Click here to open the filter panel
Click a letter to view all its definitions
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

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.

P

Patient-reported outcome (PRO)

A patient-reported outcome (PRO) is a type of clinical outcome assessment consisting of a measurement based on a report that comes directly from the patient about the status of their health condition, without amendment or interpretation of the response by a clinician or anyone else. PROs capture symptoms (pain, fatigue, nausea), functioning (mobility, daily activities), health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction, using validated instruments such as the EQ-5D, the EORTC QLQ-C30 or disease-specific scales.

The FDA's 2009 PRO guidance and its Patient-Focused Drug Development guidance series, together with EMA reflection papers, set expectations for instrument development, content validity, translation and linguistic validation, and the interpretation of meaningful change. PROs are increasingly used as primary or key secondary endpoints and to support labelling claims, and are captured electronically as ePRO through eCOA platforms, smartphones or web portals.

PRO data is data concerning health reported in the patient's own words or ratings, often touching on mental health, sexual function, continence or social relationships, which are among the most sensitive categories of information. Free-text PRO items may contain directly identifying details and should be reviewed or avoided. Electronic capture adds device and behavioural metadata that must be minimised, and the ePRO vendor acts as a processor whose hosting location and sub-processors determine transfer requirements. Participants should be told in the informed consent form who sees their responses and that clinicians may not review them in real time, so that PRO diaries are not mistaken for a channel to report emergencies.

Can an interviewer help collect a patient-reported outcome?

Yes, provided the interviewer records the patient’s response without interpreting or changing it. A PRO remains the patient’s report, not the interviewer’s assessment. Follow the instrument’s administration instructions and document the collection method so that assistance does not unintentionally alter the meaning or comparability of the responses.