Improving the informed consent process in international collaborative rare disease research: effective consent for effective research

Landscape analysis of available European data sources amenable for machine learning and recommendations on usability for rare diseases screening

BACKGROUND

Patient registries and databases are essential tools for advancing clinical research in the area of rare diseases, as well as for enhancing patient care and healthcare planning. The primary aim of this study is a landscape analysis of available European data sources amenable to machine learning (ML) and their usability for Rare Diseases screening, in terms of findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable(FAIR), legal, and business considerations. Second, recommendations will be proposed to provide a better understanding of the health data ecosystem.

METHODS

In the period of March 2022 to December 2022, a cross-sectional study using a semi-structured questionnaire was conducted among potential respondents, identified as main contact person of a health-related databases. The design of the self-completed questionnaire survey instrument was based on information drawn from relevant scientific publications, quantitative and qualitative research, and scoping review on challenges in mapping European rare disease (RD) databases. To determine database characteristics associated with the adherence to the FAIR principles, legal and business aspects of database management Bayesian models were fitted.

RESULTS

In total, 330 unique replies were processed and analyzed, reflecting the same number of distinct databases (no duplicates included). In terms of geographical scope, we observed 24.2% (n = 80) national, 10.0% (n = 33) regional, 8.8% (n = 29) European, and 5.5% (n = 18) international registries coordinated in Europe. Over 80.0% (n = 269) of the databases were still active, with approximately 60.0% (n = 191) established after the year 2000 and 71.0% last collected new data in 2022. Regarding their geographical scope, European registries were associated with the highest overall FAIR adherence, while registries with regional and "other" geographical scope were ranked at the bottom of the list with the lowest proportion. Responders' willingness to share data as a contribution to the goals of the Screen4Care project was evaluated at the end of the survey. This question was completed by 108 respondents; however, only 18 of them (16.7%) expressed a direct willingness to contribute to the project by sharing their databases. Among them, an equal split between pro-bono and paid services was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The most important results of our study demonstrate not enough sufficient FAIR principles adherence and low willingness of the EU health databases to share patient information, combined with some legislation incapacities, resulting in barriers to the secondary use of data.

Improving prenatal diagnosis through standards and aggregation

Advances in sequencing and imaging technologies enable enhanced assessment in the prenatal space, with a goal to diagnose and predict the natural history of disease, to direct targeted therapies, and to implement clinical management, including transfer of care, election of supportive care, and selection of surgical interventions. The current lack of standardization and aggregation stymies variant interpretation and gene discovery, which hinders the provision of prenatal precision medicine, leaving clinicians and patients without an accurate diagnosis. With large amounts of data generated, it is imperative to establish standards for data collection, processing, and aggregation. Aggregated and homogeneously processed genetic and phenotypic data permits dissection of the genomic architecture of prenatal presentations of disease and provides a dataset on which data analysis algorithms can be tuned to the prenatal space. Here we discuss the importance of generating aggregate data sets and how the prenatal space is driving the development of interoperable standards and phenotype-driven tools.

Knowledge and Attitudes of Clinical Trials among Patients with Rare Diseases and the Guardians in China

BACKGROUND

Conducting of clinical trials for rare diseases faces multiple challenges. Patients' cognition and attitude toward clinical trials are crucial, which may affect their participation and compliance, and affect the schedule of clinical trials eventually.

OBJECTIVE AND METHOD

This study aims to explore the knowledge and attitudes of clinical trials of patients with rare diseases or patients' guardians. An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted from November 1, 2021, to November 30, 2021. A total of 1131 valid questionnaires were included. Among them, 417 were filled in by the patients themselves, and 714 were answered by the patients' guardians.

RESULTS

The average score of clinical trial knowledge of the patients (8.25) was lower than that of the guardians (8.85). The willingness of the patients to participate in clinical trials was high (4.28), and the willingness of the patients' guardians was also high for patients to participate in clinical trials (4.35). The main promoting factors of clinical trial participation were the possibility of curing the disease. The main hindering factors of participation in clinical trials were lack of access to clinical trial information and concern about the safety and effectiveness of the trial drug.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, most respondents had some basic knowledge of clinical trials and high willingness to participate in clinical trials. But there were some cognitive deficiencies about clinical trials and many hindering factors to participate in clinical trials. Clinical trials of rare diseases should be patient-centered and truly meet the unmet clinical, psychological, and social needs of patients with rare diseases.

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.

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.

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.

The Cure SMA Clinical Trial Experience Survey: A Study of Trial Participant Perspectives on Clinical Trial Management and Patient-Centric Management Practices

Introduction

Understanding clinical trial experiences can illuminate opportunities to optimize trial design and management, with potential benefits for recruitment and retention. This study sought to better understand clinical trial participant experiences and attitudes within spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), and how the evolving treatment landscape and participant characteristics may predict attitudes.

