[DESCAR-T, a nationwide registry for patient treated by CAR-T Cells in France]. / DESCAR-T, le registre national des patients traités par CAR-T Cells.

CAR-T Cells have opened new doors for cellular immunotherapies and provides new therapeutic options for patients with refractory B-cell malignancies, B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and diffuse large B-cel lymphoma. CAR-T Cells have benefited from an accelerated approval procedure in many countries. Indeed, The French health authorities have approved the specialties Tisacel ® and Axicel ®, but additional data including the use of CAR-T Cells in real life were also mandatory. In regard to the scientific interest of the project, LYSA-LYSARC committed itself to prospectively and retrospectively collect information on patients eligible for CAR-T Cells as required by French health authorities. Other academic cooperating groups (GRAALL, IFM, SFCE, FILO and the scientific society SFGM-TC) were associated to this initiative which aims to build a nationwide CAR-T Cells devoted registry, so-called DESCART (Dispositif d'Enregistrement et Suivi des patients traités par CAR-T cells). DESCAR-T is a real-life multicentric registry set up in French sites qualified for CAR-T Cells treatment. DESCAR-T objective is to describe the use of CAR-T Cells in real life. All paediatric and adult patients with hematological malignancy fulfilling CAR-T Cells approval criteria and for whom a CAR-T Cells therapy has been discussed are included from 1 July 2018. Clinical data are directly collected from medical records and patients are treated according to the centers' routine practices. One of the distinctive features of DESCAR-T is its link with HTA for CAR-T Cells s reimbursement by the French public health system. DESCAR-T is the first national registry promoted by an academic group allowing centralized data collection for both academic and HTA/health authorities' purposes.

Navigating the Intersection between Genomic Research and Clinical Practice.

The Risk Assessment Program (RAP) at Fox Chase Cancer Center (Philadelphia, PA) is a multi-generational prospective cohort, enhanced for personal and family history of cancer, consisting of over 10,000 individuals for whom data on personal and family history of cancer, risk factors, genetic and genomic data, health behaviors, and biospecimens are available. The RAP has a broad research agenda including the characterization of genes with known or potential relevance to cancer, gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, and their contribution to clinically useful risk assessment and risk reduction strategies. Increasingly, this body of research is identifying genetic changes which may have clinical significance for RAP research participants, leading us to confront the issue of whether to return genetic results emerging from research laboratories. This review will describe some of the important fundamental points that must be debated as we develop a paradigm for return of research results. The key issues to address as the scientific community moves toward adopting a policy of return of research results include the best criteria for determining which results to offer, the consent document components necessary to ensure that the participant makes a truly informed decision about receiving their results, and associated logistical and cost challenges.See all articles in this Special Collection Honoring Paul F. Engstrom, MD, Champion of Cancer Prevention.

Landscape of Cardiovascular Device Registries in the United States.

Background Regulators increasingly rely on registries for decision making related to high-risk medical devices in the United States. However, the limited uniform standards for registries may create substantial variability in registry implementation and utility to regulators. We surveyed the current landscape of US cardiovascular device registries and chart the extent of inconsistency in goals, administration, enrollment procedures, and approach to data access. Methods and Results A systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines identified studies (1995-2017) referencing cardiovascular device registries with a US-based institution. Registries were then evaluated by reviewing associated articles and websites. Extracted data included device type, primary scientific aim(s), funding, stewardship (eg, administration of registry procedures), enrollment procedures, informed consent process, and mechanisms to access data for research. The 138 cardiovascular device registries in the cohort covered devices addressing interventional cardiology (65.9%), arrhythmias (15.2%), heart failure (10.1%), and valvular disease (10.1%). While the majority (55.8%) were industry-funded, stewardship was predominantly overseen by academic centers (74.0%). Most registry participation was voluntary (77.5%), but a substantial minority (19.7%) were required as a condition of device implantation. Informed consent requirements varied widely, with written consent required in only 55.1% of registries. Registry data were primarily accessible only to stewards (84.1%), with 13.8% providing pathways for external applications. Conclusions The majority of cardiovascular device registries were funded privately under the auspices of academic institutions, which set the rules for data access. The substantial variation between cardiovascular device registries suggests a role for regulators to further strengthen guidelines to improve quality, consistency, and ethical standards.

