Observational studies - The Cinderella of the Italian research system.

Observational trials are crucial to assess the generalizability in the real world of evidence deriving from registration studies. Despite the unquestionable importance of this type of studies, Italian researchers have had to face many obstacles over the years, mainly due to ambiguous definitions and to a complex but at the same time incomplete legislation. The regulatory adjustments to the European Regulation 536/2014 have further complicated the operating and operational framework, making observational research a real "Cinderella" of the Italian system.

Insights from Adopting a Data Commons Approach for Large-scale Observational Cohort Studies: The California Teachers Study.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale cancer epidemiology cohorts (CEC) have successfully collected, analyzed, and shared patient-reported data for years. CECs increasingly need to make their data more findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable, or FAIR. How CECs should approach this transformation is unclear. METHODS: The California Teachers Study (CTS) is an observational CEC of 133,477 participants followed since 1995-1996. In 2014, we began updating our data storage, management, analysis, and sharing strategy. With the San Diego Supercomputer Center, we deployed a new infrastructure based on a data warehouse to integrate and manage data and a secure and shared workspace with documentation, software, and analytic tools that facilitate collaboration and accelerate analyses. RESULTS: Our new CTS infrastructure includes a data warehouse and data marts, which are focused subsets from the data warehouse designed for efficiency. The secure CTS workspace utilizes a remote desktop service that operates within a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)- and Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)-compliant platform. Our infrastructure offers broad access to CTS data, includes statistical analysis and data visualization software and tools, flexibly manages other key data activities (e.g., cleaning, updates, and data sharing), and will continue to evolve to advance FAIR principles. CONCLUSIONS: Our scalable infrastructure provides the security, authorization, data model, metadata, and analytic tools needed to manage, share, and analyze CTS data in ways that are consistent with the NCI's Cancer Research Data Commons Framework. IMPACT: The CTS's implementation of new infrastructure in an ongoing CEC demonstrates how population sciences can explore and embrace new cloud-based and analytics infrastructure to accelerate cancer research and translation.See all articles in this CEBP Focus section, "Modernizing Population Science."

[Use of Electronic Medical Records for Research: New Ethical Challenges and Possible Solutions]. / Uso dos Registos Clínicos Eletrónicos para Investigação: Novos Desafios Éticos e Soluções Possíveis.

Some clinicians feel that Ethics Committees act as a blockade to observational clinical studies. In the case of retrospective studies some have tried to solve this problem by reducing this sensitive data to simple administrative data in the hands of the government. Others see the new European General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (European Union) as being more liberal than the Portuguese Law nº 21/2014, April 16th (Clinical Research Law). Both solutions presume participant consent from his / her silence, even if nobody truly tried to specifically inform him / her. Such views do collide with the guarantees of protection of patient's ethical rights. In this article we propose an ethical alternative to those positions.

Alguns investigadores entendem que as Comissões de Ética para a Saúde são um bloqueio aos estudos clínicos observacionais. No que toca aos estudos retrospetivos há quem proponha resolver este problema tratando os Dados Pessoais de Saúde como dados administrativos simples na posse do Estado e há quem interprete o novo Regulamento Geral de Proteção de Dados (União Europeia) 2016/679 de forma menos garantista que a Lei nº 21/2014, de 16 de abril (sobre a Investigação Clínica), resultando em ambos os casos na presunção que o silêncio do participante constitui consentimento, mesmo se ninguém tentar sequer informá-lo do novo usodos seus dados. Estas soluções colidem com garantias éticas de proteção dos direitos dos doentes. Propomos uma alternativa ética a estas propostas.

Observational health research in Europe: understanding the General Data Protection Regulation and underlying debate.

Insights into the incidence and survival of cancer, the influence of lifestyle and environmental factors and the interaction of treatment regimens with outcomes are hugely dependent on observational research, patient data derived from the healthcare system and from volunteers participating in cohort studies, often non-selective. Since 25th May 2018, the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to such data. The GDPR focusses on more individual control for data subjects of 'their' data. Yet, the GDPR was preceded by a long debate. The research community participated actively in that debate, and as a result, the GDPR has research exemptions as well. Some of those apply directly; other exemptions need to be implemented into national law. Those exemptions will be discussed together with a general outline of the GDPR. I propose a substantive definition of research-absent in the GDPR-which can warrant its special status in the GDPR. The debate is not over yet. Most legal texts exhibit ambiguity and are interpreted against a background of values. In this case, those could be subsumed under informational self-determination versus solidarity and the deeper meaning of autonomy. Values will also guide national implementation and their interpretation. The value of individual control or informational self-determination should be balanced by nuanced visions about our mutual dependency in healthcare, as an ever-learning system, especially in the European solidarity-based healthcare systems. Good research governance might be a way forward to escape the consent or anonymise dichotomy.

The Risks to Patient Privacy from Publishing Data from Clinical Anesthesia Studies.

In this article, we consider the privacy implications of posting data from small, randomized trials, observational studies, or case series in anesthesia from a few (e.g., 1-3) hospitals. Prior to publishing such data as supplemental digital content, the authors remove attributes that could be used to re-identify individuals, a process known as "anonymization." Posting health information that has been properly "de-identified" is assumed to pose no risks to patient privacy. Yet, computer scientists have demonstrated that this assumption is flawed. We consider various realistic scenarios of how the publication of such data could lead to breaches of patient privacy. Several examples of successful privacy attacks are reviewed, as well as the methods used. We survey the latest models and methods from computer science for protecting health information and their application to posting data from small anesthesia studies. To illustrate the vulnerability of such published data, we calculate the "population uniqueness" for patients undergoing one or more surgical procedures using data from the State of Texas. For a patient selected uniformly at random, the probability that an adversary could match this patient's record to a unique record in the state external database was 42.8% (SE < 0.1%). Despite the 42.8% being an unacceptably high level of risk, it underestimates the risk for patients from smaller states or provinces. We propose an editorial policy that greatly reduces the likelihood of a privacy breach, while supporting the goal of transparency of the research process.

The European "clinical trial" regulation; relationship with the Jardé Act: a Giens workshop.

In May 2014, the European Union Parliament and Council published a new regulation on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, which is designed to replace Directive 2001/20/EC. It will not come into effect until 2016. Nevertheless, it is essential to examine its relationship with national legislation, i.e. the Jardé Act, whose implementation has been delayed pending publication of the European regulation. The Giens workshop identified and examined the various issues that this relationship is bound to raise. In particular, it looked at trial methodology assessment procedures, the working relationship between the French National Agency of Drug Safety and Health Products (Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé, ANSM) and ethics committees during the authorization application evaluation phase, review of post-authorization/registration studies on medicinal products and medical devices, and data transparency.