Methods

A survey was developed following a review of published literature and discussions with caregivers of SMA trial participants. This was distributed via email to known trial participants in Cure SMA’s database, announcements in Cure SMA’s newsletter, and emails to SMA clinical trial principal investigators.

Results

Seventy complete surveys reflecting unique clinical trial experiences were included in analysis. Responses revealed positive attitudes about clinical trial management overall. Top motivators for trial participation included clinical benefit, investigational drug access, and the opportunity to help others. Top concerns were safety, whether benefits would justify risks, and concerns about pain accompanying tests. The greatest stressors were fear of pain, adverse event concerns, and challenges managing medical complications of SMA. Top benefits of trial participation were hope for a better future, helping others, and relationships with the study team. In regression analysis, participant gender, age, and race all emerged as significant predictors (p < 0.05) of motivators, concerns, stressors, and benefits, as did respondent type, knowledge about SMA, distance to the trial site, and treatment era. Top recommendations for improving study management all related to receiving more information.

Conclusion

This research provides new perspective on patient experiences in SMA clinical trials. It underscores the importance of information and efforts to anticipate and accommodate participant needs. These findings may inform study design and interactions with research participants. They may become especially important in supporting recruitment and retention as more treatment options become available.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-022-00360-w.

Clinical trials can be stressful experiences for patients and their caregivers, especially when participants are affected by serious diseases. By understanding trial participants’ attitudes and experiences, researchers may be better able to accommodate their interests when designing and conducting research studies. This study sought insight into attitudes and experiences of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) clinical trial participants by surveying people who participated in SMA clinical trials in the USA. The data used in analysis reflected 70 unique clinical trial experiences. Survey responses revealed positive attitudes about clinical trial management overall. Top motivators for trial participation included clinical benefit, investigational drug access, and the opportunity to help others. Top concerns were safety, whether benefits would justify risks, and concerns about pain accompanying tests. The greatest stressors were fear of pain, adverse event concerns, and challenges managing medical complications of SMA. Top benefits of trial participation were hope for a better future, helping others, and relationships with the study team. Whether or not specific motivators, concerns, stressors, and benefits were important was predicted by participant gender, age, and race, as well as respondent type (participant or caregiver), knowledge about SMA, distance to the trial site, and treatment era. Top recommendations for improving study management all related to receiving more information. This research provides new perspective on patient experiences in SMA clinical trials, and may be used to inform future study design and interactions with research participants.

How to conduct a focus group interview: Tips, strategies, and examples for novice researchers

The focus group interview is a strategy that researchers use across all disciplines from marketing to education and cultural studies. Facilitating a focus group interview is challenging even for experienced researchers. This paper shares the authors’ perspectives on the focus group interview with arguments from the literature along with practical applications. The authors use examples from several of their research studies to discuss a scholarly yet practical approach to plan, conduct, and analyze successful focus groups for the intended audience of doctoral students. In addition to suggestions for facilitating data collection and data analysis for the focus group interview, this paper includes strategies to select the participants, ensure participants show up, engage all the focus group participants, address powerful or authoritative personalities, enhance the synergy of the group, and reach consensus.

Anticipatory Governance in Biobanking: Security and Risk Management in Digital Health

Although big-data research has met with multiple controversies in diverse fields, political and security implications of big data in life sciences have received less attention. This paper explores how threats and risks are anticipated and acted on in biobanking, which builds research repositories for biomedical samples and data. Focusing on the biggest harmonisation cluster of biomedical research in Europe, BBMRI-ERIC, the paper analyses different logics of risk in the anticipatory discourse on biobanking. Based on document analysis, interviews with ELSI experts, and field research, three types of framing of risk are reconstructed: data security, privacy, and data misuse. The paper finds that these logics downplay the broader social and political context and reflects on the limits of the practices of anticipatory governance in biobanking. It argues that this regime of governance can make it difficult for biobanks to address possible future challenges, such as access to biomedical data by authorities, pressures for integrating biobank data with other type of personal data, or their use for profiling beyond medical purposes. To address potential controversies and societal implications related to the use of big data in health research and medicine, the paper suggests to expand the vocabulary and practices of anticipatory governance, in the biobanking community and beyond.

Responsible innovation for digital identity systems

Digital identity (eID) systems are a crucial piece in the digital services ecosystem. They connect individuals to a variety of socioeconomic opportunities but can also reinforce power asymmetries between organizations and individuals. Data collection practices can negatively impact an individual’s right to privacy, autonomy, and self-determination. Protecting individual rights, however, may be at odds with imperatives of profit maximization or national security. The use of eID technologies is hence highly contested. Current approaches to governing eID systems have been unable to fully address the trade-offs between the opportunities and risks associated with these systems. The responsible innovation (RI) literature provides a set of principles to govern disruptive innovations, such as eID systems, toward societally desirable outcomes. This article uses RI principles to develop a framework to govern eID systems in a more inclusive, responsible, and user-centered manner. The proposed framework seeks to complement existing practices for eID system governance by bringing forth principles of deliberation and democratic engagement to build trust amongst stakeholders of the eID system and deliver shared socioeconomic benefits.