A multi-centre study to explore the feasibility and acceptability of collecting data for complex regional pain syndrome clinical studies using a core measurement set: Study protocol.

OBJECTIVES: This international, multicentre study will inform the final data collection tools and processes which will comprise the first international, clinical research registry for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). This study will: (a) test the feasibility and acceptability of collecting outcome measurement data using a patient reported, questionnaire core measurement set (COMPACT [Core Outcome Measurement set for complex regional PAin syndrome Clinical sTudies]); and (b) test and refine an electronic data management system to collect and manage the data. METHODS: A maximum of 240 adults, meeting the Budapest diagnostic clinical criteria for CRPS type I or II, will be recruited across eight countries. The COMPACT questionnaire will be completed on two occasions: at baseline (T1) and 6 months later (T2). At T2, participants will choose to complete COMPACT using a paper or electronic version. Participants will be asked to feed back on their experience of completing COMPACT via a questionnaire. A separate questionnaire will ask clinicians to feed back their experience of data collection. ANALYSIS: The study is not aiming to derive statistically significant data but to ascertain the practicalities of collecting data, using the COMPACT questionnaire set, across a range of different cultures and populations. At the end of the study, a single workshop will be convened to review the findings and agree the final documents and processes for the international registry.

I. THE ROLE OF RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES IN OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES: EPIDEMIOLOGICAL REGISTRIES, CASE REPORTS, INTERVIEWS, AND RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES.

It is often unclear to the clinical investigator whether observational studies should be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC), mostly because, in general, no active or additional interventions are performed. Moreover, obtaining an informed consent under these circumstances may be challenging, either because these are very large epidemiological registries, or the subject may no longer be alive, is too ill to consent, or is impossible to contact after being discharged. Although observational studies do not involve interventions, they entail ethical concerns, including threats such as breaches in confidentiality and autonomy, and respect for basic rights of the research subjects according to the good clinical practices. In this context, in addition to their main function as evaluators from an ethical, methodological, and regulatory point of view, the RECs serve as mediators between the research subjects, looking after their basic rights, and the investigator or institution, safeguarding them from both legal and unethical perils that the investigation could engage, by ensuring that all procedures are performed following the international standards of care for research. The aim of this manuscript is to provide information on each type of study and its risks, along with actions to prevent such risks, and the function of RECs in each type of study.

I. The role of research ethics committees in observational studies: epidemiological registries, case reports, interviews, and retrospective studies

Abstract It is often unclear to the clinical investigator whether observational studies should be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC), mostly because, in general, no active or additional interventions are performed. Moreover, obtaining an informed consent under these circumstances may be challenging, either because these are very large epidemiological registries, or the subject may no longer be alive, is too ill to consent, or is impossible to contact after being discharged. Although observational studies do not involve interventions, they entail ethical concerns, including threats such as breaches in confidentiality and autonomy, and respect for basic rights of the research subjects according to the good clinical practices. In this context, in addition to their main function as evaluators from an ethical, methodological, and regulatory point of view, the RECs serve as mediators between the research subjects, looking after their basic rights, and the investigator or institution, safeguarding them from both legal and unethical perils that the investigation could engage, by ensuring that all procedures are performed following the international standards of care for research. The aim of this manuscript is to provide information on each type of study and its risks, along with actions to prevent such risks, and the function of RECs in each type of study.

Benefits and harms of wellness initiatives.

Wellness projects are large scale studies of healthy individuals through extensive laboratory and other testing. The "Hundred Person Wellness Study", was one of the first to report results and lessons from its approach and these lessons can be applied to other wellness projects which are being undertaken by major companies and other organizations. In the "Hundred Person Wellness Study", investigators from the Institute for Systems Biology (ISB) sequenced the genome, and analyzed the blood, saliva, urine and microbiome of 108 healthy participants every 3 months, for 9 months, to look for subtle changes signifying the transition to disease. We discuss some of the possible shortcomings of this approach; questioning the need to "improve" biomarker levels, excessive testing leading to over-diagnosis and over-treatment, expected results and improvements, selection of tests, problems with whole genome sequencing and speculations on therapeutic measures. We hope this discussion will lead to a continued evaluation of wellness interventions, leading to strategies that truly benefit patients within the constraint of limited health care resources.

