ObjectivesWe examined major issues associated with sharing of individual clinical trial data and developed a consensus document on providing access to individual participant data from clinical trials, using a broad interdisciplinary approach.Design and methodsThis was a consensus-building process among the members of a multistakeholder task force, involving a wide range of experts (researchers, patient representatives, methodologists, information technology experts, and representatives from funders, infrastructures and standards development organisations). An independent facilitator supported the process using the nominal group technique. The consensus was reached in a series of three workshops held over 1 year, supported by exchange of documents and teleconferences within focused subgroups when needed. This work was set within the Horizon 2020-funded project CORBEL (Coordinated Research Infrastructures Building Enduring Life-science Services) and coordinated by the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network. Thus, the focus was on non-commercial trials and the perspective mainly European.OutcomeWe developed principles and practical recommendations on how to share data from clinical trials.ResultsThe task force reached consensus on 10 principles and 50 recommendations, representing the fundamental requirements of any framework used for the sharing of clinical trials data. The document covers the following main areas: making data sharing a reality (eg, cultural change, academic incentives, funding), consent for data sharing, protection of trial participants (eg, de-identification), data standards, rights, types and management of access (eg, data request and access models), data management and repositories, discoverability, and metadata.ConclusionsThe adoption of the recommendations in this document would help to promote and support data sharing and reuse among researchers, adequately inform trial participants and protect their rights, and provide effective and efficient systems for preparing, storing and accessing data. The recommendations now need to be implemented and tested in practice. Further work needs to be done to integrate these proposals with those from other geographical areas and other academic domains.

The known challenge of underutilization of data and biological material from biorepositories as potential resources for medical research has been the focus of discussion for over a decade. Recently developed guidelines for improved data availability and reusability—entitled FAIR Principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability)—are likely to address only parts of the problem. In this article, we argue that biological material and data should be viewed as a unified resource. This approach would facilitate access to complete provenance information, which is a prerequisite for reproducibility and meaningful integration of the data. A unified view also allows for optimization of long-term storage strategies, as demonstrated in the case of biobanks. We propose an extension of the FAIR Principles to include the following additional components: (1) quality aspects related to research reproducibility and meaningful reuse of the data, (2) incentives to stimulate effective enrichment of data sets and biological material collections and its reuse on all levels, and (3) privacy-respecting approaches for working with the human material and data. These FAIR-Health principles should then be applied to both the biological material and data. We also propose the development of common guidelines for cloud architectures, due to the unprecedented growth of volume and breadth of medical data generation, as well as the associated need to process the data efficiently.

The European Institute for Innovation through Health Data (i~HD, http://www.i-hd.eu) has been formed as one of the key sustainable entities arising from the Electronic Health Records for Clinical Research (IMI‐JU‐115189) and SemanticHealthNet (FP7‐288408) projects, in collaboration with several other European projects and initiatives supported by the European Commission. i~HD is a European not‐for‐profit body, registered in Belgium through Royal Assent. i~HD has been established to tackle areas of challenge in the successful scaling up of innovations that critically rely on high‐quality and interoperable health data. It will specifically address obstacles and opportunities to using health data by collating, developing, and promoting best practices in information governance and in semantic interoperability. It will help to sustain and propagate the results of health information and communication technology (ICT) research that enables better use of health data, assessing and optimizing their novel value wherever possible. i~HD has been formed after wide consultation and engagement of many stakeholders to develop methods, solutions, and services that can help to maximize the value obtained by all stakeholders from health data. It will support innovations in health maintenance, health care delivery, and knowledge discovery while ensuring compliance with all legal prerequisites, especially regarding the insurance of patient's privacy protection. It is bringing multiple stakeholder groups together so as to ensure that future solutions serve their collective needs and can be readily adopted affordably and at scale.

Abstract Background Human biobanks are generally recognized as essential resources for effective biomedical research. All over the world biosamples and data from human subjects are collected in large biobanks. The biological material is stored long term for current and future (undetermined) research issues, which often require cross-border exchange of biosamples and related data. Content Commonly, the informed consent for research on human biospecimen is intended to cover only defined, specific research objectives. In June 2016, the biobank Task-Force of the Working Party of the German Medical Ethics Committees (WP-GMEC) updated its template for the broad use of human biological samples and related data. It complies with the current Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and World Medical Association (WMA) recommendations and furnishes a framework that permits long-term storage and multi-purpose research use of human biological material and related data, including cross-border research. However, both (i) human biobanks storing and (ii) research projects requesting “broad consent” biological samples generally require an ethical approval; in addition, “broad consent” conditions should be reciprocated by making biobank processes transparent and by fostering both donor and public involvement. Outlook The broad consent template of the WP-GMEC clearly states that biological samples and data donated for medical research serve to address current and future research questions. It appears perfectly suited as a template for a Europe-wide harmonized broad consent facilitating biobank-based cross-border research.

Sharing data in biomedical contexts has become increasingly relevant, but privacy concerns set constraints for free sharing of individual-level data. Data protection law protects only data relating to an identifiable individual, whereas “anonymous” data are free to be used by everybody. Usage of many terms related to anonymization is often not consistent among different domains such as statistics and law. The crucial term “identification” seems especially hard to define, since its definition presupposes the existence of identifying characteristics, leading to some circularity. In this article, we present a discussion of important terms based on a legal perspective that it is outlined before we present issues related to the usage of terms such as unique “identifiers,” “quasi-identifiers,” and “sensitive attributes.” Based on these terms, we have tried to circumvent a circular definition for the term “identification” by making two decisions: first, deciding which (natural) identifier should stand for the individual; second, deciding how to recognize the individual. In addition, we provide an overview of anonymization techniques/methods for preventing re-identification. The discussion of basic notions related to anonymization shows that there is some work to be done in order to achieve a mutual understanding between legal and technical experts concerning some of these notions. Using a dialectical definition process in order to merge technical and legal perspectives on terms seems important for enhancing mutual understanding.