E. Sala, PhD

In 2014, the European Parliament released the Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use.

 reinforced the concept of clinical trial transparency. Both the Regulation and the Policy took regulatory decision-making one step closer to European Union (EU) citizens, and promoted better-informed use of medicines.

	As a first step to promote clinical trial data disclosure, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) implemented a public European database in which to collect and retrieve all relevant information on clinical trials submitted to the agency (as per Article 81), establishing a right balance between disclosure of information and protection of anonymity and commercially confidential information. Therefore, the Regulation enables the public, patients, and healthcare professionals to identify clinical trials in an easier way and to evaluate their relevance toward an individual patient’s condition.

	The second step was the requirement of a layperson summary that should complement the summary of clinical trials results. The layperson summary is a novel document specifically designed for non-medically expert patients. Both clinical trials results and layperson summary should be submitted to the European Union (EU) database within one year from the end of a clinical trials in all member states (MS) (Article 37).

 The regulation will apply six months after the European Commission will publish the notice in the Official Journal of the European Union that the EU portal and EU database are fully functional.

 This communication was originally expected on May 28, 2016 (Article 99), but, while writing this paper (January 2017), no indication from EMA was released.

	In its Annex V, the Regulation 536/2014 provides a list of items that should be included in the layperson summary. However, the Annex V does not provide any hierarchy of information (the order that each item should have in the document) and cannot be considered as guidance for writing a layperson summary.

 Since 2015, the debate on the items listed in Annex V and how they should be disclosed to average-literacy people has highlighted their potentially critical aspects.

 In 2016, a consultation document on layperson summary, released by the Medical Research Council Technology Return of Results Toolkit, specified the structure of each item and sub-item (see Table 1 below). The Regulation (Article 39) states that the trial sponsor should guarantee the clarity of layperson summaries and their proper submission to EU database; penalties for breach of transparency provisions will be proposed.

Layperson text: Motivation and characteristics of readers

	The target audience for a layperson summary is expected to include not only the general public and the participants in the clinical trials and their relatives, but also healthcare professionals, pharmaceutical researchers, and academics who may be interested in the study but are not genuine experts on the elements involved. Therefore, a balance should be reached to accomplish the average literacy level of the general population and, at the same time, provide useful information for more health-literate people.

	To correctly define the target audience, two important notions should be taken into account: the expected reader’s characteristics (age, education, culture, scientific, and trial knowledge)

 and the reason why he/she is willing to read that specific layperson summary.

		Allow discriminating what should be explained and what could be tacit (level of implicit) in the layperson summary.

		Profoundly change from one reader to another.

	We can reasonably suppose that the most frequent motivation for a layperson to read a clinical trials summary may be related to his/her personal health status or the health of one of their loved ones.

	The readers’ age, education, and culture contribute to defining his/her ability to understand a written document, but in the particular case of a layperson summary concerning a clinical trial, it is quite likely that the health motivation driving the reader is much more relevant than his/her biographic and cultural traits. All together, these aspects represent the cognitive profile of the reader. 

	Therefore, while projecting the hierarchy of a layperson summary, it may be useful to keep into account the motivation and the cognitive profile of the expected reader. 

	First, it should be defined which information is at the top of the reader’s interest: most likely, “Is this drug effective in treating the (my) condition? Is it safe?” The answers to these questions are the discriminant information

 for the reader; they define the rationale for the specific content of the text, justifying the drafting of the summary and motivation for reading.

	Therefore, in our opinion, the investigational medicinal products used in clinical trials and the overall results should have the maximum evidence and should be discussed as the first topic. Then, general information on study procedures, patient populations, and adverse effects should be described in detail to locate the results in their proper context. More technical information required to guarantee the transparency may be summarized at the end in a few sentences (see Figure 1 below). The proposed hierarchy agrees on the regulatory requirements, as described in Annex V, with readers’ interest and expectations.

	Once the hierarchy of information is finalized to address to the readers’ primary interests, the body of the summary may be designed according to some general principles of any health-related text.

	In our proposed hierarchy (right column of Figure 1), we have deleted point 8 (“Comments on the outcome of the clinical trial”). The reason for this deletion is that, in our opinion, it is useless to perform comments related to a drug’s development based on a single clinical trial. We agree with some authors’ opinions 

 that adding any comment to the overall result of the study is, ultimately, useless or even disturbing for the layperson reader. Annex V does not clarify what the sponsor is supposed to comment; besides, any possible qualitative summary statement seriously runs the risk of being perceived as promotional.

	On the contrary, we believe that some comments on the particular result of the single trial, written with clarification purposes, could be included in the overall results, so as to keep the document as readable as possible.

		Adopt a low level of implicit in the summaries.

		Develop the layout and content in line with the needs of the public.

		Follow health literacy and numeracy principles.

	In the development and review of the summary, specific attention should be dedicated to patients, patient representatives, and advocates. Indeed, both patients’ expectation and health literacy are crucial in checking the efficacy of the summary.