Self-directed multimedia process for delivering participant informed consent

OBJECTIVE

Obtaining informed consent is a cornerstone requirement of conducting ethical research. Traditional paper-based consent is often excessively lengthy and may fail to achieve the desired participant understanding of study requirements. Multimedia tools including video and audio may be a useful alternative. This study aimed to determine the efficacy, usability and acceptability of self-directed multimedia delivery of participant consent.

DESIGN

It is a single-centre, randomised, prospective study to determine the efficacy, usability and acceptability of a self-directed multimedia consent process (intervention) compared with the traditional paper-based approach (control). The intervention was free of research staff, with computer-based finger-signed consent.

SETTING

Pathology blood collection services in Tasmania, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

298 participants (63±8 years; 51% female individuals) referred from general practice were randomised to intervention (n=146) and control (n=152).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy, usability and acceptability of the allocated consent process were assessed by a questionnaire.

RESULTS

All participants successfully completed the allocated interventions. Efficacy parameters were higher among intervention participants, including a better understanding of study requirements compared with controls (p<0.05 all). Intervention participants were more likely to engage with the study information and spend more time on the consent process (p=<0.001 and p=0.006, respectively). Both groups reported similar levels of acceptability, although more control participants reported that the study information was too long (24% vs 14%; p=0.020).

CONCLUSION

A self-directed multimedia consent process is effective for achieving participant understanding and obtaining consent free of research staff. Thus, multimedia represents a viable method to reduce the burden on researchers, meet participant needs and achieve informed consent in clinical research.

Sources of potential bias when combining routine data linkage and a national survey of secondary school-aged children: a record linkage study

BACKGROUND

Linking survey data to administrative records requires informed participant consent. When linkage includes child data, this includes parental and child consent. Little is known of the potential impacts of introducing consent to data linkage on response rates and biases in school-based surveys. This paper assessed: i) the impact on overall parental consent rates and sample representativeness when consent for linkage was introduced and ii) the quality of identifiable data provided to facilitate linkage.

METHODS

Including an option for data linkage was piloted in a sub-sample of schools participating in the Student Health and Wellbeing survey, a national survey of adolescents in Wales, UK. Schools agreeing to participate were randomized 2:1 to receive versus not receive the data linkage question. Survey responses from consenting students were anonymised and linked to routine datasets (e.g. general practice, inpatient, and outpatient records). Parental withdrawal rates were calculated for linkage and non-linkage samples. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to compare characteristics between: i) consenters and non-consenters; ii) successfully and unsuccessfully linked students; and iii) the linked cohort and peers within the general population, with additional comparisons of mental health diagnoses and health service contacts.

RESULTS

The sub-sample comprised 64 eligible schools (out of 193), with data linkage piloted in 39. Parental consent was comparable across linkage and non-linkage schools. 48.7% (n = 9232) of students consented to data linkage. Modelling showed these students were more likely to be younger, more affluent, have higher positive mental wellbeing, and report fewer risk-related behaviours compared to non-consenters. Overall, 69.8% of consenting students were successfully linked, with higher rates of success among younger students. The linked cohort had lower rates of mental health diagnoses (5.8% vs. 8.8%) and specialist contacts (5.2% vs. 7.7%) than general population peers.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing data linkage within a national survey of adolescents had no impact on study completion rates. However, students consenting to data linkage, and those successfully linked, differed from non-consenting students on several key characteristics, raising questions concerning the representativeness of linked cohorts. Further research is needed to better understand decision-making processes around providing consent to data linkage in adolescent populations.

Responsible use of organoids in precision medicine: the need for active participant involvement

Organoids are three-dimensional multicellular structures grown in vitro from stem cells and which recapitulate some organ function. They are derivatives of living tissue that can be stored in biobanks for a multitude of research purposes. Biobank research on organoids derived from patients is highly promising for precision medicine, which aims to target treatment to individual patients. The dominant approach for protecting the interests of biobank participants emphasizes broad consent in combination with privacy protection and ex ante (predictive) ethics review. In this paradigm, participants are positioned as passive donors; however, organoid biobanking for precision medicine purposes raises challenges that we believe cannot be adequately addressed without more ongoing involvement of patient-participants. In this Spotlight, we argue why a shift from passive donation towards more active involvement is particularly crucial for biobank research on organoids aimed at precision medicine, and suggest some approaches appropriate to this context.

Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review

The majority of biobank policies and consent forms do not address post-mortem use of data for medical research, thus causing uncertainty after research participants' death. This systematic review identifies studies examining stakeholders' perspectives on this issue. We conducted a search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science. Findings were categorised in two themes: (1) views on the use of data for medical research after participants' death, and (2) perspectives regarding the post-mortem return of individual genetic research results. An important subtheme was the appropriate authority and degree of control over posthumous use of data. The sixteen included studies all focused on genetic data and used quantitative and qualitative methods to survey perspectives of research participants, family members, researchers and Institutional Review Board members. Acceptability of post-mortem use of data for medical research was high among research participants and their relatives. Most stakeholders thought participants should be informed about post-mortem research uses during initial consent. Between lay persons and professionals, disagreement exists about whether relatives should receive actionable genetic findings, and whether the deceased's previous preferences can be overridden. We conclude that regulations and ethical guidance should leave room for post-mortem use of personal data for research, provided that informed consent procedures are transparent on this issue, including the return of individual research findings to relatives. Future research is needed to explore underlying causes for differences in views, as well as ethical and legal issues on the appropriate level of control by deceased research participants (while alive) and their relatives.

Rare disease data stewardship in Canada

The Canadian Genomics Partnership for Rare Diseases, spearheaded by Genome Canada, will integrate genome-wide sequencing to rare disease clinical care in Canada. Centralized and tiered models of data stewardship are proposed to ensure that the data generated can be shared for secondary clinical, research, and quality assurance purposes in compliance with ethics and law. The principal ethico-legal obligations of clinicians, researchers, and institutions are synthesized. Governance infrastructures such as registered access platforms, data access compliance offices, and Beacon systems are proposed as potential organizational and technical foundations of responsible rare disease data sharing. The appropriate delegation of responsibilities, the transparent communication of rights and duties, and the integration of data privacy safeguards into infrastructure design are proposed as the cornerstones of rare disease data stewardship.

When personal health data is no longer "personal"

Enacted in 2000, the Canadian Personal Health Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act is an important piece of legislation aimed at safeguarding an individual's right to control their personal health information. Since this time, the world of data and analytics has shifted in terms of our potential to collect, integrate, and analyze both structured and unstructured data. The implications for these data advancements are endless for our healthcare system; however, challenges influenced by our approach to collecting, accessing, and analyzing data as well as patient consent to share personal health information mean public entities lag behind commercial players in harnessing these potential benefits. While there are examples of data analytics application successes, Canadian healthcare continues to lag behind other countries and commercial sectors. We are at a pivot point for system improvements requiring a collective approach to collection, storage, linkage, and application of personal healthcare data. In the chasm of this rests how we address patient consent. All health leaders can play a central role in advancing our application of data for system improvements. Strategies to support health leaders in achieving this potential are outlined in this article.

Ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) in rare diseases: a landscape analysis from funders

Recent interest in personalized medicine has highlighted the importance of research in ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI). Issues in ELSI research may be magnified in the rare diseases population (i.e., small numbers of affected individuals, challenges in maintaining confidentiality, and paucity of treatments for diseases where natural history information may be limited). More than other areas of research, potential barriers include the lack of funding opportunities and appropriate review processes for applications to funding agencies. The ELSI Working Group of the International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) performed an informal survey on ELSI funding initiatives to learn more about different funding mechanisms and to identify potential gaps in funding opportunities. The Working Group discusses these challenges and highlights the role of funding agencies and partners such as patient advocacy groups, specialists in social sciences and humanities, and clinicians to advance ELSI research in rare diseases.

Communication Needs for Individuals With Rare Diseases Within and Around the Healthcare System of Northern Ireland

Objective: By definition a rare disease affects fewer than 1 in 2,000 people but collectively 1 in 17 people are affected at some time in their lives. Rare disease patients often describe feeling isolated and unsupported. The needs of individuals living with rare disease(s) are not well met globally and have not been specifically explored in Northern Ireland. Methods: An online survey was conducted in spring of 2017, focused on information and communication needs, to identify overarching themes. Databases were searched to place responses in an international context. Results: There were 240 survey respondents with four overarching themes identified: sources of information; medical care; rare disease community; and public awareness. Thirty relevant papers resulted from the literature search. A coordinated and transparent approach for improved medical care is needed where researchers, practitioners, and policy makers work with patients, carers, and rare disease advocates to ensure a fully considered rare disease strategy is implemented. In line with that developed by many other countries, a physical or virtual Northern Ireland reference network or center of excellence for rare diseases would provide an important strategic link. Sustainable funding, resources for rare disease charities, and more cross-border working would help build a local rare disease community. Major challenges highlighted include finding the right health and social care information. The internet was the most regularly accessed, and perceived as the easiest way, to source information on rare disease. Improved signposting to accredited information, ideally by the creation of a locally relevant online information hub, a local rare disease registry that can integrate with international systems, a local rare disease coordinator, and improving public awareness are urgent needs. Conclusions: Aligned to internationally reported outcomes, practical issues for future development based on the voices of individuals living, and working with a rare condition are described. It is essential that ongoing research evaluates changes to ensure that the best possible structures and mechanisms are put in place to improve communication and information systems for those affected by a rare condition(s).

