Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
RequestNotes

Status

From Stefan Konermann.


Email from Stefen

...

:

In a new trial, the secretion of cytokines by immune cells is measured in a mixture of likely serum and culture medium. The procedure is like this: Blood is drawn and is then incubated for 24 hours in that medium. Substances that are supposed to provoke an immune reaction are added, such as specific antibodies or the study drug. After 24 hours, the cells are removed and the supernatant is collected and analyzed for cytokines such as Interferon gamma and Interleukins.

The secretion is provoked by a Stimulating Agent (Test Condition) and we know what substance was used (Test Condition Agent). However, now comes the tricky part: the study drug should be added to that test tube in different concentrations in order to assess if there are differences in the reaction of the immune cells (T cells and NK cells) secreting Interferon and Interleukins.

So the question is: How would you capture these different concentrations of the Test Condition Agent? Would you recommend to have separate codes in the Test Condition Agent for, let’s say, “Study drug, concentration A”, “Study drug, concentration B”, … and then set up different analytes, one per concentration? Would you use a supplemental qualifier? Or would there be a further option you would recommend we have not yet considered?


Status
colourYellow
titleIn progress
 

2023-11-02: MB/IS team agreed to extend the use of CONC and CONCU to other specimen-based domains.

2023-11-28: CDISC ISMT (internal leadership team) agreed with extending CONC and CONCU to other domains for agent concentration and unit.

Action Items:

  •  Review, seek approval from the SDS/SDTM team.
  •  Review, seek approval from the GGG
  •  Contact CDISC PM Dianne Dirussle about getting into a version of the SDTMIG post 4.0 release. This would be a scope change for 4.0, at this point, it is too late for inclusion for 4.0.


Here is a mock example modeling his data:

Dataset wrap
Dataset2
hi1styleyellow
hi1column ISBDAGNT
tableidIS table 1

Row

STUDYID

DOMAIN

USUBJID

SPDEVID

ISSEQ

ISTESTCD

ISTEST

ISTSTCND

ISCNDAGT

ISORRES

ISORRESU

ISSTRESC

ISSTRESN

ISSTRESU

ISSPEC

ISMETHOD

ISDTC

1

ABC

IS

ABC-01-203

ABC001

1

IFNG

Interferon Gamma

WITHOUT STIMULATING AGENT
2.17

IU/mL

2.172.17

IU/mL

SERUM

ELISA/Other Method

2013-08-26

2

ABC

IS

ABC-01-203

ABC001

2

IFNG

Interferon Gamma

WITH STIMULATING AGENT

Study Drug, 20 mg

6.2

IU/mL

6.26.2

IU/mL

SERUM

ELISA/Other Method

2013-08-26

3

ABC

IS

ABC-01-203

ABC001

3

IFNG

Interferon Gamma

WITH STIMULATING AGENT

Study Drug, 40 mg

15.8

IU/mL

15.815.8

IU/mL

SERUM

ELISA/Other Method

2013-08-26
4ABCIS

ABC-01-203

ABC001

4

IFNG

Interferon Gamma

WITH STIMULATING AGENT

Other Test Agent, 5 mg

3.33

IU/mL

3.333.33

IU/mL

SERUM

ELISA/Other Method

2013-08-26
5ABCIS

ABC-01-203

ABC001

5

IFNG

Interferon Gamma

WITH STIMULATING AGENT

Other Test Agent, 15 mg

7.22

IU/mL

7.227.22

IU/mL

SERUM

ELISA/Other Method

2013-08-26

Background Information:

