Share and protect our health data: an evidence based approach to rare disease patients' perspectives on data sharing and data protection - quantitative survey and recommendations

Time to diagnosis and determinants of diagnostic delays of people living with a rare disease: results of a Rare Barometer retrospective patient survey

Timely diagnosis is one of the most serious challenges faced by people living with a rare disease (PLWRD), and this study estimates that in Europe, the average total diagnosis time (TDT) is close to 5 years. We investigated the duration of the TDT for PLWRD in Europe, the difficulties associated with their diagnosis odyssey and the main determinants of diagnosis delays for all rare diseases (RD). We conducted a survey of PLWRD and their families using Rare Barometer, the survey initiative of EURORDIS-Rare Diseases Europe. In geographical Europe, we surveyed 6507 people living with 1675 RD in 41 countries. We then performed a descriptive analysis and ordinal logistic regressions to identify the main determinants of diagnosis delays. Average TDT is 4.7 years. 56% of respondents were diagnosed more than 6 months after a first medical contact. The main determinants of diagnosis delays are symptom onset before 30 years of age, especially during childhood (OR = 3.11; 95% CI: 2.4-4.0) and adolescence (OR = 4.79; 95% CI: 3.7-6.2), being a woman (OR = 1.22; 95% CI:1.1-1.4), living in Northern Europe (OR = 2.15; 95% CI:1.8-2.6) or Western Europe (OR = 1.96; 95% CI:1.6-2.3), the number of healthcare professionals consulted (OR = 5.15; 95% CI:4.1-6.4), misdiagnosis (OR = 2.48; 95% CI:2.1-2.9), referral to a centre of expertise (OR = 1.17; 95% CI:1.0-1.3), unmet needs for psychological support (OR = 1.34; 95% CI:1.2-1.5) and financial support (OR = 1.16; 95% CI:1.0-1.3), having a genetic disease (OR = 1.33; 95% CI:1.1-1.5) and a family history of an RD (OR = 1.36; 95% CI:1.1-1.6). These determinants can inform policies and actions to improve access to diagnosis for all PLWRD.

DS-PACK: Tool assembly for the end-to-end support of controlled access human data sharing

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements have prompted a shift from centralised controlled access genome-phenome archives to federated models for sharing sensitive human data. In a data-sharing federation, a central node facilitates data discovery; meanwhile, distributed nodes are responsible for handling data access requests, concluding agreements with data users and providing secure access to the data. Research institutions that want to become part of such federations often lack the resources to set up the required controlled access processes. The DS-PACK tool assembly is a reusable, open-source middleware solution that semi-automates controlled access processes end-to-end, from data submission to access. Data protection principles are engraved into all components of the DS-PACK assembly. DS-PACK centralises access control management and distributes access control enforcement with support for data access via cloud-based applications. DS-PACK is in production use at the ELIXIR Luxembourg data hosting platform, combined with an operational model including legal facilitation and data stewardship.

Health data sharing attitudes towards primary and secondary use of data: a systematic review

Background

To receive the best care, people share their health data (HD) with their health practitioners (known as sharing HD for primary purposes). However, during the past two decades, sharing for other (i.e., secondary) purposes has become of great importance in numerous fields, including public health, personalized medicine, research, and development. We aimed to conduct the first comprehensive overview of all studies that investigated people's HD sharing attitudes-along with associated barriers/motivators and significant influencing factors-for all data types and across both primary and secondary uses.

Methods

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINAHL for relevant studies published in English between database inception and February 28, 2023, using a predefined set of keywords. Studies were included, regardless of their design, if they reported outcomes related to attitudes towards sharing HD. We extracted key data from the included studies, including the type of HD involved and findings related to: HD sharing attitudes (either in general or depending on type of data/user); barriers/motivators/benefits/concerns of the study participants; and sociodemographic and other variables that could impact HD sharing behaviour. The qualitative synthesis was conducted by dividing the studies according to the data type (resulting in five subgroups) as well as the purpose the data sharing was focused on (primary, secondary or both). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of non-randomised studies. This work was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023413822.

Findings

Of 2109 studies identified through our search, 116 were included in the qualitative synthesis, yielding a total of 228,501 participants and various types of HD represented: person-generated HD (n = 17 studies and 10,771 participants), personal HD in general (n = 69 studies and 117,054 participants), Biobank data (n = 7 studies and 27,073 participants), genomic data (n = 13 studies and 54,716 participants), and miscellaneous data (n = 10 studies and 18,887 participants). The majority of studies had a moderate level of quality (83 [71.6%] of 116 studies), but varying levels of quality were observed across the included studies. Overall, studies suggest that sharing intentions for primary purposes were observed to be high regardless of data type, and it was higher than sharing intentions for secondary purposes. Sharing for secondary purposes yielded variable findings, where both the highest and the lowest intention rates were observed in the case of studies that explored sharing biobank data (98% and 10%, respectively). Several influencing factors on sharing intentions were identified, such as the type of data recipient, data, consent. Further, concerns related to data sharing that were found to be mutual for all data types included privacy, security, and data access/control, while the perceived benefits included those related to improvements in healthcare. Findings regarding attitudes towards sharing varied significantly across sociodemographic factors and depended on data type and type of use. In most cases, these findings were derived from single studies and therefore warrant confirmations from additional studies.

Interpretation

Sharing health data is a complex issue that is influenced by various factors (the type of health data, the intended use, the data recipient, among others) and these insights could be used to overcome barriers, address people's concerns, and focus on spreading awareness about the data sharing process and benefits.

Funding

None.

The creation of an adaptable informed consent form for research purposes to overcome national and institutional bottlenecks in ethics review: experience from rare disease registries

Background

The lack of harmonization of evaluation criteria by Ethics Committees in the European Union (EU) has led to inconsistent ethics reviews received by research sites participating in multicenter non-interventional studies. The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) appears to be implemented at national level with a substantial degree of variance in interpretation. The European Reference Networks (ERNs) were struggling in setting an Informed Consent Form (ICF) for registries, allowing reuse of data for research purposes. The aim of this work is to develop an adaptable ICF for research purposes to be used in ERN registries.

Methods

To work on this challenge, a team was established within the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases (EJP RD) to develop a patients' registry ICF template allowing easy adaptation to ERNs, country, and site-level specificities. ERN and patients' representatives validated the choice of developing a GDPR-compliant template for research purposes. The feedback received from 34 Ethics Committees on the Clinical Patient Management System ICF, including the submission of patients' data to the ERN registries and the EU consent regulatory framework were analyzed along with existing ontologies for data access and reuse. An adaptable ICF was developed following iterative cycles of consultation and review by clinicians, research experts, ethics and regulatory advisors, and patients' representatives. The development of pediatric material for minor participants was also undertaken.

Results and Conclusion

Research oriented ICF templates for adults and for parents/legal representatives of patients were released in 26 national languages. This adaptable ICF aims to foster, according to patients' preferences, the reuse of registries data for research purposes in compliance with the applicable laws and standards. Pediatric material is being finalized to collect minors' assent. ICF machine-readability is also progressing to enhance data discovery and facilitate its access and reuse conditions.

Attitude towards consent-free research use of personal medical data in the general German population

Background

The design of appropriate consent procedures for the secondary use of personal health data is a key concern of current medical research. In Germany, the concept of 'data donation' has recently come into focus, defined as a legal entitlement to the research use of personal medical data without prior consent, combined with an easy-to-exercise right of the data subjects to opt-out.

Methods

Standardized online interviews of 3,013 individuals, representative of the German online population, were conducted in August 2022 to determine their attitude towards data donation for medical research.

Results

A majority of participants supported a consent-free data donation regulation, both for publicly funded (85.1%) and for private medical research (66.4%). Major predictors of a positive attitude towards data donation included (i) sufficient appreciation of the respective kind of research (i.e. public or private), (ii) a reciprocity attitude that patients who benefit from research have a duty to support research, and (iii) sufficient trust in data protection and data control.

Conclusion

People's attitude towards data donation to medical research is generally positive in Germany and depends upon factors that can be curbed by legislation and internal rules of procedure. Worthy of note, designing data donation in the form of an opt-out regulation does not necessarily mean that the paradigm of informedness has to be abandoned. Rather the process of information provision must be shifted towards the creation of basic knowledge in the general population about the risks and benefits of data-intensive medical research ('health data literacy').

Patient and Public Willingness to Share Personal Health Data for Third-Party or Secondary Uses: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

International advances in information communication, eHealth, and other digital health technologies have led to significant expansions in the collection and analysis of personal health data. However, following a series of high-profile data sharing scandals and the emergence of COVID-19, critical exploration of public willingness to share personal health data remains limited, particularly for third-party or secondary uses.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to explore factors that affect public willingness to share personal health data for third-party or secondary uses.