Model consent clauses for rare disease research

Background

Rare Disease research has seen tremendous advancements over the last decades, with the development of new technologies, various global collaborative efforts and improved data sharing. To maximize the impact of and to further build on these developments, there is a need for model consent clauses for rare diseases research, in order to improve data interoperability, to meet the informational needs of participants, and to ensure proper ethical and legal use of data sources and participants’ overall protection.

Methods

A global Task Force was set up to develop model consent clauses specific to rare diseases research, that are comprehensive, harmonized, readily accessible, and internationally applicable, facilitating the recruitment and consent of rare disease research participants around the world. Existing consent forms and notices of consent were analyzed and classified under different consent themes, which were used as background to develop the model consent clauses.

Results

The IRDiRC-GA4GH MCC Task Force met in September 2018, to discuss and design model consent clauses. Based on analyzed consent forms, they listed generic core elements and designed the following rare disease research specific core elements; Rare Disease Research Introductory Clause, Familial Participation, Audio/Visual Imaging, Collecting, storing, sharing of rare disease data, Recontact for matching, Data Linkage, Return of Results to Family Members, Incapacity/Death, and Benefits.

Conclusion

The model consent clauses presented in this article have been drafted to highlight consent elements that bear in mind the trends in rare disease research, while providing a tool to help foster harmonization and collaborative efforts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-019-0390-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

Background

The needs and benefits of sharing health data to advance scientific research and improve clinical benefits have been well documented in recent years, specifically in the field of rare diseases where knowledge and expertise are limited and patient populations are geographically dispersed. Understanding what patients want and need from rare disease research and data sharing is important to ensure their participation and engagement in the process, and to ensure that these wishes and needs are embedded within research design. EURORDIS-Rare Diseases Europe regularly surveys the rare disease community to identify its perspectives and needs on a number of issues in order to represent rare disease patients and be their voice within European and International initiatives and policy developments.

Here, we present key findings from a large quantitative survey conducted with patients with rare diseases and family members as part of a continuous evidence-based advocacy process developed at EURORDIS. The aim of this survey was to explore patient and family perspectives on data sharing and data protection in research and healthcare settings and develop relevant recommendations to support shaping of future data sharing initiatives in rare disease research.

This survey, translated into 23 languages, was carried out via the Rare Barometer Programme and was designed to be accessible to a diverse population with a wide range of education backgrounds. It was widely disseminated via patient organisations worldwide to ensure that a wide range of voices and experiences were represented.

Main findings

Rare disease patients, regardless of the severity of their disease and their socio-demographic profile, are clearly supportive of data sharing to foster research and improve healthcare. However, rare disease patients’ willingness to share their data does come with specific requirements in order to respect their privacy, choices and needs for information regarding the use of their data.

Conclusions

To ensure sustainability and success of international data sharing initiatives in health and research for rare diseases, appropriate legislations need to be implemented and multi-stakeholder efforts need to be pursued to foster cultural and technological changes enabling the systematic integration of patients’ preferences regarding sharing of their own health data.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13023-019-1123-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The GDPR and the research exemption: considerations on the necessary safeguards for research biobanks

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force in May 2018. The aspiration of providing for a high level of protection to individuals' personal data risked placing considerable constraints on scientific research, which was contrary to various research traditions across the EU. Therefore, along with the set of carefully outlined data subjects' rights, the GDPR provides for a two-level framework to enable derogations from these rights when scientific research is concerned. First, by directly invoking provisions of the GDPR on a condition that safeguards that must include 'technical and organisational measures' are in place and second, through the Member State law. Although these derogations are allowed in the name of scientific research, they can simultaneously be challenging in light of the ethical requirements and well-established standards in biobanking that have been set forth in various research-related soft legal tools, international treaties and other legal instruments. In this article, we review such soft legal tools, international treaties and other legal instruments that regulate the use of health research data. We report on the results of this review, and analyse the rights contained within the GDPR and Article 89 of the GDPR vis-à-vis these instruments. These instruments were also reviewed to provide guidance on possible safeguards that should be followed when implementing any derogations. To conclude, we will offer some commentary on limits of the derogations under the GDPR and appropriate safeguards to ensure compliance with standard ethical requirements.

