Is the world of SEND moving too fast?

Well, March 2021 turned out to be a big month in the world of SEND. The FDA issued their 90-day notice for the enforcement of the Technical Rejection Criteria (TRC) for Study Data. This means that the FDA will begin rejecting studies that don’t meet the criteria effective September 15, 2021.

We also had a new Technical Conformance Guide (TCG) drop from FDA, and yes as this blogger speculated, immune response data in an optional custom domain for IS, was added to the Guide.

We saw the Federal Register Notice (FRN) and then the obligatory update to the Data Standards Catalogue to support and later require SENDIG-DART v1.1 which is the CDISC SEND standard for Development and Reproductive Toxicology. This coincides with a lot of FDA activity around their Fit For Use (FFU) pilot for that DART standard, including the selection of sponsors participating in the pilot and then the scramble to produce the datasets in record time.

That was all just in one month. Damn, do those FDA folks ever sleep?!

Not wanting to be left out of the party, CDISC published SENDIG 3.1.1. While limited to changes to PC and PP domains, publication of a new version of SEND is a very significant moment.

We also of course squeezed in the Society of Toxicology, ToxExpo. Even when virtual like it was again, for many of us it remains the largest and most influential industry event of the year.  Also, like many of you, I am very much looking forward to being back on-site next March in the San Diego sun!

How do you feel about so much happening in a single month?

Personally, I’m very proud and excited. I was part of both of the teams that authored the SENDIG-DART 1.1 and the SENDIG 3.1.1 standards. I’ve volunteered so many hours to developing these standards, I want to see them adopted and required as soon as possible, and applied to as wide a rage of studies as is feasible. But I know that’s not everyone’s opinion. I know there will be many who struggle to keep up with latest changes. Many who do not even know where to go to look to find out what’s changing (maybe that’s how you first stumbled upon my blog!).

I’m sure there are many that see all of these updates and announcements and feel that it’s too much, too soon. I’m sure there are many also still getting to grips with some of the challenges of SEND 3.1, and the idea of SENDIG 3.1.1 and SENDIG-DART probably fills them with dread.

I know there’s an opinion in some quarters that SEND is a burden, a necessary evil, an unwelcome expense. Those are valid opinions and I understand what leads people to those conclusions.

Yes, I understand that point of view, but I still see the benefits outweighing the cost. Most of industry is on board with SEND. Whether your solution includes new tools, partnering with a service provider, or a combination of the two, most of our industry is over the initial hurdle and now up and running. I’m continually reminded of the benefits that SEND brings both to industry and to FDA. As I look back at March, I’m really excited and encouraged to see the pace of SEND adoption is picking up.

How do you feel about it? to let me know.

Till next time


Supported but not required by FDA – What’s the point?

SENDIG-DART v1.1 is currently supported by FDA, but not actually required, so should anyone really care? What’s the point of a standard that isn’t required yet?

In this context, supported means that a sponsor could choose to include SEND datasets, and the FDA are willing and able to receive them and would expect to use them when reviewing the submission.

However, as they would not be required, why would any organization actually do this?

I suppose the first thing that comes to mind is the fact that SEND costs money. It just does. I think we’ve all got accustomed to that idea. It also takes time. Time and money are two very persuasive arguments, yet there are organizations already getting on board with this new standard.

We have seen this before. Whenever the agency adds to the Data Standard Catalogue, they always add a support date that’s in advance of the requirement date. Typically, they issue verbiage along the lines of “…strongly encourage the use of…” to indicate their desire to receive the standardized data ahead of the requirement.  FDA cannot simply add the standard and require it immediately, so industry gets a period to implement the new standard.

Anyone who remembers their similar position for SEND 3.0 and SEND 3.1 will know that any implementation period comes and goes far too quickly. Two years can feel like a long time, but it will be over all too soon.

So ‘Supported but not Required’ is a siren. A great, noisy, clanging call to action, telling us that this requirement will drop onto our desks with all the grace and elegance of a sledgehammer.