METHODS

A systematic search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and SocINDEX) was conducted with review findings analyzed using inductive-thematic analysis and synthesized using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Of the 13,949 papers identified, 135 were included. Factors most commonly identified as a barrier to data sharing from a public perspective included data privacy, security, and management concerns. Other factors found to influence willingness to share personal health data included the type of data being collected (ie, perceived sensitivity); the type of user requesting their data to be shared, including their perceived motivation, profit prioritization, and ability to directly impact patient care; trust in the data user, as well as in associated processes, often established through individual choice and control over what data are shared with whom, when, and for how long, supported by appropriate models of dynamic consent; the presence of a feedback loop; and clearly articulated benefits or issue relevance including valued incentivization and compensation at both an individual and collective or societal level.

CONCLUSIONS

There is general, yet conditional public support for sharing personal health data for third-party or secondary use. Clarity, transparency, and individual control over who has access to what data, when, and for how long are widely regarded as essential prerequisites for public data sharing support. Individual levels of control and choice need to operate within the auspices of assured data privacy and security processes, underpinned by dynamic and responsive models of consent that prioritize individual or collective benefits over and above commercial gain. Failure to understand, design, and refine data sharing approaches in response to changeable patient preferences will only jeopardize the tangible benefits of data sharing practices being fully realized.

Patients' knowledge, preferences, and perspectives about data protection and data control: an exploratory survey

Background: In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) plays a central role in the complex health research legal framework. It aims to protect the fundamental right to the protection of individuals' personal data, while allowing the free movement of such data. However, it has been criticized for challenging the conduct of research. Existing scholarship has paid little attention to the experiences and views of the patient community. The aim of the study was to investigate 1) the awareness and knowledge of patients, carers, and members of patient organizations about the General Data Protection Regulation, 2) their experience with exercising data subject rights, and 3) their understanding of the notion of "data control" and preferences towards various data control tools. Methods: An online survey was disseminated between December 2022 and March 2023. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Answers to open-ended questions were analyzed using the thematic analysis method. Results: In total, 220 individuals from 28 European countries participated. The majority were patients (77%). Most participants had previously heard about the GDPR (90%) but had not exercised any of their data subject rights. Individual data control tools appeared to be marginally more important than collective tools. The willingness of participants to share personal data with data altruism organizations increased if patient representatives would be involved in the decision-making processes of such organizations. Conclusion: The results highlighted the importance of providing in-depth education about data protection. Although participants showed a slight preference towards individual control tools, the reflection based on existing scholarship identified that individual control holds risks that could be mitigated through carefully operationalized collective tools. The discussion of results was used to provide a critical view into the proposed European Health Data Space, which has yet to find a productive balance between individual control and allowing the reuse of personal data for research.

EURO-NMD registry: federated FAIR infrastructure, innovative technologies and concepts of a patient-centred registry for rare neuromuscular disorders

BACKGROUND

The EURO-NMD Registry collects data from all neuromuscular patients seen at EURO-NMD's expert centres. In-kind contributions from three patient organisations have ensured that the registry is patient-centred, meaningful, and impactful. The consenting process covers other uses, such as research, cohort finding and trial readiness.

RESULTS

The registry has three-layered datasets, with European Commission-mandated data elements (EU-CDEs), a set of cross-neuromuscular data elements (NMD-CDEs) and a dataset of disease-specific data elements that function modularly (DS-DEs). The registry captures clinical, neuromuscular imaging, neuromuscular histopathology, biological and genetic data and patient-reported outcomes in a computer-interpretable format using selected ontologies and classifications. The EURO-NMD registry is connected to the EURO-NMD Registry Hub through an interoperability layer. The Hub provides an entry point to other neuromuscular registries that follow the FAIR data stewardship principles and enable GDPR-compliant information exchange. Four national or disease-specific patient registries are interoperable with the EURO-NMD Registry, allowing for federated analysis across these different resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, the Registry Hub brings together data that are currently siloed and fragmented to improve healthcare and advance research for neuromuscular diseases.

Walk a mile in my shoes: perspectives towards sharing of health and experience data among individuals living with sickle cell disorder

Background

Advancements in digital health technologies (DHTs) mean people are increasingly recording and managing personal health data. As observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, sharing of such data may provide unrivalled opportunities in advancing our understanding of conditions otherwise poorly understood, including rare conditions.

Methods

A semi-structured focus group (n=25) explored perspectives and experiences of sharing health data among those with a group of rare haematological conditions, sickle cell disorder (SCD). The focus group explored (I) what 'feeling well' looks like; (II) how this could be monitored using DHTs; (III) which data healthcare professionals (HCPs) should pay greater attention to and; (IV) types of data willing to be shared, with whom, and under which conditions. Key themes were further assessed via an online survey (n=50).

Results

Patient-relevant measures of condition-management focused on "everything else that comes with" SCD, suggesting HCPs did not pay sufficient attention to day-to-day symptom variability. This was juxtaposed against the "fixed and one-off" electronic health record (EHR), collecting pre-specified data at pre-determined snapshots of time, not considered reflective of outcomes associated with "feeling well" day-to-day. Forty-four-point-seven percent of respondents had previously shared health data. Most were willing to share data concerning symptoms and health service utilisation, but were less willing to share genomic and EHR data. Sixty-one-point-seven percent believed HCPs did not pay enough attention to daily fluctuations in mental and physical health. Financial benefits (74.5%), trust in organisations seeking data (72.3%), and knowing how data will be used (61.7%) were key facilitators of data sharing. Seventy-one percent, 70% and 65.2% had not previously shared health data with the pharmaceutical industry, charitable organisations and digital health interventions respectively, but were open to doing so in the future.

Conclusions

Those living with the rare condition SCD were supportive of collecting and sharing data to foster research and improve understanding and outcomes. However, specific requirements were identified to respect privacy and informational needs regarding future use of data. DHTs can be a valuable tool in improving understanding of the day-to-day impact of health conditions, but understanding patient needs is critical in ensuring involvement in the process, as not all data types are considered of equal value, benefit, or risk.

Public and Patients' Perspectives Towards Data and Sample Sharing for Research: An Overview of Empirical Findings

We aimed to review the attitudes and perspectives of the public and patients towards the sharing of data and biospecimens for research and to identify common dimensions, regardless of setting. Our review included systematic, scoping or thematic reviews of empirical studies retrieved from Medline (PubMed interface), Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Reviews. The main themes identified and synthesised across the 14 reviews were readiness and motivations; potential risks and safeguards; trust, transparency and accountability; autonomy and preferred type of consent; and factors influencing data and biospecimen sharing and consent. Sociodemographic factors and research and individual context remain relevant influencing factors in all settings, while preferences for types of consent are highly heterogeneous. Trusted environments and adapted consent options with participant engagement are relevant to improve research participation.

Prioritization of research engaged with rare disease stakeholders: a systematic review and thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

Although rare diseases (RD) are increasingly becoming a priority for healthcare activities and services around the world, developing research policy for investigating RD in public settings proves challenging due to the limited nature of existing evidence. Rare conditions require the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders in order to promote general awareness and garner political support. Consequently, it is critically important to identify trends in the various types of research focusing on rare disease stakeholders, including the specific topics or issues to be included in surveys and studies focused on RD stakeholders. This systematic review and thematic analysis analyses the existing literature based on RD surveys, including the stakeholders involved, and proposes potential research priorities and initiatives for policy-making related to RD.

METHODS

Articles were downloaded and analyzed from across five electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and CINHAL) and 115 studies were included.

RESULTS

Across 115 studies, the main research participants were patients and/or caregivers (n = 77, 67.0%), health professionals (n = 18, 15.7%), and the public (n = 7, 6.1%). The studies discussed RDs in general (n = 46, 40.0%), endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (n = 20, 17.4%) and other RDs. Experiences with RD were examined by more than half of the selected studies (n = 74, 64.3%), followed by the opinions of stakeholders (n = 24, 20.9%). Most of the studies used surveys in order to collect relevant data (n = 114, 99.1%). Additionally, the majority of the studies were conducted in high-income countries (n = 92, 80.0%) and rarely in middle and low-income countries (n = 12, 13.8%).

CONCLUSION

Stakeholder research on RD reveals that there are significant instances of unmet needs and various challenges faced by the medical system in dealing with RDs. Furthermore, public awareness and support is critical to ensuring political feasibility of increasing national-level investments for RDs and development of medical products and treatment.

The value of standards for health datasets in artificial intelligence-based applications

Artificial intelligence as a medical device is increasingly being applied to healthcare for diagnosis, risk stratification and resource allocation. However, a growing body of evidence has highlighted the risk of algorithmic bias, which may perpetuate existing health inequity. This problem arises in part because of systemic inequalities in dataset curation, unequal opportunity to participate in research and inequalities of access. This study aims to explore existing standards, frameworks and best practices for ensuring adequate data diversity in health datasets. Exploring the body of existing literature and expert views is an important step towards the development of consensus-based guidelines. The study comprises two parts: a systematic review of existing standards, frameworks and best practices for healthcare datasets; and a survey and thematic analysis of stakeholder views of bias, health equity and best practices for artificial intelligence as a medical device. We found that the need for dataset diversity was well described in literature, and experts generally favored the development of a robust set of guidelines, but there were mixed views about how these could be implemented practically. The outputs of this study will be used to inform the development of standards for transparency of data diversity in health datasets (the STANDING Together initiative).