Controversies among Cancer Registry Participants, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Boards about Returning Participants' Genomic Results.

OBJECTIVES: Genomic information will increasingly be used to aid in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Several national initiatives are paving the way for this new reality, while also promoting new models of participant-engaged research. We compare the opinions of research participants in a cancer registry, human genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals about the return of individual-level genetic results (ROR). METHODS: Online surveys were administered to participants in a cancer registry (n = 450) and overlapping questions were compared to our previous online national surveys of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208). RESULTS: The majority of respondents agreed that researchers have an obligation to return individual results when they would affect a participant's health. While 77% of registry participants favored ROR if the researcher feels the participant might be interested in the results, only 30% of the IRB professionals and 25% of the genetic researchers agreed with this statement. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences emerged between the stakeholder groups in several ROR scenarios. Policies that are acceptable to participants, researchers and IRBs, and that ensure human subject protections and facilitate research are needed.

The Swedish Approach to Management of Extreme Prematurity at the Borderline of Viability: A Historical and Ethical Perspective.

Sweden has a long tradition of being at the forefront of the management of extremely preterm infants. In this article, we explore the historical background, ethical discussions, and evidence from national surveys combined with data from quality registers that form the background of the current Swedish guidelines for the care of extremely preterm infants. The current Swedish national guidelines suggest providing active care for preterm infants from 23 weeks' gestation and considering active care from 22 weeks' gestation. The survival of infants in gestational weeks 22 and 23 has increased and now exceed 50% and 60%, respectively; importantly, the Swedish proactive approach to care at the border of viability has not resulted in an increased proportion of functional impairment among survivors.

Patient data and patient rights: Swiss healthcare stakeholders' ethical awareness regarding large patient data sets - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in aggregating more biomedical and patient data into large health data sets for research and public benefits. However, collecting and processing patient data raises new ethical issues regarding patient's rights, social justice and trust in public institutions. The aim of this empirical study is to gain an in-depth understanding of the awareness of possible ethical risks and corresponding obligations among those who are involved in projects using patient data, i.e. healthcare professionals, regulators and policy makers. METHODS: We used a qualitative design to examine Swiss healthcare stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of ethical challenges with regard to patient data in real-life settings where clinical registries are sponsored, created and/or used. A semi-structured interview was carried out with 22 participants (11 physicians, 7 policy-makers, 4 ethical committee members) between July 2014 and January 2015. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed using a thematic method derived from Grounded Theory. RESULTS: All interviewees were concerned as a matter of priority with the needs of legal and operating norms for the collection and use of data, whereas less interest was shown in issues regarding patient agency, the need for reciprocity, and shared governance in the management and use of clinical registries' patient data. This observed asymmetry highlights a possible tension between public and research interests on the one hand, and the recognition of patients' rights and citizens' involvement on the other. CONCLUSIONS: The advocation of further health-related data sharing on the grounds of research and public interest, without due regard for the perspective of patients and donors, could run the risk of fostering distrust towards healthcare data collections. Ultimately, this could diminish the expected social benefits. However, rather than setting patient rights against public interest, new ethical approaches could strengthen both concurrently. On a normative level, this study thus provides material from which to develop further ethical reflection towards a more cooperative approach involving patients and citizens in the governance of their health-related big data.

El Registro de Gemelos de Murcia. Un recurso para la investigación sobre conductas relacionadas con la salud / The Murcia Twin Registry. A resource for research on health-related behaviour

Los diseños genéticamente informativos, y en particular los estudios de gemelos, constituyen la metodología más utilizada para analizar la contribución relativa de los factores genéticos y ambientales a la variabilidad interindividual. Básicamente, consisten en comparar el grado de similitud, con respecto a una característica o rasgo determinado, entre gemelos monocigóticos y dicigóticos. Además de la clásica estimación de heredabilidad, este tipo de registros permite una amplia variedad de análisis únicos por las características de la muestra. El Registro de Gemelos de Murcia es un registro de base poblacional centrado en el análisis de conductas relacionadas con la salud. Las prevalencias de problemas de salud observadas son comparables a las de otras muestras de referencia de ámbito regional y estatal, lo que avala su representatividad. En conjunto, sus características facilitan el desarrollo de diversas modalidades de investigación, además de diseños genéticamente informativos y la colaboración con distintas iniciativas y consorcios (AU)

