There are no widely accepted, quantitative definitions for the end of a pandemic such as COVID‐19. The end of the pandemic due to a new virus and the transition to endemicity may be defined based on a high proportion of the global population having some immunity from natural infection or vaccination. Other considerations include diminished death toll, diminished pressure on health systems, reduced actual and perceived personal risk, removal of restrictive measures and diminished public attention. A threshold of 70% of the global population having being vaccinated or infected was probably already reached in the second half of 2021. Endemicity may still show major spikes of infections and seasonality, but typically less clinical burden, although some locations are still hit more than others. Death toll and ICU occupancy figures are also consistent with a transition to endemicity by end 2021/early 2022. Personal risk of the vast majority of the global population was already very small by end 2021, but perceived risk may still be grossly overestimated. Restrictive measures of high stringency have persisted in many countries by early 2022. The gargantuan attention in news media, social media and even scientific circles should be tempered. Public health officials need to declare the end of the pandemic. Mid‐ and long‐term consequences of epidemic waves and of adopted measures on health, society, economy, civilization and democracy may perpetuate a pandemic legacy long after the pandemic itself has ended.
In: Bulletin of the World Health Organization: the international journal of public health = Bulletin de l'Organisation Mondiale de la Santé, Band 99, Heft 1, S. 19-33F
In: Zambakari, Christopher, Steve Des Georges, and Giada Mannino, eds. 2020. The Great Disruption: COVID-19 and the Global Health Crisis with an Introduction by Christopher Zambakari. Vol. 4, Fall Special Issue. Phoenix, Arizona: The Zambakari Advisory.
Heart failure (HF) remains a major cause of death and hospitalization worldwide. Despite medical advances, the prognosis of HF remains poor and new therapeutic approaches are urgently needed. The development of new therapies for HF is hindered by inappropriate or incomplete preclinical studies. In these guidelines, we present a number of recommendations to enhance similarity between HF animal models and the human condition in order to reduce the chances of failure in subsequent clinical trials. We propose different approaches to address safety as well as efficacy of new therapeutic products. We also propose that good practice rules are followed from the outset so that the chances of eventual approval by regulatory agencies increase. We hope that these guidelines will help improve the translation of results from animal models to humans and thereby contribute to more successful clinical trials and development of new therapies for HF. ; European Union [CardioNeT-ITN-289600, CardioNext-ITN-608027, FP7-IMI-JU-SAFET-115003]; Spanish Ministry of Economy [SAF2012-31451]; Regional Government of Madrid [2010-BMD-2321]; Spanish Ministry of Economy; Pro-CNIC Foundation; NIH [HL-120732, HL100401]; AHA [14SFRN20740000]; CPRIT [RP110486P3]; Leducq Foundation [11CVD04]; MINECO-SAF [2013-42962R]; Instituto Carlos III [TERCEL-RD-12/00190026, RIC12/00420024] ; Sí
Funding: BK has received a project specific grant from the University of Basel to realize this project. In addition, this study is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 320030_149496/1) and the Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation. The provided work by BG, JHL, CW, and JY has been supported by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Centre Support Grant P30 CA168524 and used BISR core. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, receives core funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. DC is supported by a Research Chair from the Canadian Institute for Health Research. The mentioned funding sources have no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.
In: Vlahou , A , Hallinan , D , Apweiler , R , Argiles , A , Beige , J , Benigni , A , Bischoff , R , Black , P C , Boehm , F , Céraline , J , Chrousos , G P , Delles , C , Evenepoel , P , Fridolin , I , Glorieux , G , van Gool , A J , Heidegger , I , Ioannidis , J P A , Jankowski , J , Jankowski , V , Jeronimo , C , Kamat , A M , Masereeuw , R , Mayer , G , Mischak , H , Ortiz , A , Remuzzi , G , Rossing , P , Schanstra , J P , Schmitz-Dräger , B J , Spasovski , G , Staessen , J A , Stamatialis , D , Stenvinkel , P , Wanner , C , Williams , S B , Zannad , F , Zoccali , C & Vanholder , R 2021 , ' Data Sharing Under the General Data Protection Regulation : Time to Harmonize Law and Research Ethics? ' , Hypertension , vol. 77 , no. 4 , pp. 1029-1035 . https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.16340
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research ...
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.
In: Vlahou , A , Hallinan , D , Apweiler , R , Argiles , A , Beige , J , Benigni , A , Bischoff , R , Black , P C , Boehm , F , Céraline , J , Chrousos , G P , Delles , C , Evenepoel , P , Fridolin , I , Glorieux , G , van Gool , A J , Heidegger , I , Ioannidis , J P A , Jankowski , J , Jankowski , V , Jeronimo , C , Kamat , A M , Masereeuw , R , Mayer , G , Mischak , H , Ortiz , A , Remuzzi , G , Rossing , P , Schanstra , J P , Schmitz-Dräger , B J , Spasovski , G , Staessen , J A , Stamatialis , D , Stenvinkel , P , Wanner , C , Williams , S B , Zannad , F , Zoccali , C & Vanholder , R 2021 , ' Data Sharing Under the General Data Protection Regulation Time to Harmonize Law and Research Ethics? Time to Harmonize Law and Research Ethics? ' , Hypertension , vol. 77 , no. 4 , pp. 1029-1035 . https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.16340 ; ISSN:0194-911X
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.