Meeting Patients' Right to the Correct Diagnosis: Ongoing International Initiatives on Undiagnosed Rare Diseases and Ethical and Social Issues

The time required to reach a correct diagnosis is a key concern for rare disease (RD) patients. Diagnostic delay can be intolerably long, often described as an “odyssey” and, for some, a diagnosis may remain frustratingly elusive. The International Rare Disease Research Consortium proposed, as ultimate goal for 2017–2027, to enable all people with a suspected RD to be diagnosed within one year of presentation, if the disorder is known. Subsequently, unsolved cases would enter a globally coordinated diagnostic and research pipeline. In-depth analysis of the genotype through next generation sequencing, together with a standardized in-depth phenotype description and sophisticated high-throughput approaches, have been applied as diagnostic tools to increase the chance of a timely and accurate diagnosis. The success of this approach is evident in the Orphanet database. From 2010 to March 2017 over 600 new RDs and roughly 3600 linked genes have been described and identified. However, combination of -omics and phenotype data, as well as international sharing of this information, has raised ethical concerns. Values to be assessed include not only patient autonomy but also family implications, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, solidarity and reciprocity, which must be respected and promoted and, at the same time, balanced among each other. In this work we suggest that, to maximize patients’ involvement in the search for a diagnosis and identification of new causative genes, undiagnosed patients should have the possibility to: (1) actively participate in the description of their phenotype; (2) choose the level of visibility of their profile in matchmaking databases; (3) express their preferences regarding return of new findings, in particular which level of Variant of Unknown Significance (VUS) significance should be considered relevant to them. The quality of the relationship between individual patients and physicians, and between the patient community and the scientific community, is critically important for optimizing the use of available data and enabling international collaboration in order to provide a diagnosis, and the attached support, to unsolved cases. The contribution of patients to collecting and coding data comprehensively is critical for efficient use of data downstream of data collection.

Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Rare Disease Registries

Rare diseases (RD) patient registries are powerful instruments that help develop clinical research, facilitate the planning of appropriate clinical trials, improve patient care, and support healthcare management. They constitute a key information system that supports the activities of European Reference Networks (ERNs) on rare diseases. A rapid proliferation of RD registries has occurred during the last years and there is a need to develop guidance for the minimum requirements, recommendations and standards necessary to maintain a high-quality registry. In response to these heterogeneities, in the framework of RD-Connect, a European platform connecting databases, registries, biobanks and clinical bioinformatics for rare disease research, we report on a list of recommendations, developed by a group of experts, including members of patient organizations, to be used as a framework for improving the quality of RD registries. This list includes aspects of governance, Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data and information, infrastructure, documentation, training, and quality audit. The list is intended to be used by established as well as new RD registries. Further work includes the development of a toolkit to enable continuous assessment and improvement of their organizational and data quality.

The RD-Connect Registry & Biobank Finder: a tool for sharing aggregated data and metadata among rare disease researchers

In rare disease (RD) research, there is a huge need to systematically collect biomaterials, phenotypic, and genomic data in a standardized way and to make them findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR). RD-Connect is a 6 years global infrastructure project initiated in November 2012 that links genomic data with patient registries, biobanks, and clinical bioinformatics tools to create a central research resource for RDs. Here, we present RD-Connect Registry & Biobank Finder, a tool that helps RD researchers to find RD biobanks and registries and provide information on the availability and accessibility of content in each database. The finder concentrates information that is currently sparse on different repositories (inventories, websites, scientific journals, technical reports, etc.), including aggregated data and metadata from participating databases. Aggregated data provided by the finder, if appropriately checked, can be used by researchers who are trying to estimate the prevalence of a RD, to organize a clinical trial on a RD, or to estimate the volume of patients seen by different clinical centers. The finder is also a portal to other RD-Connect tools, providing a link to the RD-Connect Sample Catalogue, a large inventory of RD biological samples available in participating biobanks for RD research. There are several kinds of users and potential uses for the RD-Connect Registry & Biobank Finder, including researchers collaborating with academia and the industry, dealing with the questions of basic, translational, and/or clinical research. As of November 2017, the finder is populated with aggregated data for 222 registries and 21 biobanks.

How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF)

Currently, a great deal of biomedical research in fields such as epidemiology, clinical trials and genetics is reliant on vast amounts of biological and phenotypic information collected and assembled in biobanks. While many resources are being invested to ensure that comprehensive and well-organised biobanks are able to provide increased access to, and sharing of biomedical samples and information, many barriers and challenges remain to such responsible and extensive sharing. Germane to the discussion herein is the barrier to collecting and sharing bioresources related to the lack of proper recognition of researchers and clinicians who developed the bioresource. Indeed, the efforts and resources invested to set up and sustain a bioresource can be enormous and such work should be easily traced and properly recognised. However, there is currently no such system that systematically and accurately traces and attributes recognition to those doing this work or the bioresource institution itself. As a beginning of a solution to the "recognition problem", the Bioresource Research Impact Factor/Framework (BRIF) initiative was proposed almost a decade and a half ago and is currently under further development. With the ultimate aim of increasing awareness and understanding of the BRIF, in this article, we contribute the following: (1) a review of the objectives and functions of the BRIF including the description of two tools that will help in the deployment of the BRIF, the CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles) guideline, and the Open Journal of Bioresources (OJB); (2) the results of a small empirical study on stakeholder awareness of the BRIF and (3) a brief analysis of the ethical dimensions of the BRIF which allow it to be a positive contribution to responsible biobanking.