  1. This was sent to the lab team for discussion and we decided that the INF-y response tests should be modeled in IS (as agreed to with the same TB TAUG INF-y response tests here: https://wiki.cdisc.org/x/azXFBg).
  2. Craig said mentioned that there are NO other variables to capture the units and dosing concentrations for the test agents that are added to the samples. In fact, this is a gap in the CDISC model that we lack variables (or a domain) to help mapping in vitro drug/non-drug exposure data. The EX/EC and AG domains are used for mapping in vivo drug and non-drug therapeutic and other types of agents exposure data (respectively). These domains have variables for mapping dosing concentrations and units, but we can't use them for in vitro exposure data. Craig said he would .  One option is to pre-coordinate the concentrations and dosing units of the added agents added into the ISCNAGT (test condition agent) variable, see the texts in red in the above example.
    • this This is a problem because a single CDISC domain variable should be designed for a single meaning and a single purpose. The Test Condition Agent variable is used for the name/identity of the agentadded study/control drugs or other materials. I think we would be breaking rules to also include the concentration and unit of the agent in this variable as well.
  3. While brain storming Stefan's use-case, I remembered that in the MS domain, there are MSAGENT (Agent Name), MSCONC (Agent Concentration), MSCONCU (Agent Concentration Units) variables that were developed added back in SDTMIG v3.2 to represent the study and control drugs used for microbial resistance testing. The 3 variables, MSAGENT, MSCONC, and MSCONCU are used to map the name of the study/control drugs, their concentrations and units respectively. Basically, for these MS tests, you dump antibiotics study drugs, likely an antibiotic (at varying concentrations) on a plate to see if the bacteria would be resistant or susceptible for the drug by measuring a few specific outputs, at differing drug concentrations.

Questions/Discussion Needed:

I want to run this by the team to see if we actually have a "duplicated purpose variable" issue here.

  1. Is the Test Condition Agent (ISCNDAGT) variable the same as the Agent Name (MSAGENT)?
  2. Do we use them for the same purpose? - they both are used to map the name of the thing/entity (e.g. study/control drug, stimulating test materials like TB antigens) you add to a sample to induce a response.
  3. If yes, do we need to merge these two variables? Seeing as we are making changes for IG4.0, this might be worth considering, and will need multiple team's approval.
  4. Can we also then extend the use of the standard variables --CONC (Agent Concentration), --CONCU (Agent Concentration Units) to the other specimen-based domains for mapping concentration and unit of the in vitro test agent? There are now use-cases needing these variables in IS, MS and CP.
  5. Other concerns....

Here is an MS example from IG3.4:

After E. faecalis was identified in the subject sample, drug susceptibility testing was performed at each of the labs using both the sponsor's investigational drug and amoxicillin. Because an identified organism is the subject of the test, the NHOID variable is populated with "ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS". Between the 2 labs (MSNAM), a total of 3 susceptibility testing methods were used: epsilometer, disk diffusion, and macro broth dilution (MSMETHOD). Epsilometer and disk diffusion both use agar diffusion methods, in which an agar plate is inoculated with the microorganism of interest and either a strip (epsilometer) or discs (disk diffusion) containing various concentrations of the drug are placed on the agar plate. The epsilometer test method provides both a  minimum inhibitory concentration (MSTESTCD = "MIC"), the  lowest concentration of a drug  that inhibits the growth of a microorganism, and a qualitative interpretation (MSTESTCD = "MICROSUS") such as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant. The disk diffusion test method provides the diameter of the zone of inhibition (MSTESTCD = "DIAZOINH") and a qualitative interpretation such as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant (MSTESTCD = " MICROSUS" ). The quantitative and qualitative results are grouped together using MSGRPID.

...

  1. . Below is a MS example from IG3.4 to show how the 3 variables are used together with the MSTESTs:
Dataset wrap
titlems.xpt
Namems
Rowcaps
Rows 1-4:Show the minimum inhibitory concentration and the interpretation result reported from Central Lab ABC from a sample that was tested for susceptibility to the sponsor drug and amoxicillin, using an epsilometer test method.
Rows 5-6:Show that Local Lab XYZ found that the sample was susceptible to the sponsor drug at a concentration of 0.5 ug/dL and resistant to amoxicillin at a concentration of 0.5 ug/dL.
Rows 7-10:Show the diameter of the zone of inhibition and the interpretation result reported from Local Lab XYZ from a sample that was tested for susceptibility to the sponsor drug and amoxicillin using a disk diffusion test method.
Dataset2
RowSTUDYIDDOMAINUSUBJIDNHOIDMSGRPIDMSSEQMSREFIDMSLNKGRPMSTESTCDMSTESTMSAGENTMSCONCMSCONCUMSORRESMSORRESUMSSTRESCMSSTRESNMSSTRESUMSNAMMSMETHODMSDTC
1ABCMSABC-001-002ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS11SPEC011MICMinimum Inhibitory ConcentrationSponsor Drug