	After designing the reader-centered summary, it is essential to adopt an appropriate writing style and language that aligns with the cognitive profile of the readers. Therefore, even if readers’ characteristics regarding age, education, and culture may not affect the interest on the topic and the willingness to read and understand the summary, they may interfere with the complete understanding of the text. This aspect should be kept top of mind; according to the Regulation 536/2014, the layperson summary must be understandable, and the sponsor must guarantee its clarity.

	Many studies have described both general and health-specific literacy of readers. The health literacy includes both the ability to access, understand, and elaborate on information to promote and maintain good health and the cognitive and social skills that motivate an individual to approach health content.

 A recent European Health Literacy Survey

 shows that almost half (29% to 62%) of the population involved in the analysis had inadequate or problematic health literacy, with great differences among countries (see Figure 2).

	Based on Figure 2, it may be important to remove or limit at the minimum any medical jargon and explain any medical objective or outcome in easy, daily words.

	Concerning the general literacy, two adult literacy surveys (the Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey [ALL]

, and the International Adult Literacy Survey [IALS])

 are currently available, and a third (the OECD’s Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies [PIAAC]) is in progress.

 The Summary of Clinical Trial Results refers to the IALS that identifies five levels of proficiency ranging from level 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) and points out that communications written for the general public should use simple everyday language to ensure ease of reading and understanding.

 Text should be suitable for people with a low to average level of literacy. Across Europe, the average proficiency level is 2-3, whereas level 3 corresponds roughly to high school completion.

 Sponsors should consider testing the readability of an initial version of the study results summary with a small number of people, representative of the target audience (e.g., patients with a particular disease, patient association representatives, key influencers of public opinion).

	The readability of texts can be formally determined using different metric tools currently available in many European languages (see Table 2 below). For a layperson summary written in English, the Flesch Reading Ease Score should be used: the higher the test score, the easier the text is to read; anything scoring 70 and above is considered easy to read.

 can be useful in multi-country studies where summaries are first drafted in English and then translated into other languages.

 Sponsors are encouraged to consider including an English version if the trial did not include the UK.

 However, the Regulation 536 states that the layperson summary should be provided in the local language of each of the EU countries where the trial had been conducted. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that soon the regulatory authorities will request the layperson summaries in all the 28 EU languages.

	Neither the Regulation 536/2014 nor the Policy 0070/2014 provides any instruction on the format and the overall length of the lay summary.

 While all the authors recommend using short sentences, only some of them agree with the suggestion of keeping the text short.

 Table 3 (below) mentions the writing style indications to maximize the readability of the layperson summaries.

	The following proposes our experience-based contribution to the debate concerning the contents of the layperson summaries.

	According to our experience, reporting all available identifiers, such as the compound code when it comes to early trials or the international non-proprietary name and the trade names for later stages studies, is not a priority for the reader. Given this observation, we suggest using only generic names of the study drugs, avoiding incomprehensible acronyms or trade names that can vary in different countries.

Description of adverse reactions and their frequency

	Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) represent only a small part of the complete safety information contained in the technical documents (CRS, protocol, patients’ listings, etc.) of a study, as they refer only to drug-related adverse events. Reporting only the ADRs in the lay summary can provide the reader with an incomplete and misleading overview of the safety profiles and the tolerability of the study drugs. In our opinion, it is important to describe the safety profile of the drugs, clearly highlighting that this information is related to a single trial, in a specific population. While we consider appropriate reporting of the adverse events related and not related to the drug candidate to maintain consistency with the study sources, together with some authors,

 we do not consider that the use of MedDRA-preferred terms and EudraCT-system organ class is useful to categorize the study information. Moreover, we believe that adding the frequency (in figures and/or percentage) for all the adverse events can be confusing. As far as our lay summaries writing activity is concerned, we are reporting the most frequent and relevant adverse events, providing them in lay terms and specifying (also numerically whereas needed) if they:

		Resolved spontaneously or required any medical intervention/ hospitalization.

		Led to patient withdrawal or early closure of the trial.

		Were related or not to the study drug. 

	In most cases, trials-especially when it comes to pivotal studies-contain more than one primary endpoint and a long series of secondary endpoints (e.g., efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic in the case of Phase II studies), whose meaning is difficult to explain to laypersons and whose value for them is doubtful. Our experience suggests limiting the full and in-depth description of the results to the primary endpoints. We also advise to place secondary and tertiary endpoints in the general chapters on the outcomes of the study and to add additional information (not numerical, unless necessary) only if they represent an added value for the reader compared to the general framework.

	The information provided offers one perspective on the debate around writing and constructing layperson summaries. We propose a “reader-centered” approach to guarantee both transparency and clarity, and fulfil the requirements of the current regulation. We believe that the points described in this paper could contribute to the discussion on layperson summary structure and could be considered a practical tool for sponsors on how to develop comprehensible layperson summaries. Further analysis is needed to describe the impact that layperson summaries will have on clinical trial disclosures. We believe that the process of sharing information has started and regulatory authorities will go ahead in stimulating transparency across clinical development.