Some of you are already underway with implementation. Many more are getting educated on the new standard, which is something I’d highly recommend if you haven’t begun this already. Being better informed about its scope, content and expectation sooner rather than later will enable you to identify the impact of this new requirement on your organization.

Some organizations have already thought about how many studies will be impacted and given that it’s a relatively smaller number than general toxicology, they have already set about identifying an outsourcing partner to handle the requirement on their behalf.

However, would any organization actually provide SEND datasets as part of a submission, where they are supported and even strongly encouraged, but not actually required?

Well, I believe that several organizations did exactly that for SEND 3.0 and 3.1. Granted, not a great number of organizations, but a significant group for sure. Once ready, these organizations did in fact see value in putting their capability, the capability of their CROs and solutions partners to the test, secure in the knowledge that they had a safety net of knowing that there would be no refusal to file. Knowing there are so many complexities and moving parts, there’s certainly an argument to be made for testing out a new standard during the limbo period of ‘Supported but not Required’.

As usual, please send your comments, thoughts, disagreements or questions to

Till next time


DART, SOT & an FRN – Just another week in the world of SEND

First, I noticed that I was getting a lot of email notifications and messages. More than usual. Something happened and the news was spreading. It was a Federal Register Notice (“FRN”) and it honestly came as a bit of a surprise. It was announcing that the FDA were adopting SENDIG-DART and stating they would start to require it for submission. As a reminder, SENDIG-DART is the SEND Standard for Development and Repro tox, and if you’ve been following this blog, then you are well aware that it’s one of my favorite topics to discuss.

The FRN states that FDA will begin to accept SENDIG-DART in submissions from 15th March. That’s March 15th of this year. No, I couldn’t believe it either. It will become an actual submission requirement from March 2023; but that’s only 2 years away. FDA are actually accepting it now – but no doubt with their usual “strongly encourage the use of” tag. Also, yesterday the FDA’s Data Standards Catalogue was updated to add SENDIG-DART, reflecting the details in the FRN.

Regular readers will know that I was part of the team that wrote the SENDIG-DART, so seeing it being accepted by FDA and seeing a date for when the requirement will kick in, is huge. This came just a week after the closing date for organizations to register their application to participate in the FDA’s Fit For Use pilot of the SENDIG-DART.

We actually published the standard back in 2017, and since that time it’s been patiently waiting for its turn in the FDA spotlight. Obviously, this didn’t come completely out of the blue. We’ve been hearing noises from FDA for the past year about the desire for a Fit For Use pilot, but I have to admit that the date of March 15th took me by surprise. And I’m delighted. This is a full year ahead of what I was expecting. As regular readers will also know, with the anticipation of the pilot, I’ve been busy developing our tools and services to support DART, so while surprised, we are prepared.

While we are on the topic of DART and completely coincidentally, I’ve changed my role at CDISC. Again, regular readers may well recall that I was leading the PC/PP team developing the Pharmacokinetics domains. Well, this this week, I have handed that team over to a new leader, as I’m now the new team lead for the DART subteam. So, I’ll be leading the team in developing the next version of the SENDIG-DART which will focus on widening the scope to include Juvenile Tox studies.

What else is going on in March? Well, SEND 3.1.1 will be released from CDISC! This sees the PC/PP team’s hard work finally published. This month we also expect that the FDA will publish the next update to the Technical Conformance Guide. It will be fascinating to see their latest changes. Will it incorporate any updates driven by CBER?

And we also have the SOT/Tox Expo. For many of us, the biggest event of the year. I can’t think of SOT without lamenting the fact that this year again it’s virtual. Yesterday, as part of SOT, I delivered an online presentation looking at the some of the key issues organizations are grappling with at the moment to simply be in compliance with the SEND Standard; and then went on to talk about how some organizations are utilizing the SEND Standard Beyond Compliance. Again, a topic that will be familiar to regular readers.