The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium: Policies and Guidelines to maximize impact

The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) has agreed on IRDiRC Policies and Guidelines, following extensive deliberations and discussions in 2012 and 2013, as a first step towards improving coordination of research efforts worldwide. The 25 funding members and 3 patient umbrella organizations (as of early 2013) of IRDiRC, a consortium of research funders that focuses on improving diagnosis and therapy for rare disease patients, agreed in Dublin, Ireland in April 2013 on the Policies and Guidelines that emphasize collaboration in rare disease research, the involvement of patients and their representatives in all relevant aspects of research, as well as the sharing of data and resources. The Policies and Guidelines provide guidance on ontologies, diagnostics, biomarkers, patient registries, biobanks, natural history, therapeutics, models, publication, intellectual property, and communication. Most IRDiRC members-currently nearly 50 strong-have since incorporated its policies in their funding calls and some have chosen to exceed the requirements laid out, for instance in relation to data sharing. The IRDiRC Policies and Guidelines are the first, detailed agreement of major public and private funding organizations worldwide to govern rare disease research, and may serve as a template for other areas of international research collaboration. While it is too early to assess their full impact on research productivity and patient benefit, the IRDiRC Policies and Guidelines have already contributed significantly to improving transparency and collaboration in rare disease research.

Legal issues in governing genetic biobanks: the Italian framework as a case study for the implications for citizen's health through public-private initiatives

This paper outlines some of the challenges faced by regulation of genetic biobanking, using case studies coming from the Italian legal system. The governance of genetic resources in the context of genetic biobanks in Italy is discussed, as an example of the stratification of different inputs and rules: EU law, national law, orders made by authorities and soft law, which need to be integrated with ethical principles, technological strategies and solutions. After providing an overview of the Italian legal regulation of genetic data processing, it considers the fate of genetic material and IP rights in the event of a biobank’s insolvency. To this end, it analyses two case studies: a controversial bankruptcy case which occurred in Sardinia, one of the first examples of private and public partnership biobanks. Another case study considered is the Chris project: an example of partnership between a research institute in Bolzano and the South Tyrolean Health System. Both cases seem to point in the same direction, suggesting expediency of promoting and improving public-private partnerships to manage biological tissues and biotrust to conciliate patent law and public interest.

Ethical issues of informed consent in malaria research proposals submitted to a research ethics committee in Thailand: a retrospective document review

BACKGROUND

The informed-consent process should be one of meaningful information exchange between researchers and study participants. One of the responsibilities of research ethics committees is to oversee appropriate informed consent. The committee must consider various matters before deciding whether the process is appropriate, including the adequacy and completeness of the written information provided to study participants, and the process of obtaining informed consent. This study aimed to identify, quantitatively and qualitatively, consent-related issues in different types of malaria proposals submitted to the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Ethics Committee.

METHODS

This study reviewed proposal documentation submitted to two panels of the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, from 2011 to 2015. The documentation included proposals, notifications to researchers of review outcomes and ethical issues of concern to committee members. Each element of the informed-consent process was identified and analyzed by study classification, design, and specimen use, including whether the study involved a vulnerable population. Summative content analysis was used to analyze patterns of common issues raised in reviews.

RESULTS

Of the 112 proposals reviewed, 63 required an informed consent process. All researchers proposed communicating with their study participants; however, about two-thirds needed to improve their explanations of study procedures (study activities and specimen/data-collection process) to participants. About 40% of the proposals attracted comments on informed-consent process elements--risk and discomfort, vulnerable status, and compensation. Studies that planned to collect or use new/linked specimens raised more issues around informed consent than studies using linked data/records. Studies that involved vulnerable populations raised more issues than those that did not. The committee usually asked researchers to clarify, elaborate, revise, or paraphrase the consent process elements that were considered to involve inadequate information exchange between researcher and study participant.

CONCLUSIONS

This study aimed to describe lessons for malaria researchers about common informed-consent process issues in different types of malaria proposals. The information and analysis of informed-consent elements should assist the preparation of malaria-research proposals.

A RaDiCAL gene hunt

In the past several years, rare disease consortia have embarked on the discovery of disease-causing genes for Mendelian diseases using next generation sequencing approaches. Despite the success of these large-scale initiatives, many diseases still have no identified genetic cause. The Rare Disease Collaboration for Autosomal Loci (RaDiCAL) studies the rarest diseases, where occasionally only a single proband is available to identify putative disease-causing genes. This article reviews how “RaDiCAL” addressed some of the challenges in generating informed consent documents for international participants and considers the emerging topic of the “right not to know” in study design.

