Data privacy protection in scientific publications: process implementation at a pharmaceutical company.

BACKGROUND: Sharing anonymized/de-identified clinical trial data and publishing research outcomes in scientific journals, or presenting them at conferences, is key to data-driven scientific exchange. However, when data from scientific publications are linked to other publicly available personal information, the risk of reidentification of trial participants increases, raising privacy concerns. Therefore, we defined a set of criteria allowing us to determine and minimize the risk of data reidentification. We also implemented a review process at Takeda for clinical publications prior to submission for publication in journals or presentation at medical conferences. METHODS: Abstracts, manuscripts, posters, and oral presentations containing study participant information were reviewed and the potential impact on study participant privacy was assessed. Our focus was on direct (participant ID, initials) and indirect identifiers, such as sex, age or geographical indicators in rare disease studies or studies with small sample size treatment groups. Risk minimization was sought using a generalized presentation of identifier-relevant information and decision-making on data sharing for further research. Additional risk identification was performed based on study participant/personnel parameters present in materials destined for the public domain. The potential for participant/personnel identification was then calculated to facilitate presentation of meaningful but de-identified information. RESULTS: The potential for reidentification was calculated using a risk ratio of the exposed versus available individuals, with a value above the threshold of 0.09 deemed an unacceptable level of reidentification risk. We found that in 13% of Takeda clinical trial publications reviewed, either individuals could potentially be reidentified (despite the use of anonymized data sets) or inappropriate data sharing plans could pose a data privacy risk to study participants. In 1/110 abstracts, 58/275 manuscripts, 5/87 posters and 3/58 presentations, changes were necessary due to data privacy concerns/rules. Despite the implementation of risk-minimization measures prior to release, direct and indirect identifiers were found in 11% and 34% of the analysed documents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Risk minimization using de-identification of clinical trial data presented in scientific publications and controlled data sharing conditions improved privacy protection for study participants. Our results also suggest that additional safeguards should be implemented to ensure that higher data privacy standards are met.

Randomized, phase II dose-finding studies of a modified tick-borne encephalitis vaccine: evaluation of safety and immunogenicity.

Two clinical studies were conducted to identify the optimal dose of a modified tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) vaccine (FSME-IMMUN "new") in adults. A prospective, randomised, phase II, double-blind dose-finding study with the FSME-IMMUN "new" vaccine was performed in volunteers aged 16-65 years (n=405) to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of two vaccinations with three vaccine doses (0.6, 1.2 and 2.4microg antigen). The safety and immunogenicity of the third vaccination were investigated in a follow-up study on the same study population. Antibody response to vaccination was assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and, after the third vaccination, by neutralisation test (NT). Seroconversion rates (ELISA) in the different dose groups (0.6, 1.2 and 2.4 microg) were 85.1, 96.2 and 97.0%, respectively, after the second vaccination, which 73% of the volunteers received only 21 days after the first vaccination. Seroconversion rates after the third vaccination were 96, 99.2 and 100% (ELISA) as well as 77, 93 and 96.6% (NT) with the 0.6, 1.2 and 2.4 microg doses, respectively. No unexpected AEs or vaccine-related serious adverse events (SAE) were observed during either study. Local and systemic reactions were mainly mild and not dose-dependent, with an overall fever rate of <1% after the first vaccination. The 2.4 microg dose is the optimal dose for the FSME-IMMUN "new" preparation in adults, as it was found to: (1) be non-inferior to the 1.2 microg dose with respect to fever rate after the first vaccination; (2) induce the highest seroconversion rate; and (3) be well-tolerated with respect to local and systemic reactions. The results of both studies demonstrate that the FSME-IMMUN "new" vaccine is safe and highly immunogenic in adults.