March has always been a busy month in the SEND calendar, and I realize that this posting seems to have been a combination of news updates, and call backs to my previous posts, like some bizarre greatest hits album. That’s the nature of the beast.

My next post will return to musings and opinions. How about: When a standard is supported but not required – what’s the point? Would anyone submit SEND when it’s supported but not required?

Till next time, from your friendly neighborhood SEND-Geek


A picture paints a thousand words

I know the title is the obvious cliché, but I had to do it. Sometimes things are obvious for a reason.

I’ve just finished putting together my SOT/ToxExpo presentation and I’m still lamenting the fact that it’s virtual again this year. Anyway, as I alluded to in my previous blog post, this year’s presentation looks at both where we are today, and where we might be going tomorrow with SEND. I’m convinced that Visualization is key to that conversation.

It’s at this point I’m reminded of an experience at SOT a couple of years ago where we were demonstrating our own visualization solution known as, SEND Explorer® to someone who previously, had to draw their conclusions using only the PDF tables. The individual was shown all manner of graphs, charts and other visualizations and the demonstrator was able to dynamically drill into the results as the person was asking questions of the data.

They were getting more and more engaged and enthusiastic as they were seeing the speed and ease at which the demonstrator was able to bring up data, customize how it was viewed and perform various on-screen comparisons.

Yes, of course nonclinical data has been displayed in graphical form before. I’m not suggesting that this is all due to the advent of SEND, but SEND does change the landscape because the data are standardized. It’s this standardization which has paved the way for commercial off-the-shelf tools to be developed which can work with data regardless of the CRO responsible for running the study; regardless of the Data Collection system used for capturing the data.

Also, the introduction of services to convert historic study data to SEND, often locked away in old PDFs, has opened new possibilities for accessing value found in those old studies. Legacy conversions like this then provide visualization tools like SEND Explorer, with a wealth of study information to work with.

This has got me wondering: How long until this becomes just the run of the mill way of analyzing nonclinical data? How long until SEND simply replaces the PDF appendices in the study report? Back when SEND was first being introduced, that seemed to be the logical assumption for the next significant step. One day, there won’t even be PDF appendices.

That’s an idea I’ve been thinking about a lot. There are very good reasons why that won’t happen in the near term, but I think that there are ways to overcome these roadblocks. I think that will have to be the topic for a separate blog post….

For today, I’m really pleased whenever I get to see people getting excited about discovering the potential for working with visualizations of standardized nonclinical study data. I’m longing for in-person conferences and shows when we can have these types of conversations face to face again.

Till next time


Beyond Compliance?

Beyond /bɪˈjɒnd/ Preposition “more extensive or extreme than; further-reaching than.”

This week I have been writing the abstract for my talk at this year’s SOT meeting. Even though the event is again virtual, as you may have guessed by now, I’ll take any opportunity to inflict my opinions about SEND on anyone who’ll show up to listen. In writing the abstract, I think back to previous SOT expos and I’m reminded that across our industry, we are a wide and varied crowd when it comes to SEND.

There are still a significant number who are asking “What is this SEND thing, and does my study really need it?”. There are also the Many and the Few. The Many are up and running with SEND, but for them, it is harder than they imagined, more expensive and it’s slow. Oh boy, does it slow things down sometimes! In an industry where time, speed and expertise are often in short demand, the last thing anyone needed was something like SEND. Right?

Then there are the Few. Those exploring the opportunities of standardized study data. The small number for whom SEND is not a burden, it’s just a mechanism by which they can unlock a world of new possibilities.

The Many may have heard talk of this mythical place Beyond Compliance, but the Few are already heading out on the journey of exploration.

So, is there a SEND El Dorado that lays beyond compliance? Certainly, Big Pharma believe so. We can see their investment in consortia where they are pooling their knowledge and building warehouses of shared study data in SEND format. Obviously, such activity comes with considerable investment, and they would only do this if their belief was that the benefits and opportunities outweigh the cost.

