Recently, more and more, I’m being asked my opinion about the scope of SEND and if a certain study or even a certain endpoint should be provided in SEND. Clearly, I’m referring to data which do not have an obvious example in the SEND IG. However, the lack of example cannot be the defining criteria …
Tag Archives: FDA
FDA provides more detail on the Scope of SEND
This past week was the CDISC SEND Virtual Face-to-Face meeting, and yes, I still snicker like a schoolboy at calling something a ‘virtual face-to-face’, but hopefully it’s the last one and by next Spring we can be face-to-face in person. Anyways, as is usual, the highlight of the week was the FDA public meeting. As …
Continue reading “FDA provides more detail on the Scope of SEND”
How to avoid rejection
It’s a basic human need: We want our work accepted and valued. Nobody wants to see their work rejected. It’s so obvious, it almost goes without saying. Worse still would be being rejected by a cold, heartless automated computerized system. That would be soul destroying. However, with the FDA’s latest deadline, automated rejections will start …
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 …
Continue reading “Supported but not required by FDA – What’s the point?”
SEND: Why did they have to make it so damn hard?!
In my previous blog, I recalled the tale of my first experience with SEND. I’d assumed that standardizing nonclinical data would be straightforward, after all we have standard glossaries and lexicons from the likes of INHAND, and isn’t one 28-day study pretty much like another? Yet, this SEND thing seemed so alien and impenetrable to …
Continue reading “SEND: Why did they have to make it so damn hard?!”
Sensible SEND Blog 