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.

R

Real-world data (RWD)

Real-world data (RWD) refers to data relating to patient health status or the delivery of health care that is routinely collected from a variety of sources outside the setting of conventional interventional clinical trials. Main sources are electronic health records, administrative and claims databases (such as France's SNDS), product and disease registries, natural history cohorts, pharmacy and laboratory data, patient-generated data from apps and wearables, and increasingly health data warehouses built by hospitals.

RWD is the raw material from which real-world evidence is derived. It is used across the product lifecycle: to understand disease epidemiology and unmet need, to design and recruit trials, to build external control arms, to support regulatory decisions in rare diseases, to fulfil post-authorisation safety and effectiveness commitments, and to inform health technology assessment and pricing. The EMA's DARWIN EU network, the FDA's RWE framework and the European Health Data Space all aim to make RWD more accessible and reliable. Data quality, completeness and comparability vary widely between sources, and study designs must address confounding and missing data.

RWD is almost always personal data, typically pseudonymised health data processed for secondary use. Under the GDPR this requires a research legal basis (Art. 6(1)(e) or (f) with Art. 9(2)(j)), Art. 89 safeguards, compliance with national access rules (French reference methodologies or CNIL authorisation, Finnish Findata, German Forschungsdatenzentrum), a DPIA and, where the RWD holder is outside the EEA, a transfer mechanism. Contracts with data holders should clarify controller roles and whether the delivered dataset is anonymised or pseudonymised, since this determines the entire compliance burden downstream. See iliomad's health data warehouse services.

Are real-world data and real-world evidence interchangeable?

No. Real-world data are routinely collected information, such as health records, claims or registry data. Real-world evidence is produced by analysing those data to answer a clinical question about a medical product. Before commissioning a study, distinguish the available data source from the evidence the study is intended to generate.