However, we don’t have to be part of an exclusive consortia in order to see the benefits of working with standardized electronic data. Visualization tools like SEND Explorer allow regulators, sponsors, and others to interact with nonclinical study data in a fast, dynamic way. Previously, hours would have needed to be spent leafing through PDF pages of a study report, but now we click a button and graphs, charts and other visualizations can appear. See something interesting? Then just another click or two and we are drilling down so see what’s really going on in the study. Or zoom out and summarize to a higher level: Look across a set of studies to see if trends are consistent from study to study, or is there something peculiar about this one particular study?

It doesn’t matter which CRO supplied the data, it’s standardized. It doesn’t matter which collection system was used, it’s standardized. That standardization has allowed for tools like SEND Explorer.

However, that means that their value can only be seen when they are fed a good volume of standardized data.  I’ve often heard the opinion “Wow, that looks great, but I just don’t have enough SEND Data to make use of it”. I’ve spoken to those who know they have a wealth of historic study data, that they would love to be able to use with SEND Explorer, but unfortunately those study data are stuck in PDF. So, the challenge became: how to be able to scrape data from PDFs into SEND in order to feed the warehouses and visualization tools? The vast number of CROs can’t entertain doing this work. Understandably, they are grappling with the challenges of today, without trying to unlock the study data of the past. However, for those who are endeavoring to pitch camp in this land of Beyond Compliance, we’ve developed the tools and techniques to do just this. And we are doing it, today. In parallel with our work converting data for submission, we are also handling data that are going Beyond Compliance.

You can probably tell that I’d be quite excited to have my SOT presentation focus on the possibilities of the land beyond compliance, but I acknowledge that I need to deliver something that is going to be as relevant for the Many as well the Few.

Till next time…..


ADA & SEND: I’m conflicted

In the last CDISC SEND Core Team meeting, we got to discussing Anti-Drug Antibody (ADA) data, and its representation in SEND. We were debating what we’d recommend, and this is the cause of my conflict.

The purist within me wants to scream “Custom Domain!”. The pragmatist knows the industry isn’t ready for this. I want to shout about that fact that at Instem, we have the tools and services to support custom domains; but I’m not supposed to use CDISC for such promotion. I want to tell everyone listening that we have the products and services available to help industry create these custom domains; but that would be overstepping the mark. So, as a card-carrying member of the CDISC SEND Core Team – I’m forced to admit to myself that industry just isn’t there yet.

So, I’m conflicted.

This arose due to the work over at FDA CBER and their recent pilot of the SEND standard. They have a real need to see ADA in SEND. In the current version of SEND, there isn’t a domain for these results, however SDTMIG (the implementation guide for the clinical equivalent of SEND) has such a domain. It’s called IS – Immunogenicity Specimen Assessment; but it’s not in the SENDIG.

PHUSE have previously looked into this situation and came up with two solutions, which can be summarized as showing how to either, force-fit ADA data into the existing LB domain; or borrowing IS from SDTMIG and adding it to a SEND package as a custom domain. (I’m probably doing a huge disservice to its authors by reducing an entire white paper to a single sentence!)

At this point, I’ll acknowledge but completely sidestep the question of whether or not this would actually be considered in scope or not; and totally dodge the issues around SDTM version compatibly and the fact that CDISC are adding an IS domain to SEND 3.2. If you want to dive into that, then drop me a line,, because I’d be happy at taking the discussion down that particular rabbit hole!

So, I’m conflicted; and a big part of that conflict is due to the fact that I relish being at the cutting edge of SEND. The ‘right’ answer is, that as these data are important for safety evaluation, that they should be represented in SEND. This being the case, then the IS domain is a better fit than a misused LB domain. However, by and large, the industry isn’t at the cutting edge and as such many probably don’t have the tools or expertise needed. This is unsurprising as at CDISC, I think we could have done a better job at making the information available. We have an Implementation Guide that includes custom domains, but at no point acts to guide implementation of a custom domain. That being the case, I’ll hold my hand up as a CDISC volunteer and take my share of the responsibility for that.