An ethical code for collecting, using and transferring sensitive health data: outcomes of a modified Policy Delphi process in Singapore

One of the core goals of Digital Health Technologies (DHT) is to transform healthcare services and delivery by shifting primary care from hospitals into the community. However, achieving this goal will rely on the collection, use and storage of large datasets. Some of these datasets will be linked to multiple sources, and may include highly sensitive health information that needs to be transferred across institutional and jurisdictional boundaries. The growth of DHT has outpaced the establishment of clear legal pathways to facilitate the collection, use and transfer of potentially sensitive health data. Our study aimed to address this gap with an ethical code to guide researchers developing DHT with international collaborative partners in Singapore. We generated this code using a modified Policy Delphi process designed to engage stakeholders in the deliberation of health data ethics and governance. This paper reports the outcomes of this process along with the key components of the code and identifies areas for future research.

Health Research with Data in a Time of Privacy: Which Information do Patients Want?

When hospitals ask broad consent for the secondary use of patient data for scientific research, it is unknown for which studies the data will be used. We investigated what patients at a cancer hospital consider to be an adequate level and most suitable method of information provision using questionnaires (n = 71) and interviews (n = 24). A part of the respondents indicated that they would feel sufficiently informed by either being notified about potential further use, or by receiving a general brochure before being asked for consent. Others stated that additional information would be interesting and appreciated. Yet, when discussing required resources needed to provide additional information, interviewees lowered the bar of what they considered minimally required, voicing the importance of spending resources on research.

Challenges in mapping European rare disease databases, relevant for ML-based screening technologies in terms of organizational, FAIR and legal principles: scoping review

Background

Given the increased availability of data sources such as hospital information systems, electronic health records, and health-related registries, a novel approach is required to develop artificial intelligence-based decision support that can assist clinicians in their diagnostic decision-making and shorten rare disease patients' diagnostic odyssey. The aim is to identify key challenges in the process of mapping European rare disease databases, relevant to ML-based screening technologies in terms of organizational, FAIR and legal principles.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted based on the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The primary article search was conducted in three electronic databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science) and a secondary search was performed in Google scholar and on the organizations' websites. Each step of this review was carried out independently by two researchers. A charting form for relevant study analysis was developed and used to categorize data and identify data items in three domains - organizational, FAIR and legal.

Results

At the end of the screening process, 73 studies were eligible for review based on inclusion and exclusion criteria with more than 60% (n = 46) of the research published in the last 5 years and originated only from EU/EEA countries. Over the ten-year period (2013-2022), there is a clear cycling trend in the publications, with a peak of challenges reporting every four years. Within this trend, the following dynamic was identified: except for 2016, organizational challenges dominated the articles published up to 2018; legal challenges were the most frequently discussed topic from 2018 to 2022. The following distribution of the data items by domains was observed - (1) organizational (n = 36): data accessibility and sharing (20.2%); long-term sustainability (18.2%); governance, planning and design (17.2%); lack of harmonization and standardization (17.2%); quality of data collection (16.2%); and privacy risks and small sample size (11.1%); (2) FAIR (n = 15): findable (17.9%); accessible sustainability (25.0%); interoperable (39.3%); and reusable (17.9%); and (3) legal (n = 33): data protection by all means (34.4%); data management and ownership (22.9%); research under GDPR and member state law (20.8%); trust and transparency (13.5%); and digitalization of health (8.3%). We observed a specific pattern repeated in all domains during the process of data charting and data item identification - in addition to the outlined challenges, good practices, guidelines, and recommendations were also discussed. The proportion of publications addressing only good practices, guidelines, and recommendations for overcoming challenges when mapping RD databases in at least one domain was calculated to be 47.9% (n = 35).

Conclusion

Despite the opportunities provided by innovation - automation, electronic health records, hospital-based information systems, biobanks, rare disease registries and European Reference Networks - the results of the current scoping review demonstrate a diversity of the challenges that must still be addressed, with immediate actions on ensuring better governance of rare disease registries, implementing FAIR principles, and enhancing the EU legal framework.

Together4RD position statement on collaboration between European reference networks and industry

Notwithstanding two decades of policy and legislation in Europe, aimed to foster research and development in rare conditions, only 5-6% of rare diseases have dedicated treatments. Given with the huge number of conditions classed as rare (which is increasing all the time), this equates to major unmet need for patients (over 30 million in the EU alone). Worryingly, the pace of Research and Innovation in Europe is lagging behind other regions of the world, and a seismic shift in the way in which research is planned and delivered is required, in order to remain competitive and-most importantly-bring meaningful, disease-altering treatments to those who desperately need them. The European Reference Networks (ERNs), launched in 2017, hold major potential to alleviate many of these challenges, and more, but only if adequately supported (financially, technically, and via robust policies and infrastructure) to realise that potential: and even then, only if able to forge robust collaborations harnessing the expertise, resources, knowledge and data of all stakeholders involved in rare disease, including Industry. To-date, however, ERN-Industry interactions have been largely limited, for a range of reasons (concerning barriers both tangible and perceived). This Position Statement analyses these barriers, and explains how Together4RD is seeking to move the needle here, by learning from case studies, exploring frameworks for collaboration, and launching pilots to explore how best to plan and deliver multistakeholder interactions addressing real research needs.

Implementation of genomic medicine for rare disease in a tertiary healthcare system: Mayo Clinic Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (PRaUD)

BACKGROUND

In the United States, rare disease (RD) is defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals. Collectively, RD affects an estimated 30 million Americans. A significant portion of RD has an underlying genetic cause; however, this may go undiagnosed. To better serve these patients, the Mayo Clinic Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (PRaUD) was created under the auspices of the Center for Individualized Medicine (CIM) aiming to integrate genomics into subspecialty practice including targeted genetic testing, research, and education.

METHODS

Patients were identified by subspecialty healthcare providers from 11 clinical divisions/departments. Targeted multi-gene panels or custom exome/genome-based panels were utilized. To support the goals of PRaUD, a new clinical service model, the Genetic Testing and Counseling (GTAC) unit, was established to improve access and increase efficiency for genetic test facilitation. The GTAC unit includes genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, genetic nurses, and a medical geneticist. Patients receive abbreviated point-of-care genetic counseling and testing through a partnership with subspecialty providers.

RESULTS

Implementation of PRaUD began in 2018 and GTAC unit launched in 2020 to support program expansion. Currently, 29 RD clinical indications are included in 11 specialty divisions/departments with over 142 referring providers. To date, 1152 patients have been evaluated with an overall solved or likely solved rate of 17.5% and as high as 66.7% depending on the phenotype. Noteworthy, 42.7% of the solved or likely solved patients underwent changes in medical management and outcome based on genetic test results.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of PRaUD and GTAC have enabled subspecialty practices advance expertise in RD where genetic counselors have not historically been embedded in practice. Democratizing access to genetic testing and counseling can broaden the reach of patients with RD and increase the diagnostic yield of such indications leading to better medical management as well as expanding research opportunities.

Ethical and practical considerations related to data sharing when collecting patient-reported outcomes in care-based child health research

Purpose

The collection and use of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in care-based child health research raises challenging ethical and logistical questions. This paper offers an analysis of two questions related to PROs in child health research: (1) Is it ethically obligatory, desirable or preferable to share PRO data collected for research with children, families, and health care providers? And if so, (2) What are the characteristics of a model best suited to guide the collection, monitoring, and sharing of these data?

Methods

A multidisciplinary team of researchers, providers, patient and family partners, and ethicists examined the literature and identified a need for focus on PRO sharing in pediatric care-based research. We constructed and analyzed three models for managing pediatric PRO data in care-based research, drawing on ethical principles, logistics, and opportunities to engage with children and families.

Results

We argue that it is preferable to share pediatric PRO data with providers, but to manage expectations and balance the risks and benefits of research, this requires a justifiable data sharing model. We argue that a successful PRO data sharing model will allow children and families to have access to and control over their own PRO data and be engaged in decision-making around how PROs collected for research may be integrated into care, but require support from providers.

Conclusion

We propose a PRO data sharing model that can be used across diverse research settings and contributes to improved transparency, communication, and patient-centered care and research.

