Ethical issues in biomedical research using electronic health records: a systematic review.

Digitization of a health record changes its accessibility. An electronic health record (EHR) can be accessed by multiple authorized users. Health information from EHRs contributes to learning healthcare systems' development. The objective of this systematic review is to answer a question: What are ethical issues concerning research using EHRs in the literature? We searched Medline Ovid, Embase and Scopus for publications concerning ethical issues of research use of EHRs. We employed the constant comparative method to retrieve common ethical themes. We descriptively summarized empirical studies. The study reveals the breadth, depth, and complexity of ethical problems associated with research use of EHRs. The central ethical question that emerges from the review is how to manage access to EHRs. Managing accessibility consists of interconnected and overlapping issues: streamlining research access to EHRs, minimizing risk, engaging and educating patients, as well as ensuring trustworthy governance of EHR data. Most of the ethical problems concerning EHR-based research arise from rapid cultural change. The framing of concepts of privacy, as well as individual and public dimensions of beneficence, are changing. We are currently living in the middle of this transition period. Human emotions and mental habits, as well as laws, are lagging behind technological developments. In the medical tradition, individual patient's health has always been in the center. Transformation of healthcare care, its digitalization, seems to have some impacts on our perspective of health care ethics, research ethics and public health ethics.

Selection of Endpoints in Clinical Trials: Trends in European Marketing Authorization Practice in Oncological Indications.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the types of endpoints that were the basis for efficacy assessment of medicines used in particular groups of oncological indications. Changes in the endpoints applied in marketing authorization practice were also considered. METHODS: The analysis included marketing authorization applications (MAAs) for medicines used in oncological indications that were first-time approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2009 and 2017, and the extensions of the analyzed medicines. RESULTS: The analysis covered 125 MAAs: first-time approved (62%) and extensions (38%). In the analyzed trials, the endpoints that were reported most frequently included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (in 94.4%, 92.8%, 87.2% of MAAs, respectively). The following trends were observed: decreased significance of OS as a primary endpoint and increased significance of PFS as a primary endpoint (hematological indications). An analysis of MAAs for which the OS results were immature confirms the increased significance of PFS and new efficacy indicators (ie, pathological complete response). CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of EMA's marketing authorization practice proves that the use of surrogate endpoints is becoming increasingly common in evaluating oncological health technologies. EMA's guidelines underline the role played by surrogates in the process of assessing efficacy of new therapies. Results of an analysis demonstrate that protocols of clinical trials define surrogates as primary endpoints more and more often. Furthermore, a positive decision on granting marketing authorization is possible also in situations when only such clinical data are available.