Being at the cutting-edge means having developed the tools and services already. Not only does our Submit™ software create and consume such domains, but our SEND Explorer software can visualize them, and our services team can create and verify them. So, we are now sitting pretty with our ducks all aligned. But I know that doesn’t really apply to many others.

So, I’m still conflicted.

This is not supposed to sound like shameless self-promotion, of “look what we can do”; it’s relating the personal challenge of taking my CDISC responsibility seriously and ensuring I don’t overstep my privileged position of having a seat at the SEND Leadership table.

Till next time


SEND verses the Study Report

SEND is just an electronic representation of your study report.”

This used to be my stock phrase. I actually believed it. It was how the world seemed a few years ago. I meant every word of it.

The concept is admirable, but the reality seems to be getting more removed all the time. The intention was that industry would have a standardized representation of the study’s results in order that they could be exchanged electronically, because previously they were just in PDF reports which, while being very human readable, are far from being machine readable. Data would be collected and reports produced as normal. The only change would be that the study report would now have corresponding files containing the data.

So, “SEND is just an electronic version of the study report” is what I used to tell people. Oh, how naïve. The world must have seemed like such a simple place.

Today I heard about a CRO who now refuses to produce SEND 3.0 because they’ve changed their data collection practices for SEND 3.1. My younger self would have been outraged at the idea that not only the SEND standard, but a particular version of SEND, would dictate how data are collected.

Yet, for where we are today, I know this is pretty reasonable for various reasons. Probably the main one is the significant change to Histo Pathology data that was introduced in SEND 3.1. As part of a move to be able to better compare microscopic findings from one study to another, SEND 3.1 brought in Controlled Terms and a much tighter specification of Histo findings. If these data were not collected using a SEND 3.1 compatible glossary, then retrospectively converting the data into SEND would cause challenges. At best this would be time consuming, and at worst this could be near impossible without the Pathologist on hand to unpick all the findings.

Another point worth considering is the idea that we don’t always want the report and the SEND dataset to match. “You mean the SEND data would be different from the data in the study report?!” I hear my younger self ask in horror. Well, actually yes. There are occasions where data on a page may be filtered, formatted or even summarized in order to best fit that page. A SEND dataset doesn’t have such constraints. This notion came up again this week. There are occasions where subjects are observed, and only abnormalities are listed in the report in order to save space. The report would also include a line to explain this. However, in the SEND dataset, all records should appear, and the consumer of the data can then filter them out using their own tools as they so desire.

The same principle could apply to something like food consumption on a longer-term study, which may well be collected daily, yet reported weekly. So, it’s entirely possible that the data on the page is summarized at a slightly higher level than the data in SEND.

The examples we’ve discussed here are probably the most obvious ones, yet there are many more.

So, here we are, and I look back on the naivety of the opinions of my former self. Conceptually, there’s still some truth in the notion that “SEND is just an electronic representation of your study report”, yet once we get into the detail, we see so many exceptions to this notion that the very idea can seem farcical at times.

As usual, hit me with an email ( with your own thoughts on the matter, whether you agree, disagree or just wonder what on earth I’m rambling on about.

I’ll leave you with one final thought, “How do you write a good joke?”, “Well, I start with a laugh and work backwards!”. While a cheap gag in its own right, there’s a lesson there: Start with the end in mind. The end used to be a Study Report, but today that’s the SEND Dataset too.

Till next time,


Out with 2020, SEND in 2021

Well Happy New Year one and all!

After saying a final sayonara to 2020, I’m sure that you, like me and the rest of the world are hoping that 2021 ends up being so much better than its predecessor. That’s got me thinking about what’s happening with SEND in 2021.

As discussed a couple of postings ago, the recent Federal Register Notice specified the coming February 26 as the date by which Sponsors must register their application to participate in the FDA’s Fit-For-Use pilot for SENDIG-DART. The expectation is then that March through May should see participants creating datasets. Later in the year, the findings of the pilot together with any recommendations, should be made public by FDA.