Towards FAIRification of sensitive and fragmented rare disease patient data: challenges and solutions in European reference network registries

INTRODUCTION

Rare disease patient data are typically sensitive, present in multiple registries controlled by different custodians, and non-interoperable. Making these data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) for humans and machines at source enables federated discovery and analysis across data custodians. This facilitates accurate diagnosis, optimal clinical management, and personalised treatments. In Europe, twenty-four European Reference Networks (ERNs) work on rare disease registries in different clinical domains. The process and the implementation choices for making data FAIR ('FAIRification') differ among ERN registries. For example, registries use different software systems and are subject to different legal regulations. To support the ERNs in making informed decisions and to harmonise FAIRification, the FAIRification steward team was established to work as liaisons between ERNs and researchers from the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases.

RESULTS

The FAIRification steward team inventoried the FAIRification challenges of the ERN registries and proposed solutions collectively with involved stakeholders to address them. Ninety-eight FAIRification challenges from 24 ERNs' registries were collected and categorised into "training" (31), "community" (9), "modelling" (12), "implementation" (26), and "legal" (20). After curating and aggregating highly similar challenges, 41 unique FAIRification challenges remained. The two categories with the most challenges were "training" (15) and "implementation" (9), followed by "community" (7), and then "modelling" (5) and "legal" (5). To address all challenges, eleven types of solutions were proposed. Among them, the provision of guidelines and the organisation of training activities resolved the "training" challenges, which ranged from less-technical "coffee-rounds" to technical workshops, from informal FAIR Games to formal hackathons. Obtaining implementation support from technical experts was the solution type for tackling the "implementation" challenges.

CONCLUSION

This work shows that a dedicated team of FAIR data stewards is an asset for harmonising the various processes of making data FAIR in a large organisation with multiple stakeholders. Additionally, multi-levelled training activities are required to accommodate the diverse needs of the ERNs. Finally, the lessons learned from the experience of the FAIRification steward team described in this paper may help to increase FAIR awareness and provide insights into FAIRification challenges and solutions of rare disease registries.

Patients and Members of the Public’s Wishes Regarding Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Secondary use of health data has reached unequaled potential to improve health systems governance, knowledge, and clinical care. Transparency regarding this secondary use is frequently cited as necessary to address deficits in trust and conditional support and to increase patient awareness.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to review the current published literature to identify different stakeholders' perspectives and recommendations on what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how and in which situations.

METHODS

Using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases to locate a broad range of studies published in English or French until November 2022. We included articles reporting a stakeholder's perspective or recommendations of what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how or in which situations. Data were collected and analyzed with an iterative thematic approach using NVivo.

RESULTS

Overall, 178 articles were included in this scoping review. The type of information can be divided into generic and specific content. Generic content includes information on governance and regulatory frameworks, technical aspects, and scientific aims. Specific content includes updates on the use of one's data, return of results from individual tests, information on global results, information on data sharing, and how to access one's data. Recommendations on how to communicate the information focused on frequency, use of various supports, formats, and wording. Methods for communication generally favored broad approaches such as nationwide publicity campaigns, mainstream and social media for generic content, and mixed approaches for specific content including websites, patient portals, and face-to-face encounters. Content should be tailored to the individual as much as possible with regard to length, avoidance of technical terms, cultural competence, and level of detail. Finally, the review outlined 4 major situations where communication was deemed necessary: before a new use of data, when new test results became available, when global research results were released, and in the advent of a breach in confidentiality.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights how different types of information and approaches to communication efforts may serve as the basis for achieving greater transparency. Governing bodies could use the results: to elaborate or evaluate strategies to educate on the potential benefits; to provide some knowledge and control over data use as a form of reciprocity; and as a condition to engage citizens and build and maintain trust. Future work is needed to assess which strategies achieve the greatest outreach while striking a balance between meeting information needs and use of resources.

Sharing is caring: a call for a new era of rare disease research and development

Scientific advances in the understanding of the genetics and mechanisms of many rare diseases with previously unknown etiologies are inspiring optimism in the patient, clinical, and research communities and there is hope that disease-specific treatments are on the way. However, the rare disease community has reached a critical point in which its increasingly fragmented structure and operating models are threatening its ability to harness the full potential of advancing genomic and computational technologies. Changes are therefore needed to overcome these issues plaguing many rare diseases while also supporting economically viable therapy development. In "Data silos are undermining drug development and failing rare disease patients (Orphanet Journal of Rare Disease, Apr 2021)," we outlined many of the broad issues underpinning the increasingly fragmented and siloed nature of the rare disease space, as well as how the issues encountered by this community are representative of biomedical research more generally. Here, we propose several initiatives for key stakeholders - including regulators, private and public foundations, and research institutions - to reorient the rare disease ecosystem and its incentives in a way that we believe would cultivate and accelerate innovation. Specifically, we propose supporting non-proprietary patient registries, greater data standardization, global regulatory harmonization, and new business models that encourage data sharing and research collaboration as the default mode. Leadership needs to be integrated across sectors to drive meaningful change between patients, industry, sponsors, and academic medical centers. To transform the research and development landscape and unlock its vast healthcare, economic, and scientific potential for rare disease patients, a new model is ultimately the goal for all.

Developing Data Sharing Models for Health Research with Real-World Data: A Scoping Review of Patient and Public Preferences

For researchers to realize the benefits of real-world data in healthcare requires broader access to patient data than is currently possible given siloed data systems. To facilitate evidence generation, infrastructure must support integrated data collection and sharing enabled by patient consent. Critical to the success of data sharing is to design secured data sharing platforms around patient preferences and expectations. The objective of this review was to characterize patient and public preferences for secured data sharing platforms and incentives to share real-world data for health research. We conducted a scoping review of the data sharing and health informatics literature capturing patient and public values for data sharing platforms and incentivization. We searched Embase and Medline (OVID) databases for primary data studies. Two reviewers participated in study selection and data abstraction. Findings were summarized according to preference frequency within each major theme. The final search produced 253 articles. After screening, 12 articles were included for data extraction. Two studies discussed preferences for data sharing platforms, 7 discussed incentives preferences, and 3 addressed both. We identified considerable variation of patient and public preferences according to preferred consent mechanisms and level of control, willingness to trade off risks and benefits, and the type of incentivization appropriate to offer for participation. This preference variation informs the conditions under which individuals may be willing to engage with secured data sharing platforms to support research. Our findings indicate that platforms will need to be flexible to meet the diverse preferences of users and facilitate uptake.

[Rare diseases, digitization, and the National Action League for People with Rare Diseases (NAMSE)]

Menschen mit Seltenen Erkrankungen stehen im Gesundheitssystem vor besonderen Herausforderungen. Die Seltenheit der einzelnen Erkrankungen erschwert aus strukturellen, medizinischen und ökonomischen Gründen sowohl die medizinische Versorgung als auch die Forschung zu den entsprechenden Themen. Im Jahr 2010 wurde das Nationale Aktionsbündnis für Menschen mit Seltenen Erkrankungen (NAMSE) auf Initiative des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit gemeinsam mit dem Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung und der Allianz Chronischer Seltener Erkrankungen sowie 25 weiteren Bündnispartnern ins Leben gerufen. Das NAMSE ist seitdem die zentrale Koordinierungs- und Kommunikationsplattform für Menschen mit Seltenen Erkrankungen in Deutschland und hat das Ziel, die gesundheitliche Situation der Betroffenen zu verbessern.

Wesentliche im NAMSE konsentierte Bedarfe an die Digitalisierung im Gesundheitswesen betreffen insbesondere die Vernetzung von Versorgungseinrichtungen, die Generierung von Wissen für die Forschung und die Verbreitung von Informationen. Zielsetzung ist dabei ein gemeinsamer und sicherer Datenraum mit interoperablen Praxis- und Klinikinformationssystemen und einheitlichen semantischen Standards. Der präzisen Kodierung von Seltenen Erkrankungen kommt dabei eine besondere Bedeutung zu.

In den kommenden Jahren müssen wichtige bereits angestoßene Prozesse im Sinne der Betroffenen gestaltet und begleitet werden. Dazu gehören unter anderem die deutsche Genominitiative genomDE, die elektronische Patientenakte und die Vernetzung im europäischen Raum. Damit die vielfältigen Initiativen und Projekte ineinandergreifen können, bedarf es klarer Zielsetzungen im Rahmen eines digitalen Gesamtkonzeptes, für welches das NAMSE wichtige Beiträge leistet.

Survey of Investigators About Sharing Human Research Data in the Neurosciences

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In the neurosciences, significant opportunities for sharing individual-level data are underexploited. Commentators suggest various barriers to data sharing, which may need to be addressed. Investigators' perspectives on the main barriers are unclear. Furthermore, bioethicists have raised concerns about the potential misuse of neuroscience data, although discussions are hampered by uncertainty about the potential risks. It is unclear how common sensitive data are obtained and whether investigators judge them as sensitive.

METHODS

An online survey was disseminated among 1,190 principal investigators (PIs) of active National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Mental Health, or NIH Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative grants involving human subject research.