0.25ug/dL0.250.25ug/dLCENTRAL LAB ABCEPSILOMETER2005-06-19T08:00
2ABCMSABC-001-002ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS12SPEC011MICROSUSMicrobial SusceptibilitySponsor Drug

SUSCEPTIBLE
SUSCEPTIBLE

CENTRAL LAB ABCEPSILOMETER2005-06-19T08:00
3ABCMSABC-001-002ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS23SPEC011MICMinimum Inhibitory ConcentrationAmoxicillin

1ug/dL11ug/dLCENTRAL LAB ABCEPSILOMETER2005-06-19T08:00
4ABCMSABC-001-002ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS24SPEC011MICROSUSMicrobial SusceptibilityAmoxicillin

RESISTANT
RESISTANT

CENTRAL LAB ABCEPSILOMETER2005-06-19T08:00
5ABCMSABC-001-002ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS
5SPEC012MICROSUSMicrobial SusceptibilitySponsor Drug0.5ug/dLSUSCEPTIBLE
SUSCEPTIBLE

LOCAL LAB XYZMACRO BROTH DILUTION2005-06-19T08:00
6ABCMSABC-001-002ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS
6SPEC012MICROSUSMicrobial SusceptibilityAmoxicillin0.5ug/dLRESISTANT
RESISTANT

LOCAL LAB XYZMACRO BROTH DILUTION2005-06-19T08:00
7ABCMSABC-001-002ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS37SPEC012DIAZOINHDiameter of the Zone of InhibitionSponsor Drug

23mm2323mmLOCAL LAB XYZDISK DIFFUSION2005-06-26T08:00
8ABCMSABC-001-002ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS38SPEC012MICROSUSMicrobial SusceptibilitySponsor Drug

SUSCEPTIBLE
SUSCEPTIBLE

LOCAL LAB XYZDISK DIFFUSION2005-06-26T08:00
9ABCMSABC-001-002ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS49SPEC012DIAZOINHDiameter of the Zone of InhibitionAmoxicillin

25mm
25mmLOCAL LAB XYZDISK DIFFUSION2005-06-26T08:00
10ABCMSABC-001-002ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS410SPEC012MICROSUSMicrobial SusceptibilityAmoxicillin

RESISTANT
RESISTANT

LOCAL LAB XYZDISK DIFFUSION2005-06-26T08:00

PowerPoint Illustration for the in vitro testing exposure data problem:

View file
namein vitro Testing & Induced Responses_2023-11-27.pptx
height250

Questions/Discussion Needed:

I want to run this by the team to see if we can take advantage of the existing standard variables? Do we also have "duplicate variables" in different domains that serve the same purpose?

  1. Are we using the Test Condition Agent (ISCNDAGT) variable the same as the Agent Name (MSAGENT)? Do we use them for the same purpose?
    • They both are used to map the name of the thing/entity (e.g. study/control drug, stimulating test materials like TB antigens, etc) that are added to a sample to "induce" a response.
    • The "induced" response can be stimulatory (in immune response) or inhibitory (in bacterial resistance response).
  2. If yes, do we need to merge these two variables? Seeing as we are making changes for IG4.0, this might be worth considering, and will need multiple team's review and approval.
    • This also means there would be one less standard variable out there (as people complain that there are too many new variables in IG3.4). 
  3. As a separate conversation, can we extend the use of the standard variables --CONC (Agent Concentration), --CONCU (Agent Concentration Units) to the other specimen-based domains? For mapping concentration and unit of the in vitro exposure agents? There are now use-cases needing these variables in IS, MS and CP. Right now --CONC and --CONCU are limited to MS only. They also only qualify --AGENT.
    • This way we can take advantage of existing standard variables, instead of creating new ones.
    • This also means we don't need to tell users to pre-coordinate unit and dosing concentration of the exposure agent into the same variable - which would be breaking rules.

