Harmonization after the GDPR? Divergences in the rules for genetic and health data sharing in four member states and ways to overcome them by EU measures: Insights from Germany, Greece, Latvia and Sweden.

The EU member states' healthcare and health-related research sectors are both characterized by an emerging infrastructural coalescence on a national and European level. The culmination of this coalescence is the planned creation of a European Health Data Space, an EU-wide infrastructure for the processing of personal data for healthcare and for secondary uses such as scientific research. In contrast to growing technical interoperability, the legal framework for such integration is not yet defined in detail, particularly with regard to data protection law. Its development is accompanied by discussions about divergent member state implementations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that affect data sharing between healthcare and scientific research actors and across various sectors driven by divergent processing purposes. The article presents four member states' main rules on data sharing based on the respective provision of the GDPR in six health-related contexts regarding data sharing across the healthcare and research sector and between the main actors of those sectors. The striking differences are then evaluated from the perspective of their factual effect on European data sharing depending on the legal characteristics of the GDPR provisions they rely on. Against this backdrop, the planned regulatory measures for the setup of the European Health Data Space are introduced and evaluated with regard to further harmonization between member states' laws and possibilities to overcome divergences in data protection rules relevant for European data sharing. The results of the analysis point to the conclusion that the destructive effect of divergent member state rules depends on the legal qualification of the EU provisions they rely on and that this qualification also determines which further EU regulatory measure would be the most effective to set the framework for the European Health Data Space.

Specific T-cell responses for guiding treatment with convalescent plasma in severe COVID-19 and humoral immunodeficiency: a case report.

BACKGROUND: The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 virus, the cause of COVID-19, is complex. Antibody mediated responses are important for viral clearance but may also drive hyperinflammation in severe COVID-19. We present a case of an individual with a genetic inability to produce antibodies and severe COVID-19, receiving no other specific anti-viral treatment than convalescent COVID-19 plasma, illustrating that hyperinflammation can occur in the absence of a humoral anti-viral response. In addition, the case illustrates that the assessment of SARS-CoV-2 T cell responses can facilitate clinical decision making in patients with COVID-19 and weak or absent humoral immune responses. CASE PRESENTATION: A male with X-linked agammaglobulinemia on regular immunoglobulin replacement therapy, hospitalized for 35 days due to severe COVID-19. Systemic inflammatory parameters were highly elevated. After treatment with convalescent COVID-19 plasma he became afebrile and the fatigue diminished. He was discharged on day 42 and nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR eventually was negative on day 49. Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells prior to administration of plasma therapy suggested that antibodies were crucial for viral clearance. Regular assessment showed robust and persistent SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cell responses after recovery suggested that prophylactic administration of convalescent COVID-19 plasma was unnecessary. CONCLUSION: Assessment of SARS-CoV-2T-cell responses can facilitate the clinical management of COVID-19 patients with humoral immunodeficiencies.