RESULTS

A total of 397 investigators responded to the survey (response rate 33%). Most investigators (84%) support efforts to increase sharing of deidentified individual-level data. However, investigators perceive many barriers to data sharing. The largest barriers were costs and time; limited interpretation of the data without understanding the context of data collection; lack of incentives; limited standardization and norms for data acquisition, formatting, and description; and heterogeneity of data types. Several types of data described as sensitive in the literature are common among neuroscience studies, for example, neural correlates of behavior, emotions, or decision making (71%) and/or predictive data (54%). Although most investigators consider it unlikely or extremely unlikely for their research data to be misused to harm individual research participants (82%), the majority were at least slightly concerned about potential harm to individuals if their research data were misused (65%). Investigators with more easily reidentifiable data, data from vulnerable groups, and neural data were more concerned about the likelihood of misuse and/or magnitude of harm of misuse of their research data.

DISCUSSION

We hope these data help prioritize the development of tools and strategies to overcome the main barriers to data sharing. Furthermore, these data provide input on what may be sensitive data for which additional safeguards should be considered.

Stakeholders' views on drug development: the congenital disorders of glycosylation community perspective

BACKGROUND

Congenital disorders of glycosylation (CDG) are a large family of rare genetic diseases for which therapies are virtually nonexistent. However, CDG therapeutic research has been expanding, thanks to the continuous efforts of the CDG medical/scientific and patient communities. Hence, CDG drug development is a popular research topic. The main aim of this study was to understand current and steer future CDG drug development and approval by collecting and analysing the views and experiences of the CDG community, encompassing professionals and families. An electronic (e-)survey was developed and distributed to achieve this goal.

RESULTS

A total of 128 respondents (46 CDG professionals and 82 family members), mainly from Europe and the USA, participated in this study. Most professionals (95.0%) were relatively familiar with drug development and approval processes, while CDG families revealed low familiarity levels, with 8.5% admitting to never having heard about drug development. However, both stakeholder groups agreed that patients and families make significant contributions to drug development and approval. Regarding their perceptions of and experiences with specific drug development and approval tools, namely biobanks, disease models, patient registries, natural history studies (NHS) and clinical trials (CT), the CDG community stakeholders described low use and participation, as well as variable familiarity. Additionally, CDG professionals and families shared conflicting views about CT patient engagement and related information sharing. Families reported lower levels of involvement in CT design (25.0% declared ever being involved) and information (60.0% stated having been informed) compared to professionals (60.0% and 85.7%, respectively). These contrasting perceptions were further extended to their insights and experiences with patient-centric research. Finally, the CDG community (67.4% of professionals and 54.0% of families) reported a positive vision of artificial intelligence (AI) as a drug development tool. Nevertheless, despite the high AI awareness among CDG families (76.8%), professionals described limited AI use in their research (23.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

This community-centric study sheds new light on CDG drug development and approval. It identifies educational, communication and research gaps and opportunities for CDG professionals and families that could improve and accelerate CDG therapy development.

Benefits and Risks of Sharing Genomic Data for Research: Comparing the Views of Rare Disease Patients, Informal Carers and Healthcare Professionals

Assessing public and patients’ expectations and concerns about genomic data sharing is essential to promote adequate data governance and engagement in rare diseases genomics research. This cross-sectional study compared the views of 159 rare disease patients, 478 informal carers and 63 healthcare professionals in Northern Portugal about the benefits and risks of sharing genomic data for research, and its associated factors. The three participant groups expressed significantly different views. The majority of patients (84.3%) and informal carers (87.4%) selected the discovery of a cure for untreatable diseases as the most important benefit. In contrast, most healthcare professionals revealed a preference for the development of new drugs and treatments (71.4%), which was the second most selected benefit by carers (48.3%), especially by the more educated (OR (95% CI): 1.58 (1.07–2.34)). Lack of security and control over information access and the extraction of information exceeding research objectives were the two most often selected risks by patients (72.6% and 50.3%, respectively) and carers (60.0% and 60.6%, respectively). Conversely, professionals were concerned with genomic data being used to discriminate citizens (68.3%), followed by the extraction of information exceeding research objectives (54.0%). The latter risk was more frequently expressed by more educated carers (OR (95% CI): 1.60 (1.06–2.41)) and less by those with blue-collar (OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.25–0.77) and other occupations (OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.26–0.74)). Developing communication strategies and consent approaches tailored to participants’ expectations and needs can benefit the inclusiveness of genomics research that is key for patient-centred care.

A Community-Led Approach as a Guide to Overcome Challenges for Therapy Research in Congenital Disorders of Glycosylation

Congenital Disorders of Glycosylation (CDG) are a large family of rare genetic diseases for which effective therapies are almost nonexistent. To better understand the reasons behind this, to analyze ongoing therapy research and development (R&D) for CDG, and to provide future guidance, a community-led mixed methods approach was organized during the 4th World Conference on CDG for Families and Professionals. In the quantitative phase, electronic surveys pointed to the prioritization of six therapeutic R&D tools, namely biobanks, registries, biomarkers, disease models, natural history studies, and clinical trials. Subsequently, in the qualitative phase, the challenges and solutions associated with these research tools were explored through community-driven think tanks. The multiple challenges and solutions identified administrative/regulatory, communication, financial, technical, and biological issues, which are directly related to three fundamental aspects of therapy R&D, namely data, sample, and patient management. An interdependence was traced between the prioritized tools, with diagnosis and therapies acting as bidirectional triggers that fuel these interrelationships. In conclusion, this study’s pioneering and adaptable community-led methodology identified several CDG therapy R&D gaps, many common to other rare diseases, without easy solutions. However, the strong proactive attitude towards research, based on inclusive and international partnerships and involving all members of the CDG community, sets the direction for better future therapy R&D.

Public Views About Involvement in Decision-Making on Health Data Sharing, Access, Use and Reuse: The Importance of Trust in Science and Other Institutions

Background

Data-intensive and needs-driven research can deliver substantial health benefits. However, concerns with privacy loss, undisclosed surveillance, and discrimination are on the rise due to mounting data breaches. This can undermine the trustworthiness of data processing institutions and reduce people's willingness to share their data. Involving the public in health data governance can help to address this problem by imbuing data processing frameworks with societal values. This study assesses public views about involvement in individual-level decisions concerned with health data and their association with trust in science and other institutions.

Methods

Cross-sectional study with 162 patients and 489 informal carers followed at two reference centers for rare diseases in an academic hospital in Portugal (June 2019–March 2020). Participants rated the importance of involvement in decision-making concerning health data sharing, access, use, and reuse from “not important” to “very important”. Its association with sociodemographic characteristics, interpersonal trust, trust in national and international institutions, and the importance of trust in research teams and host institutions was tested.

Results

Most participants perceived involvement in decision-making about data sharing (85.1%), access (87.1%), use (85%) and reuse (79.9%) to be important or very important. Participants who ascribed a high degree of importance to trust in research host institutions were significantly more likely to value involvement in such decisions. A similar position was expressed by participants who valued trust in research teams for data sharing, access, and use. Participants with low levels of trust in national and international institutions and with lower levels of education attributed less importance to being involved in decisions about data use.

Conclusion

The high value attributed by participants to involvement in individual-level data governance stresses the need to broaden opportunities for public participation in health data decision-making, namely by introducing a meta consent approach. The important role played by trust in science and in other institutions in shaping participants' views about involvement highlights the relevance of pairing such a meta consent approach with the provision of transparent information about the implications of data sharing, the resources needed to make informed choices and the development of harm mitigation tools and redress.

Evidence based policy making during times of uncertainty through the lens of future policy makers: four recommendations to harmonise and guide health policy making in the future

The Covid-19 pandemic has not only outlined the importance of using evidence in the healthcare policy making process but also the complexity that exists between policymakers and the scientific community. As a matter of fact, scientific data is just one of many other concurrent factors, including economic, social and cultural, that may provide the rationale for policy making. The pandemic has also raised citizens' awareness and represented an unprecedented moment of willingness to access and understand the evidence underpinning health policies.This commentary provides policy recommendations to improve evidence-based policy making in health, through the lens of a young generation of public policy students and future policymakers, enrolled in a 24-hour course at Sciences Po Paris entitled "Evidence-based policy-making in health: theory and practice(s)".Four out of 11 recommendations were prioritised and presented in this commentary which target both policymakers and the scientific community to make better use of evidence-based policy making in health. First, policy makers and scientists should build trusting partnerships with citizens and engage them, especially those facing our target health care issues or systems. Second, while artificial intelligence raises new opportunities in healthcare, its use in contexts of uncertainty should be addressed by policymakers in terms of liability and ethics. Third, conflicts of interest must be disclosed as much as possible and effectively managed to (re) build a trust relationship between policymakers, the scientific community and citizens, implying the need for risk management tools and cross border disclosure mechanisms. Last, well-designed and secure health information systems need to be implemented, following the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) principles for health data. This will take us a step further from data to 'policy wisdom'.Overall, these recommendations identified and formulated by students highlight some key issues that need to be rethought in the health policy cycle through elements like institutional incentives, cultural changes and dialogue between policy makers and the scientific community. This input from a younger generation of students highlights the importance of making the conversation on evidence-based policy making in health accessible to all generations and backgrounds.