MB-IS Team/ISMT Final Recommendations:

1.We need a variable to map the added agent: drug, diagnostic agents, other substances (used to induce a in vitro response). Sometimes this is all we need, and the dataset stops here.

    • There are two variables now serving the same function: CNDAGT and AGENT. – Yes true, but that ship had sailed, we can't do much at this point without causing significant changes.
    • Can we merge them? One less variable people have to worry about. – No to this one because the kind of changes required to replace AGENT (MS) is too large and not worth people going back to fix their data. The –TSTCND (test condition) and –CNDAGT (test condition agent) variables can be available for all the other specimen-based domains when needed, EXCEPT, the --CNDAGT (test condition agent) variable should NOT be used in MS (until use-cases arise that require both AGENT and CNDAGT to be needed for MS, we haven't seen any right now). We need to update their scopes in the newest SDTM Model.

2.We need a variable for the agent concentration.

    • MSCONC works but this is limited to MS.
    • Expand it to other specimen-domains, no need to create new variable. – Yes, we agree to extend --CONC to other specimen-based domains. Meanwhile people can use it as a NSV for their respective domains if they are using IG3.2-3.4. We may aim for IG4.0 for this change. If ISMT/GGG agrees, we need to update the variable Role, Notes and Definition so that it qualifies --CNDAGT as well. Also CONC is already a standard variable, we can just take advantage of it.

3.We need a variable for the agent dosing unit.

    • MSCONCU works but this is limited to MS.
    • Expand it to other specimen-domains, no need to create new variable. – Yes, we agree to extend --CONCU to other specimen-based domains. Meanwhile people can use it as a NSV for their respective domains if they are using IG3.2-3.4. We may aim for IG4.0 for this change. If ISMT/GGG agrees, we need to update the variable Role, Notes and Definition so that it qualifies --CNDAGT as well. Also CONCU is already a standard variable, we can just take advantage of it.


If we extend CONC and CONCU to other specimen domains...

Here is a mock example of Stefan's data using --CONC and --CONCU:

Dataset wrap
Dataset2
hi1styleyellow
hi1column ISBDAGNT
tableidIS table 1

Row

STUDYID

DOMAIN

USUBJID

SPDEVID

ISSEQ

ISTESTCD

ISTEST

ISTSTCND

ISCNDAGT

ISCONC

ISCONCU

ISORRES

ISORRESU

ISSTRESC

ISSTRESN

ISSTRESU

ISSPEC

ISMETHOD

ISDTC

1

ABC

IS

ABC-01-203

ABC001

1

IFNG

Interferon Gamma

WITHOUT STIMULATING AGENT


2.17

IU/mL

2.172.17

IU/mL

SERUM

ELISA/Other Method

2013-08-26

2

ABC

IS

ABC-01-203

ABC001

2

IFNG

Interferon Gamma

WITH STIMULATING AGENT

Study Drug

20

mg

6.2

IU/mL

6.26.2

IU/mL

SERUM

ELISA/Other Method

2013-08-26

3

ABC

IS

ABC-01-203

ABC001

3

IFNG

Interferon Gamma

WITH STIMULATING AGENT

Study Drug

40

mg

15.8

IU/mL

15.815.8

IU/mL

SERUM

ELISA/Other Method

2013-08-26
4ABCIS

ABC-01-203

ABC001

4

IFNG

Interferon Gamma

WITH STIMULATING AGENT

Other Test Agent

5

mg

3.33

IU/mL

3.333.33

IU/mL

SERUM

ELISA/Other Method

2013-08-26
5ABCIS

ABC-01-203

ABC001

5

IFNG

Interferon Gamma

WITH STIMULATING AGENT

Other Test Agent

15

mg

7.22

IU/mL

7.227.22

IU/mL

SERUM

ELISA/Other Method

2013-08-26