A qualitative study of participants' views on re-consent in a longitudinal biobank

BACKGROUND

Biomedical research increasingly relies on long-term studies involving use and re-use of biological samples and data stored in large repositories or "biobanks" over lengthy periods, often raising questions about whether and when a re-consenting process should be activated. We sought to investigate the views on re-consent of participants in a longitudinal biobank.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with 24 people who were participating in a longitudinal biobank. Their views were elicited using a semi-structured interview schedule and scenarios based on a hypothetical biobank. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

What participants identified as requiring new consent was not a straightforward matter predictable by algorithms about the scope of the consent, but instead was contingent. They assessed whether proposed new research implied a fundamental alteration in the underlying character of the biobank and whether specific projects were within the scope of the original consent. What mattered most to them was that the cooperative bargain into which they had entered was maintained in good faith. They saw re-consent as one important safeguard in this bargain. In determining what required re-consent, they deployed two logics. First, they used a logic of boundaries, where they sought to detect any possible rupture with their existing framework of cooperation. Second, they used a logic of risk, where they assessed proposed research for any potential threats for them personally or the research endeavour. When they judged that a need for re-consent had been activated, participants saw the process as way of re-actualising and renewing the cooperative bargain.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants' perceptions of research as a process of mutual co-operation between volunteer and researcher were fundamental to their views on consent. Consenting arrangements for biobanks should respect the cooperative values that are important to participants, recognise the two logics used by research volunteers, and avoid rigidity. Agility may be favoured by tiered consent combined with strong oversight mechanisms; this approach requires evaluation.

Importance of an International Registry for and Collaborative Research on Esophageal Atresia

Esophageal atresia (EA) is a rare congenital defect. Data on EA prevalence, management, and long-term outcome are lacking because the available data come from small retrospective series from tertiary referral centers. An international multicenter registry would provide strong epidemiological data from large population-based cohorts on EA prevalence and incidence, treatment, long-term morbidity, and prognosis and would thus provide accurate data for evaluation of the current guidelines for EA management. The future challenge of the new international network on EA, which was created in 2013, is to promote the creation of a collaborative database and further studies.

Natural History, Trial Readiness and Gene Discovery: Advances in Patient Registries for Neuromuscular Disease

Inherited neuromuscular diseases (NMDs) are genetic disorders that affect the skeletal muscles or the nerves controlling muscle function. With a new generation of diagnostic options and recent advances in translational research improving the opportunities for therapy development for these rare conditions, capturing patient information in databases collecting a range of clinical and genetic data together with contact details has assumed an increasingly important role in trial planning and recruitment as well as natural history data collection. Here we provide an overview of a decade of patient registration activities in the NMD field, with a particular focus on patient registries set up with trial readiness in mind. A summary is provided of databases collecting precise genetic information focused on confirming the causative mutation and their evolution into registries that combine genetic data with additional clinical information useful for trial feasibility and recruitment. Use of these systems for a range of purposes beyond trial recruitment, including natural history assessment, care standards monitoring, genotype-phenotype correlation and disease burden evaluation is also described within the context of research networks (TREAT-NMD) and European Reference Networks (ERN-EURO-NMD). New initiatives including registries using controlled vocabularies for computational accessibility that focus on phenotypic data capture for gene discovery are analysed, and examples of the lessons learned at every stage are provided in order to allow new patient registration initiatives to benefit from the extensive experience gained.

New Recommendation on Biological Materials Could Hamper Muscular Dystrophy Research

The new ‘Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on research on biological materials of human origin’, adopted in Europe in May 2016 is confusing and lacks specificity on the research use of biomaterials taken from persons not able to consent. It is possible to interpret the relevant clauses in a restrictive manner and doing so would hamper biobank research, by requiring researchers or biobank curators to examine individual records in detail, to check they are adhering to the Recommendation. This would be particularly problematic for muscular dystrophy and other rare disease research, the progress of which relies increasingly on the sharing of biomaterials and data internationally, as it will add complexity to the logistics of biomaterials and data sharing and introduce barriers for researchers preparing biomaterials for sharing. Such barriers are contradictory to EC policies on promoting and funding rare disease research and removing barriers to better care and treatment. Such policies work in concert with international progress in rare disease research, in particular the NIH’s Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network and Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Centre. The rare disease community has in recent years worked to create a common framework of harmonised approaches to enable the responsible, voluntary, and secure sharing of biomaterials and data. These efforts are supported by the European Commission in such moves as FP7 funding to advance rare disease research and the introduction of National Plans for rare disease; and are bolstered by similar efforts in the USA via the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program and the NIH/NCATS Patient Registry developments. Introducing Recommendations from the Committee of Ministers, containing clauses which are incompatible to the efforts to advance rare disease research, seems counter-productive.