The involvement of rare disease patient organisations in therapeutic innovation across rare paediatric neurological conditions: a narrative review

Background

The patient voice is becoming increasingly prominent across all stages of therapeutic innovation. It pervades research domains from funding and recruitment, to translation, care, and support. Advances in genomic technologies have facilitated novel breakthrough therapies, whose global developments, regulatory approvals, and confined governmental subsidisations have stimulated renewed hope amongst rare disease patient organisations (RDPOs). With intensifying optimism characterising the therapeutic landscape, researcher-advocate partnerships have reached an inflexion point, at which stakeholders may evaluate their achievements and formulate frameworks for future refinement.

Main text

Through this narrative review, we surveyed relevant literature around the roles of RDPOs catering to the rare paediatric neurological disease community. Via available literature, we considered RDPO interactions within seven domains of therapeutic development: research grant funding, industry sponsorship, study recruitment, clinical care and support, patient-reported outcome measures, and research prioritisation. In doing so, we explored practical and ethical challenges, gaps in understanding, and future directions of inquiry. Current literature highlights the increasing significance of ethical and financial challenges to patient advocacy. Biomedical venture philanthropy is gaining momentum amongst RDPOs, whose small grants can incrementally assist laboratories in research, training, and pursuits of more substantial grants. However, RDPO seed funding may encounter long-term sustainability issues and difficulties in selecting appropriate research investments. Further challenges include advocate-industry collaborations, commercial biases, and unresolved controversies regarding orphan drug subsidisation. Beyond their financial interactions, RDPOs serve instrumental roles in project promotion, participant recruitment, biobank creation, and patient registry establishment. They are communication conduits between carers, patients, and other stakeholders, but their contributions may be susceptible to bias and unrealistic expectations.

Conclusion

Further insights into how RDPOs navigate practical and ethical challenges in therapeutic development may enhance cooperative efforts. They may also inform resources, whose distribution among advocates, parents, and clinicians, may assist decision-making processes around rare disease clinical trials and treatments.

The road to successful people-centric research in rare diseases: the web-based case study of the Immunology and Congenital Disorders of Glycosylation questionnaire (ImmunoCDGQ)

Background

Congenital Disorders of Glycosylation (CDG) are a complex family of rare metabolic diseases. Robust clinical data collection faces many hurdles, preventing full CDG biological and clinical comprehension. Web-based platforms offer privileged opportunities for biomedical data gathering, and participant recruitment, particularly in rare diseases. The immunology and CDG electronic (e-) questionnaire (ImmunoCDGQ) explores this paradigm, proposing a people-centric framework to advance health research and participant empowerment.

Objective

The objectives of this study were to: (1) Describe and characterize the ImmunoCDGQ development, engagement, recruitment, participation, and result dissemination strategies; (2) To critically compare this framework with published literature and making recommendations.

Methods

An international, multistakeholder people-centric approach was initiated to develop and distribute the ImmunoCDGQ, a multi-lingual e-questionnaire able to collect immune-related data directly from patients and family caregivers. An adapted version was produced and distributed among the general “healthy” population (ImmunoHealthyQ), serving as the control group. Literature screening was performed to identify and analyze comparable studies.

Results

The ImmunoCDGQ attained high participation and inclusion rates (94.6%, 209 out of 221). Comparatively to the control, CDG participants also showed higher and more variable questionnaire completion times as well as increased English version representativeness. Additionally, 20% of the CDG group (42 out of 209) chose not to complete the entire questionnaire in one go. Conditional logic structuring guided participant data provision and accurate data analysis assignment. Multi-channel recruitment created sustained engagement with Facebook emerging as the most followed social media outlet. Still, most included ImmunoCDGQ questionnaires (50.7%, 106 out of 209) were submitted within the first month of the project’s launch. Literature search and analysis showed that most e-questionnaire-based studies in rare diseases are author-built (56.8%, 25 out of 44), simultaneously addressing medical and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and/or information needs (79.5%, 35 out of 44). Also, over 68% of the studies adopt multi-platform recruitment (30 out of 44) actively supported by patient organizations (52.3%, 23 out of 44).

Conclusions

The ImmunoCDGQ, its methodology and the CDG Community served as models for health research, hence paving a successful and reproducible road to people-centricity in biomedical research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-022-02286-w.

Collaborative Research and Development of a Novel, Patient-Centered Digital Platform (MyEyeSite) for Rare Inherited Retinal Disease Data: Acceptability and Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a leading cause of blindness in children and working age adults in the United Kingdom and other countries, with an appreciable socioeconomic impact. However, by definition, IRD data are individually rare, and as a result, this patient group has been underserved by research. Researchers need larger amounts of these rare data to make progress in this field, for example, through the development of gene therapies. The challenge has been how to find and make these data available to researchers in the most productive way. MyEyeSite is a research collaboration aiming to design and develop a digital platform (the MyEyeSite platform) for people with rare IRDs that will enable patients, doctors, and researchers to aggregate and share specialist eye health data. A crucial component of this platform is the MyEyeSite patient application, which will provide the means for patients with IRD to interact with the system and, in particular, to collate, manage, and share their personal specialist IRD data both for research and their own health care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to test the acceptability and feasibility of the MyEyeSite platform in the target IRD population through a collaborative patient-centered study.

METHODS

Qualitative data were generated through focus groups and workshops, and quantitative data were obtained through a survey of patients with IRD. Participants were recruited through clinics at Moorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre through their patient and public involvement databases.

RESULTS

Our IRD focus group sample (n=50) highlighted the following themes: frustration with the current system regarding data sharing within the United Kingdom's NHS; positive expectations of the potential benefits of the MyEyeSite patient application, resulting from increased access to this specialized data; and concerns regarding data security, including potentially unethical use of the data outside the NHS. Of the surveyed 80 participants, 68 (85%) were motivated to have a more active role in their eye care and share their data for research purposes using a secure technology, such as a web application or mobile app.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that patients with IRD are highly motivated to be actively involved in managing their own data for research and their own eye care. It demonstrates the feasibility of involving patients with IRD in the detailed design of the MyEyeSite platform exemplar, with input from the patient with IRD workshops playing a key role in determining both the functionality and accessibility of the designs and prototypes. The development of a user-centered technological solution to the problem of rare health data has the potential to benefit not only the patient with IRD community but also others with rare diseases.

Reinforcing Collaboration and Harmonization to Unlock the Potentials of Advanced Therapy Medical Products: Future Efforts Are Awaited From Manufacturers and Decision-Makers

Some advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) hold great promises for life-threatening diseases with high unmet needs. However, ATMPs are also associated with significant challenges in market access, which necessitates the joint efforts between all relevant stakeholders to navigate. In this review, we will elaborate on the importance of collaborations and harmonization across different stakeholders, to expedite the market access of promising ATMPs. Manufacturers of ATMPs should proactively establish collaborations with other stakeholders throughout the whole lifecycle of ATMPs, from early research to post-market activities. This covered engagements with (1) external developers (i.e., not-for-profit organizations and commercial players) to obtain complementary knowledge, technology, or infrastructures, (2) patient groups and healthcare providers to highlight their roles as active contributors, and (3) decision-makers, such as regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, and payers, to communicate the uncertainties in evidence package, where parallel consultation will be a powerful strategy. Harmonization between decision-makers is desired at (1) regulatory level, in terms of strengthening the international standardization of regulatory framework to minimize discrepancies in evidence requirements for market authorization, and (2) HTA level, in terms of enhancing alignments between regional and national HTA agencies to narrow inequity in patient access, and cross-border HTA cooperation to improve the quality and efficiency of HTA process. In conclusion, manufacturers and decision-makers shared the common goals to safeguard timely patient access to ATMPs. Collaboration and harmonization will be increasingly leveraged to enable the value delivery of ATMPs to all stakeholders.

Urogynaecology and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) can lead to a presentation to urogynaecology services with multiple symptoms including vaginal prolapse, overactive bladder symptoms, voiding dysfunction, bladder pain syndrome, recurrent urinary tracts infections, stress urinary incontinence, recurring bladder diverticula, vesicoureteral reflux, pelvic floor pain or spasms, and complicated postnatal perineal wounds. This article explores the pathophysiology of these conditions in causing urinary urgency, incontinence, and infections; highlighting the key investigations and management considerations for women with EDS including conservative, pharmacological, and surgical.

