Term of the Day

Natural history study

A natural history study is a preplanned observational study intended to track the course of a disease over time, identifying demographic, genetic, environmental and other variables that correlate with its development and outcomes in the absence of intervention, or under standard of care. Designs may be retrospective (chart review of existing records) or prospective (longitudinal follow-up of a cohort or registry).

Natural history data is particularly important in rare and paediatric diseases, where randomised placebo-controlled trials may be infeasible or unethical. The FDA (guidance on rare disease natural history studies, 2019) and the EMA accept well-designed natural history studies to define endpoints and biomarkers, identify patient subgroups, estimate sample sizes and, in some cases, serve as external or historical control arms for single-arm trials supporting orphan products.

Because they are non-interventional, natural history studies fall outside the CTR and are governed by national law (for example France's MR-003 or MR-004 reference methodologies) and by the GDPR. They typically involve secondary use of medical records, long-term follow-up, genetic data and small populations in which anonymisation is rarely achievable, so pseudonymisation, a DPIA and a robust research legal basis under Art. 9(2)(j) are essential. Registries maintained by patient organisations or academic consortia raise additional questions of joint controllership and data access governance.

C

Cross-border processing

Cross-border processing means either the processing of personal data that takes place in the context of the activities of establishments in more than one Member State of a controller or processor established in more than one Member State, or processing that takes place in the context of the activities of a single establishment but substantially affects, or is likely to substantially affect, data subjects in more than one Member State (Art. 4(23) GDPR).

The concept is the trigger for the one-stop-shop mechanism under Art. 56: an organisation engaged in cross-border processing deals primarily with the supervisory authority of its main establishment as lead authority, which coordinates with the other concerned authorities through the cooperation and consistency procedures of Chapter VII.

A multinational sponsor running a trial in several EU countries from an Irish or Dutch headquarters is a typical case. Note that cross-border processing is a different concept from an international data transfer to a third country under Chapter V: the former concerns where processing happens within the EU and which regulator is competent, the latter concerns data leaving the EEA. Organisations with no EU establishment cannot benefit from the one-stop shop and remain subject to every concerned authority, which is one reason to appoint a Data Protection Representative and to centralise EU compliance.