As usual, we can expect FDA publishing Technical Conformance Guides in March and October again. Will they use this to further clarify their position on requesting that more studies should be submitted in SEND format (See this posting for more details)? Will we see updates to reflect the needs of CBER and that center’s recent pilot of SEND? I’m thinking specifically here about representing ADA in SEND.

I’m sure we’ll see an update to the Technical Rejection Criteria too.

Somewhere around the end of the first quarter, we should finally see the publication of SEND 3.1.1 from CDISC, with its associated Conformance Rules. For me personally, this will be a huge milestone. SEND 3.1.1 is change to the PC and PP domains and the reason this means so much to me personally, is that at CDISC, I lead the SEND PC/PP team. We have been working on this change since about 2017.

In its plainest terms, this change is simply that the PC domain has two timing variables moved from Perm to Exp while two others moved the other way going from Exp to Perm. Also, the PCUSCHFL variable was added as permissible in order to make it consistent with the other findings domains

SEND 3.1.1 has completed 2 rounds of public review, so the actual changes have been public for a while, but if you’d like further information, then feel free to drop me a line.

While on the face of it, this seems only a very slight change, the team have also completely reworked all of the examples and supporting text in order to be more applicable for nonclinical data. So yes, only a minor tweak to the actual variables, but a significant reworking of these sections of the IG and something that should improve the IG’s usability in this area.

2020 was the strangest of years. Here’s hoping that 2021 is better for us all.

Till the next post


Should SEND dictate your choice of CRO?

This month marks the anniversary of the start of the requirement for SEND. It has been 3 years since SEND became required for INDs and 4 years since it’s requirement for NDAs. In our world, that really is not a long time. Yet, for many of us, SEND has completely changed our world. So, in this blog post, I’d like to take a quick look at how much has changed and how much of that was unexpected and offer some insights on how to best deal with that change.

There was a time when we used to hear some people say things like:

  • SEND is just an electronic representation of the Study Report Appendices for the Individual Animal Data Tables
  • If you didn’t collect those data before, you won’t need to start to collect them just for SEND
  • SEND is just a file format

I’ve even said some of those things myself. That first line was almost my mantra at conferences in the early days.

Yet today we are electronically capturing more data than ever before, and we seem to be making all manner of changes to accommodate SEND. So, what happened? How big of an impact is SEND having?

A director at a large CRO, once told me:

“SEND has had the biggest impact on the industry since the introduction of GLP”

The magnitude of that statement has always stuck with me.

SEND has actually impacted the entire process from placing a study at a CRO; then impacting how data are collected; dictating changes to lexicons to make them more SEND friendly; electronically capturing data that previously may have only been in an SOP or noted in the study report; providing new tools and methods for how studies can be analyzed; and right through to giving standardized electronic data a value beyond just the submission.

Obviously, that’s far too much to tackle in one blog post, so here I’ll look at how SEND impacts the decisions when placing a study with a CRO and I’ll return to the other topics in future posts.

Sponsors now need to understand their CRO’s capability and standard practices around SEND to ensure that both parties have aligned expectations. For some sponsors, this can be a challenge as they do not have in-house SEND expertise, and therefore may not know what their expectations around SEND should be and are unclear about what the CRO is providing to them and if it meets their needs.

Some CROs have a policy stating that sponsors must state their SEND requirements upfront as trying to accommodate them retrospectively may be quite challenging (to put it mildly), so it is important that such things are discussed and agreed from the outset. To be fair to the CROs, this is a fairly understandable position and at this point it’s worth noting a line from the FDA’s Technical Conformance Guide document:

“The ideal time to implement SEND is prior to the conduct of the study as it is very important that the results presented in the accompanying study report be traceable back to the original data collected.”

The FDA themselves are advising that we don’t let SEND become an afterthought. We are advised to consider SEND prior to conducting the study.