"Doctors can read about it, they can know about it, but they've never lived with it": How parents use social media throughout the diagnostic odyssey

Parents of children with undiagnosed conditions struggle to obtain information about how to treat and support their children. It can be particularly challenging to find communities and other parents who share their experiences and can provide emotional and informational support. This study sought to characterize how parents use social media, both throughout the diagnostic odyssey and post-diagnosis, to meet their informational, social, and emotional support needs. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 14 parents from the Stanford site of the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN), including five whose children had received a diagnosis through study participation. Interview recordings were analyzed using inductive, team-based coding and thematic analysis based in grounded theory using Dedoose qualitative analysis software. Through this process, we identified four key themes related to social media use. First, parents struggled to find the "right" community, often seeking out groups of similar patients based on symptoms or similar conditions. Second, though they found much valuable information through social media about caring for their child, they also struggled to interpret the relevance of the information to their own child's condition. Third, the social support and access to other patients' and families' lived experiences were described as both highly valued and emotionally challenging, particularly in the case of poor outcomes for similar families. Finally, parents expressed the need to balance concerns about their child's privacy with the value of transparency and data sharing for diagnosis. Our results suggest that the needs and experiences of undiagnosed patients and families differ from those with diagnosed diseases and highlight the need for support in best utilizing social media resources at different stages of the diagnostic odyssey.

Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging and its Impact on the Rare Disease Community: Threats, Challenges and Opportunities

Almost 1 in 10 individuals can suffer from one of many rare diseases (RDs). The average time to diagnosis for an RD patient is as high as 7 years. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based positron emission tomography (PET), if implemented appropriately, has tremendous potential to advance the diagnosis of RDs. Patient advocacy groups must be active stakeholders in the AI ecosystem if we are to avoid potential issues related to the implementation of AI into health care. AI medical devices must not only be RD-aware at each stage of their conceptualization and life cycle but also should be trained on diverse and augmented datasets representative of the end-user population including RDs. Inability to do so leads to potential harm and unsustainable deployment of AI-based medical devices (AIMDs) into clinical practice.

People with Cerebral Palsy and Their Family's Preferences about Genomics Research

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this study was to understand individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) and their family's attitudes and preferences to genomic research, including international data sharing and biobanking.

METHODS

Individuals with CP and their family members were invited to participate in the web-based survey via email (NSW/ACT CP Register) or via posts on social media by Cerebral Palsy Alliance, CP Research Network, and CP Now. Survey responses included yes/no/unsure, multiple choices, and Likert scales. Fisher's exact and χ2 tests were used to assess if there were significant differences between subgroups.

RESULTS

Individuals with CP and their families (n = 145) were willing to participate in genomics research (68%), data sharing (82%), and biobanking efforts (75%). This willingness to participate was associated with completion of tertiary education, previous genetic testing experience, overall higher genomic awareness, and trust in international researchers. The survey respondents also expressed ongoing communication and diverse information needs regarding the use of their samples and data. Major concerns were associated with privacy and data security.

DISCUSSION

The success of genomic research and international data sharing efforts in CP are contingent upon broad support and recruitment. Ongoing consultation and engagement of individuals with CP and their families will facilitate trust and promote increased awareness of genomics in CP that may in turn maximize participant uptake and recruitment.

How Patient Organizations Can Drive FAIR Data Efforts to Facilitate Research and Health Care: A Report of the Virtual Second International Meeting on Duchenne Data Sharing, March 3, 2021

BACKGROUND

For patients with rare diseases such as Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy (DMD/BMD), access to their health data is key to being able to advocate for themselves and be in control of their care. Since 2018, the DMD/BMD patient community has been committed to making DMD/BMD-related data FAIR, ie, Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. On March 3, 2021, the second international meeting on FAIR data sharing for DMD/BMD was held virtually.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meeting report is to summarize the presentations and discussions of the meeting.

METHODS

During this meeting, the progress of FAIRification efforts since the first international meeting in 2019, new developments, stakeholder perspectives, and experiences from implementing FAIR data principles in practice were presented and discussed.

RESULTS

Over 120 attendees representing various stakeholder groups (ie, patient organizations, clinicians, clinical and academic researchers, pharmaceutical companies, regulators, and EU organizations) from 22 countries participated in the meeting. This meeting report summarizes the presentations and discussions from the meeting, provides an overview of the key lessons learned since the first meeting, and outlines the next steps.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient organizations are key drivers of the FAIRification process in practice and dialogue with stakeholders is critical to success.

The LORIS MyeliNeuroGene rare disease database for natural history studies and clinical trial readiness

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases are estimated to affect 150-350 million people worldwide. With advances in next generation sequencing, the number of known disease-causing genes has increased significantly, opening the door for therapy development. Rare disease research has therefore pivoted from gene discovery to the exploration of potential therapies. With impending clinical trials on the horizon, researchers are in urgent need of natural history studies to help them identify surrogate markers, validate outcome measures, define historical control patients, and design therapeutic trials.

RESULTS

We customized a browser-accessible multi-modal (e.g. genetics, imaging, behavioral, patient-determined outcomes) database to increase cohort sizes, identify surrogate markers, and foster international collaborations. Ninety data entry forms were developed including family, perinatal, developmental history, clinical examinations, diagnostic investigations, neurological evaluations (i.e. spasticity, dystonia, ataxia, etc.), disability measures, parental stress, and quality of life. A customizable clinical letter generator was created to assist in continuity of patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Small cohorts and underpowered studies are a major challenge for rare disease research. This online, rare disease database will be accessible from all over the world, making it easier to share and disseminate data. We have outlined the methodology to become Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 11 Compliant, which is a requirement to use electronic records as historical controls in clinical trials in the United States. Food and Drug Administration compliant databases will be life-changing for patients and families when historical control data is used for emerging clinical trials. Future work will leverage these tools to delineate the natural history of several rare diseases and we are confident that this database will be used on a larger scale to improve care for patients affected with rare diseases.

Patient-reportedimpact of myasthenia gravis in the real world: protocol for a digital observational study (MyRealWorld MG)

INTRODUCTION

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease, mediated by immunoglobulin G antibodies, which causes debilitating muscle weakness. As with most rare diseases, there is little patient-reported data with which to understand and address patient needs. This study explores the impact of MG in the real world from the patient perspective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a 2-year prospective, observational, digital, longitudinal study of adults with MG, resident in the following countries: the USA, Japan, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain, Canada and Belgium. The planned sample size is 2000. Recruitment will be community based, via patient advocacy groups, social media and word of mouth. Participants will use a smartphone application (app) to check eligibility, provide consent and contribute data. Planned data entry is as follows: (1) personal profile on enrollment-covering demographics, MG characteristics and previous care; (2) monthly event tracker-current treatments, healthcare visits, treatment-related adverse events, productivity losses; (3) monthly selection of validated generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcomes instruments: EQ-5D-5L, Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living, Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life 15-item revised scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Health Utilities Index III. Analyses are planned for when the study has been running in most countries for approximately 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has been reviewed and granted ethics approval by Salus IRB for participants resident in the following countries: Germany, the UK and the US. Local ethics approval is being sought for the following study countries: Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, Japan and Spain. Study results will be communicated to the public and participants via conference presentations and journal publications, as well as regular email, social media and in-application communication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04176211.

Adolescent Assent and Reconsent for Biobanking: Recent Developments and Emerging Ethical Issues

Research biobanks that enroll minors face important practical, ethical, and regulatory challenges in reconsenting participants when they reach the age of 18. Federal regulations governing research in the United States provide minimal guidance and allow for a range of practices, including waiving the requirement to obtain reconsent. Some commentators have argued that institutional review boards should indeed grant such waivers, given the low risks of biobank-based research and the impracticality of contacting all participants when they turn 18. There is also significant ethical debate about the age at which adolescents can make authentic, autonomous decisions regarding their research participation. This paper reviews these issues in detail, describes the current state of the ethical discussion, and outlines evidence-based policies for enrolling minors into research biobanks.

Artificial intelligence extension of the OSCAR-IB criteria

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based diagnostic algorithms have achieved ambitious aims through automated image pattern recognition. For neurological disorders, this includes neurodegeneration and inflammation. Scalable imaging technology for big data in neurology is optical coherence tomography (OCT). We highlight that OCT changes observed in the retina, as a window to the brain, are small, requiring rigorous quality control pipelines. There are existing tools for this purpose. Firstly, there are human-led validated consensus quality control criteria (OSCAR-IB) for OCT. Secondly, these criteria are embedded into OCT reporting guidelines (APOSTEL). The use of the described annotation of failed OCT scans advances machine learning. This is illustrated through the present review of the advantages and disadvantages of AI-based applications to OCT data. The neurological conditions reviewed here for the use of big data include Alzheimer disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson disease, and epilepsy. It is noted that while big data is relevant for AI, ownership is complex. For this reason, we also reached out to involve representatives from patient organizations and the public domain in addition to clinical and research centers. The evidence reviewed can be grouped in a five-point expansion of the OSCAR-IB criteria to embrace AI (OSCAR-AI). The review concludes by specific recommendations on how this can be achieved practically and in compliance with existing guidelines.