Genetically informative designs and, in particular, twin studies, are the most widely used methodology to analyse the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors to inter-individual variability. These studies basically compare the degree of phenotypical similarity between monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs. In addition to the traditional estimate of heritability, this kind of registry enables a wide variety of analyses which are unique due to the characteristics of the sample. The Murcia Twin Registry is population-based and focused on the analysis of health-related behaviour. The observed prevalence of health problems is comparable to that of other regional and national reference samples, which guarantees its representativeness. Overall, the characteristics of the Registry facilitate developing various types of research as well as genetically informative designs, and collaboration with different initiatives and consortia (AU)

Informed consent and registry-based research - the case of the Danish circumcision registry.

BACKGROUND: Research into personal health data holds great potential not only for improved treatment but also for economic growth. In these years many countries are developing policies aimed at facilitating such research often under the banner of 'big data'. A central point of debate is whether the secondary use of health data requires informed consent if the data is anonymised. In 2013 the Danish Minister of Health established a new register collecting data about all ritual male childhood circumcisions in Denmark. The main purpose of the register was to enable future research into the consequences of ritual circumcision. DISCUSSION: This article is a study into the case of the Danish Circumcision Registry. We show that such a registry may lead to various forms of harm such as 1) overreaching social pressure, 2) stigmatization, 3) medicalization of a religious practice, 4) discrimination, and 5) polarised research, and that a person may therefore have a strong and legitimate interest in deciding whether or not such data should be collected and/or used in research. This casts doubt on the claim that the requirement of informed consent could and should be waived for all types of secondary research into registries. We finally sketch a new model of informed consent - Meta consent - aimed at striking a balance between the interests in promoting research and at the same time protecting the individual. Research participants may have a strong and legitimate interest in deciding whether or not their data should be collected and used for registry-based research whether or not their data is anonymised.

Comparison between publicly accessible publications, registries, and protocols of phase III trials indicated persistence of selective outcome reporting.

OBJECTIVES: The decision to make protocols of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) publicly accessible by leading journals was a landmark event in clinical trial reporting. Here, we compared primary outcomes defined in protocols with those in publications describing the trials and in trial registration. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified phase III RCTs published between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2015, in The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and The BMJ with available protocols. Consistency in primary outcomes between protocols and registries (articles) was evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 299 phase III RCTs with available protocols in this analysis. Out of them, 25 trials (8.4%) had some discrepancy for primary outcomes between publications and protocols. Types of discrepancies included protocol-defined primary outcome reported as nonprimary outcome in publication (11 trials, 3.7%), protocol-defined primary outcome omitted in publication (10 trials, 3.3%), new primary outcome introduced in publication (8 trials, 2.7%), protocol-defined nonprimary outcome reported as primary outcome in publication (4 trials, 1.3%), and different timing of assessment of primary outcome (4 trials, 1.3%). Out of trials with discrepancies in primary outcome, 15 trials (60.0%) had discrepancies that favored statistically significant results. Registration could be seen as a valid surrogate of protocol in 237 of 299 trials (79.3%) with regard to primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Despite unrestricted public access to protocols, selective outcome reporting persists in a small fraction of phase III RCTs. Only studies from four leading journals were included, which may cause selection bias and limit the generalizability of this finding.

ClinicalTrials.gov, stem cells and 'pay-to-participate' clinical studies.

Numerous US businesses that engage in direct-to-consumer advertising of stem cell interventions that are not US FDA-approved also recruit clients by listing 'pay-to-participate' studies listed on ClinicalTrials.gov . Individuals considering enrolling in such studies and NIH officials responsible for overseeing the database need to be aware that some businesses are using the registry to promote unapproved stem cell interventions that study subjects are charged to receive. Inclusion of such studies in ClinicalTrials.gov reveals that the database needs better screening tools. In particular, screening should evaluate whether studies submitted to the registry have been reviewed and permitted to proceed by the FDA in the case of clinical studies requiring FDA clearance in addition to institutional review board approval.