Also, what if you are a Sponsor with an established relationship with one of the smaller CROs who does not have any SEND capability? You may have been advised to stop using this CRO in favor of placing studies at one of the larger CROs; a CRO with an established track record in SEND. While on the face of it this may seem like sensible advice, you may find this unpalatable due to rising costs, or the smaller CROs may have specialism in a certain area; or simply you may have an established relationship and work well together. Let’s face it, nobody wants SEND production to dictate which CRO they use, yet the SEND datasets shouldn’t e overlooked as they are the very data that the FDA will use in their review.

So, at this point you may be asking yourself:

  • What if I don’t even know what my SEND requirements are? How can I discuss them with the CRO?
  • What do I do if I’ve left it too late and my study is already complete?
  • What do I do if I want to work with a CRO who cannot provide SEND?

Don’t worry, that’s why we’re here. Uh no, a commercial is coming…  Instem provides SEND conversion, verification and consultancy services; and yes, that even includes creating SEND datasets from a final PDF study report. I’m not a salesperson, but we are the leading provider of SEND services with the foremost experts (sorry for the advert as I couldn’t resist, and our Marketing VP will love it).

Seriously, as always please email me with comments, questions or even disagreements at

Till next time…


The DART pilot is getting ready to fly: Part 2

In Part 1, I went into the detail of what the new SENDIG-DART standard covered; and now I’ll conclude by describing what’s involved in ensuring the industry is equipped with the necessary tools and services in order to successfully participate in the FDA’s Fit For Use (FFU) pilot for SENDIG-DART.

The view from the trenches

My involvement, from co-authoring the standard through to developing software and services for producing SENDIG-DART datasets, gives me a fairly unique point of view when it comes to the pilot.

These are the tools and the services, on which the industry depends. Fortunately, earlier this year, we had some indication from CDISC and FDA that this pilot was coming. This forewarning was invaluable because the software can take the best part of a year to develop as this needs to be done while still developing additional functionality and improvements for supporting SEND 3.1. This new DART functionality comes straight after we have just completed work for two key SEND 3.1 items: supporting the creation and consumption, firstly of Custom Domains; and secondly, of Latin Square Safety Pharmacology studies. It felt like there was not time to draw breath before we began adding the 7 new DART domains.  As solutions director, arguably my most critical task is evaluating and prioritizing our development plans. Over the past few years, we prioritized SEND 3.1 over SENDIG-DART, even though both were published around the same time. This year, we have prioritized SENDIG-DART over SENDIG-AR and have had to delay some of the myriad of other improvements that we’d love to implement to get us closer to that elusive ‘push button SEND’. It’s a difficult choice to implement support for a standard that is likely to not be required for at least another 3 years. That’s a huge investment for a vendor, to create something that will get used briefly for a pilot, but then sit dormant until it eventually becomes a submission requirement.

Getting ready for the FFU has been challenging, at times difficult but also wonderful to finally see this standard come into reality. Yes, for me this is a journey that started in 2012, but finally we have the tools to create the datasets. Finally, we can provide the services for DART that the industry will rely on to create and verify these datasets.

Implementing such solutions puts the standard under pressure and we see just how robust it is. I discover there are one or two items that could have had a clearer definition. One or two concepts that could have been better realized. Now I’m seeing things from the other side. Actually, I’m thrilled to finally have these datasets. We imagined them in CDISC meetings years ago and now they are a reality. Despite now knowing some improvements I’d like to see in the SENDIG-DART, the truth is that it does hold up to the pressure and I’m confident that this FDA FFU pilot will be very successful. It’s been a long, and at times difficult road, but I’m really excited about it.

For reference, the Federal Register Notice is here:

Yes, this 2-part posting was a little more technical than usual and I brought us all  into the weeds, even listing and describing actual domains. For my next post, normal service will be resumed, and you’ll be treated to my usual ramblings and single-minded opinions on the impact that SEND is having on our industry, looking at the whole process from placing a study at a CRO through to reporting and analyzing the study results.

As always, if you want to continue this conversation – drop me a line at

Till next time