A descriptive analysis of the data availability statements accompanying medRxiv preprints and a comparison with their published counterparts

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether medRxiv data availability statements describe open or closed data-that is, whether the data used in the study is openly available without restriction-and to examine if this changes on publication based on journal data-sharing policy. Additionally, to examine whether data availability statements are sufficient to capture code availability declarations.

DESIGN

Observational study, following a pre-registered protocol, of preprints posted on the medRxiv repository between 25th June 2019 and 1st May 2020 and their published counterparts.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Distribution of preprinted data availability statements across nine categories, determined by a prespecified classification system. Change in the percentage of data availability statements describing open data between the preprinted and published versions of the same record, stratified by journal sharing policy. Number of code availability declarations reported in the full-text preprint which were not captured in the corresponding data availability statement.

RESULTS

3938 medRxiv preprints with an applicable data availability statement were included in our sample, of which 911 (23.1%) were categorized as describing open data. 379 (9.6%) preprints were subsequently published, and of these published articles, only 155 contained an applicable data availability statement. Similar to the preprint stage, a minority (59 (38.1%)) of these published data availability statements described open data. Of the 151 records eligible for the comparison between preprinted and published stages, 57 (37.7%) were published in journals which mandated open data sharing. Data availability statements more frequently described open data on publication when the journal mandated data sharing (open at preprint: 33.3%, open at publication: 61.4%) compared to when the journal did not mandate data sharing (open at preprint: 20.2%, open at publication: 22.3%).

CONCLUSION

Requiring that authors submit a data availability statement is a good first step, but is insufficient to ensure data availability. Strict editorial policies that mandate data sharing (where appropriate) as a condition of publication appear to be effective in making research data available. We would strongly encourage all journal editors to examine whether their data availability policies are sufficiently stringent and consistently enforced.

A systematic literature review of attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on consent

BACKGROUND

We aimed to synthesise data on issues related to stakeholder perceptions of consent for the use of secondary data. To better understand the current literature available, we conducted a systematic literature review of healthcare consumer attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data.

METHODS

EMBASE/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Informit Health Collection, PROSPERO Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO and ProQuest databases were searched. Eligible articles included those reporting qualitative or quantitative original research and published in English. No restrictions were placed on publication dates, study design or disease setting. One author screened articles for eligibility and two authors were involved in the full-text review process. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. Quality and bias were assessed using the QualSyst criteria for qualitative studies.

RESULTS

This paper focuses on a subset of 47 articles identified from the wider search and focuses on the issue of consent. Issues related to privacy, trust and transparency, and attitudes of healthcare professionals and researchers to secondary use and sharing of data have been dealt with in previous publications. Studies included a total of 216,149 respondents. Results indicate that respondents are generally supportive of using health data for research, particularly if the data is de-identified or anonymised. The requirement by participants to obtain consent prior to the use of health data for research was not universal, nor is the requirement for this always supported by legislation. Many respondents believed that either no consent or being informed of the research, but not providing additional consent, were sufficient.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that individuals should be provided with information and choice about how their health data is used and, where feasible, a mechanism to opt-out should be provided. To increase the acceptability of using health data for research, health organisations and data custodians must provide individuals with concise information about data protection mechanisms and under what circumstances their data may be used and by whom.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018110559 (update June 2020).

The impact of COVID-19 on the cell and gene therapies industry: Disruptions, opportunities, and future prospects

Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) has caused significant disruption to the cell and gene therapy (CGT) industry, which has historically faced substantial complexities in supply of materials, and manufacturing and logistics processes. As decision-makers shifted their priorities to COVID-19-related issues, the challenges in market authorisation, and price and reimbursement of CGTs were amplified. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see that some CGT developers are adapting their efforts toward the development of promising COVID-19-related therapeutics and vaccines. Manufacturing resilience, digitalisation, telemedicine, value-based pricing, and innovative payment mechanisms will be increasingly harnessed to ensure that market access of CGTs is not severely disrupted.

Structural Racism in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Moving Forward

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a substantial human, social and economic toll globally, but its impact on Black/African Americans, Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native communities in the U.S. is unconscionable. As the U.S. continues to combat the current COVID-19 cycle and prepares for future pandemics, it will be critical to learn from and rectify past and contemporary wrongs. Drawing on experiences in genomic research and intersecting areas in medical ethics, health disparities, and human rights, this article considers three key COVID-19-related issues: research to identify remedies; testing, contact tracing and surveillance; and lingering health needs and disability. It provides a pathway for the future: community engagement to develop culturally-sensitive responses to the myriad genomic/bioethical dilemmas that arise, and the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to transition the country from its contemporary state of segregation in healthcare and health outcomes into an equitable and prosperous society for all.

A systematic literature review of health consumer attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on privacy, trust, and transparency

We aimed to synthesise data on issues related to stakeholder perceptions of privacy, trust, and transparency in use of secondary data. A systematic literature review of healthcare consumer attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data was conducted. EMBASE/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Informit Health Collection, PROSPERO Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and ProQuest databases were searched. Eligible articles included those reporting qualitative or quantitative original research and published in English. No restrictions were placed on publication dates, study design or disease setting. One author screened articles for eligibility, and two authors were involved in the full text review process. Data was extracted using a pre-piloted data extraction template by one author and checked by another. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. Quality and bias were assessed using the QualSyst criteria for qualitative and quantitative studies. This paper focuses on a subset of 35 articles identified from the wider search which focus on issues of privacy, trust, and transparency. Studies included a total of 56,365 respondents. Results of this systematic literature review indicate that while respondents identified advantages in sharing health data, concerns relating to trust, transparency, and privacy remain. Organisations collecting health data and those who seek to share data or undertake secondary data analysis should continue to develop trust, transparency, and privacy with healthcare consumers through open dialogue and education. Consideration should be given to these issues at all stages of data collection including the conception, design, and implementation phases. While individuals understand the benefits of health data sharing for research purposes, ensuring a balance between public benefit and individual privacy is essential. Researchers and those undertaking secondary data analysis need to be cognisant of these key issues at all stages of their research. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018110559 (update June 2020).

Contributory factors to the evolution of the concept and practice of informed consent in clinical research: A narrative review

Informed consent can be defined as a freely-given decision or agreement following disclosure of relevant information. This review explores how legislation surrounding informed consent has impacted upon clinical research practices, with a focus on clinical trials involving individuals with the capacity to give consent in the non-emergency setting. We also highlight the challenges which remain with the informed consent process, including those which exist in the era of data protection legislation and genetic research. Modern ethicists agree that informed consent encompasses three principal factors: disclosure of information, capacity for decision making, and voluntariness. In the context of clinical research, informed consent is now required by regulatory and ethical frameworks as well as by law, and various guidelines govern the practice of informed consent, including the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice Guidelines. Historically, however, researchers acted paternalistically and included participants in research without their knowledge or consent. Following societal and political revolution, an autonomy model of consent became prevalent, and individuals became free to make individual choices about whether to participate. Despite this, it is also recognized that an individual's community has a role in supporting their decision making, and this may be a strong influence, particularly within some societies. Research scandals and controversies and whistle-blowers which exposed unethical practices in the area of informed consent also contributed to changes in societal attitudes and legislation changed as a result. Medical journals also have an established, although indirect, role in strengthening good practices surrounding informed consent.

Participation in patient support forums may put rare disease patient data at risk of re-identification

BACKGROUND

Rare disease patients often struggle to find both medical advice and emotional support for their diagnosis. Consequently, many rare disease patient support forums have appeared on hospital webpages, social media sites, and on rare disease foundation sites. However, we argue that engagement in these groups may pose a healthcare data privacy threat to many participants, since it makes a series of patient indirect identifiers 'readily available' in combination with rare disease conditions. This information produces a risk of re-identification because it may allow a motivated attacker to use the unique combination of a patient's identifiers and disease condition to re-identify them in anonymized data.

RESULTS

To assess this risk of re-identification, patient direct and indirect identifiers were mined from patient support forums for 80 patients across eight rare diseases. This data mining consisted of scanning patient testimonials, social media sites, and public records for the collection of identifiers linked to a rare disease patient. The number of people in the United States that may share each patient's combination of marital status, 3-digit ZIP code, age, and sex, as well as their rare disease condition, was then estimated, as such information is commonly found in health records which have undergone de-identification by HIPAA's 'Safe Harbor.' The study showed that by these estimations, nearly 75% of patients could be at high risk for re-identification in healthcare datasets in which they appear, due to their unique combination of identifiers.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that these rare disease patients, due to their choice to provide support for their community, are putting all their healthcare data at risk of re-identification. This paper demonstrates how simple adjustments to participation guidelines in such support forums, in combination with improved privacy measures at the organizational level, could mitigate this risk of re-identification. Additionally, this paper suggests the potential for future investigation into consideration of certain 'risky' International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes as quasi-identifiers in de-identified datasets to further protect patients' privacy, while maintaining the utility of such rare disease support groups.