceptions for issues in the Reject category.

Versions and Revisions

You need to annotate and submit only the unique forms from the final version of the CRF, provided that they cover all the collected data. Combine all unique pages, e.g., those for clinical data and central review data, into a single acrf.pdf. Here are some example scenarios:

• If Version 1 had pages not used to collect data, and Version 2 removed those pages, then submit only Version 2.
• If Version 1 had pages used to collect data, but Version 2 removed those pages, then submit both versions.

Intro to ADaM Conformance

ADaM data are required by the FDA and PMDA, and accepted by China’s NMPA. Agencies often begin reviews with ADaM data validation, which helps them understand the analyses performed and reproduce results.

This is the first in a series of posts where we answer questions from our recent webinar, Exploring Common CDISC ADaM Conformance Findings. In this post, we focus on implementation recommendations.

In the regulatory review process, it's critical to have analysis data that comply with the CDISC ADaM standard. Both the FDA and PMDA require ADaM data, and as they begin reviews, they start with ADaM data validation. ADaM data help these agencies understand the analyses performed and reproduce the results for further validation.

In this webinar, Trevor Mankus covers the more commonly occurring validation rules and some potential reasons why they fired.

The SDTM annotated CRF (aCRF) is a cumbersome submission document to create. It's also highly important. It visually documents how data are mapped from the CRF to SDTM. Because this is mostly a manual task, it is key to know what makes a high-quality aCRF.

In this webinar, Amy Garrett reviews published guidance from regulatory agencies and provides best practices for CRF annotations. These practices ensure your aCRF meets current regulatory requirements and the needs of internal users.

SUPPQUAL datasets represent the non-standard variables in SDTM tabulation data. However, there is a lack of implementation metrics across the industry to understand the actual usage of SUPPQUAL datasets. In this webinar, Sergiy Sirichenko summarizes metrics from many studies and sponsors to produce an overall picture.

When preparing data for regulatory submissions, we know you need to comply with hundreds of validation rules. While many rules are straightforward, some could be confusing. Are you wondering why a certain validation rule fired? If it’s applicable to your study? And whether you should fix it or explain it? These and other commonly asked questions were answered by Pinnacle 21’s Michael Beers in a recently hosted webinar. You can watch the recording below. For webinar slides and frequently asked questions, read on.

When preparing data for regulatory submissions, we know you need to comply with hundreds of validation rules. While many rules are straightforward, some could be confusing. Are you wondering why a certain validation rule fired? If it’s applicable to your study? And whether you should fix it or explain it? These and other commonly asked questions were answered by Pinnacle 21’s Michael Beers in a recently hosted webinar. You can watch the recording below. For webinar slides and frequently asked questions, read on.

On Friday, September 27th, the Japanese Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) published its long-awaited update to validation rules for SDTM, ADAM and Define.xml. PMDA Validation Rules 2.0 introduce additional standard conformance rules from CDISC, support for analysis result metadata (ARM), and many other changes. At Pinnacle 21, we've got you covered. We have released support for these new rules in our latest validation engine.

Released March 31, the new P21 Enterprise 4.0 provides more options for submitting study data to the Japanese health authority PMDA, plus better ways to manage validation issues and reports, as well as new validation rules and support for STDMIG 3.3.

P21 Enterprise 4.0 addresses concerns raised by our customers who submit data to both FDA and PMDA. Historically, regulators at the two agencies have embraced clinical data standards and conformance rules at different rates and degrees of severity.

Running data validations for PMDA has required a separate compliance strategy, plus extra time for validation and regulatory submission. Too often, sponsors worry that PMDA submission packages will fall short of reviewer expectations.