			1. Regulation (EU) n. 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 16, 2014, on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. Off. J of the European Union L 158, 27.5.2014, p.1. Available online: 

http://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol1/reg_2014_536			/reg_2014_536_en.pdf

			2. EMA policy on publication of clinical data for medicinal products for human use (Policy 0070). Available online: 

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2014/10			/WC500174796.pdf

			3. Sroka-Saidi K, Boggetti B, Schindler TM. Transferring regulation into practice: The challenges of the new layperson summary of clinical trial results. EMWA. 2015;24(1):24–27. Available online: 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1179/2047480614Z.000000000274

			4. Gillow, C. Layperson summaries of clinical trial results: Useful resources in the vacuum of regulatory guidance, 

 2015; 24 (4): 205-9. Available online: 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000324

			5. Brauburger K, New European clinical Trial Regulation: The Requirement for lay summaries and its impact on medical communicators, 

http://www.ctrials.org.il/files/regulation/ 2015v30n2_online_RegulatoryInsights.pdf

			6. MarÒ«al, A, Clinical Trial Transparency, The European Perspective in “Proceedings Harvard Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center (MRCT) 3

 Annual Meeting, 2014; pp. 6-7. Available online: 

http://mrctcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2014-12-03-MRCT-Annual-Meeting-Proceedings.pdf

			7. Gross A, Lay Summary. Writing for Lay Audiences - Questions & Answers, pp.6-8. Available online:  

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nVbf5uaUj2sJ:www.clinesco.co.uk/

			8. Summary of Clinical Trial Results for Laypersons. Available online: 

https://ec.europa.eu/health/files/clinicaltrials/2016_06_pc_guidelines			/gl_3_consult.pdf

. This document does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission and should not be interpreted as a commitment by the Commission to any official initiative in this area.

			9. Bierer B, Introduction to Harvard MRCT and the Return of Results Guidance Document, in Proceedings Harvard Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center (MRCT), 2014, pp. 5-6. Available online: 

			10. World Health Organization, WHO/PAHO 2009. Available online: 

http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/7gchp/track2/en/

			11. Health literacy - The solid facts, World Health Organization, 2013. Available online: 

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/190655/e96854.pdf

Articles

Analyzing the debate around writing and constructing layperson summaries of clinical trial results-and proposing a “reader-centered” approach.

Considerations on Layperson Trial Summaries in the EU

 The regulation will apply six months after the European Commission will publish the notice in the 

 that the EU portal and EU database are fully functional.

This communication was originally expected on May 28, 2016 (Article 99), but, while writing this paper (January2017), no indication from EMA was released.

Since 2015, the debate on the items listed in Annex V and how they should be disclosed to average-literacy people has highlighted their potentially critical aspects.

 In 2016, a consultation document on layperson summary, released by the Medical Research Council Technology Return of Results Toolkit, specified the structure of each item and sub-item (see Table 1). The Regulation (Article 39) states that the trial sponsor should guarantee the clarity of layperson summaries and their proper submission to EU database; penalties for breach of transparency provisions will be proposed.

	Therefore, while projecting the hierarchy of a layperson summary, it may be useful to keep into account the motivation and the cognitive profile of the expected reader.

	Therefore, in our opinion, the investigational medicinal products used in clinical trials and the overall results should have the maximum evidence and should be discussed as the first topic. Then, general information on study procedures, patient populations, and adverse effects should be described in detail to locate the results in their proper context. More technical information required to guarantee the transparency may be summarized at the end in a few sentences (see Figure 1). The proposed hierarchy agrees on the regulatory requirements, as described in Annex V, with readers’ interest and expectations.

	In our proposed hierarchy (right column of Fig. 1), we have deleted point 8 (“Comments on the outcome of the clinical trial”). The reason for this deletion is that, in our opinion, it is useless to perform comments related to a drug’s development based on a single clinical trial. We agree with some authors’ opinions 

	On the contrary, we believe that some comments on the particular result of the single clinical trial, written with clarification purposes, could be included in the overall results, so as to keep the document as readable as possible.

 A recent European Health Literacy Survey

 shows that almost half (29% to 62%) of the population involved in the analysis had inadequate or problematic health literacy, with great differences among countries (see Figure 2).

 are currently available, and a third (the OECD’s Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies [PIAAC]) is in progress.

The Summary of Clinical Trial Results refers to the IALS that identifies five levels of proficiency ranging from level 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) and points out that communications written for the general public should use simple everyday language to ensure ease of reading and understanding.

	The readability of texts can be formally determined using different metric tools currently available in many European languages (see Table 2). For a layperson summary written in English, the Flesch Reading Ease Score should be used: the higher the test score, the easier the text is to read; anything scoring 70 and above is considered easy to read.

Sponsors are encouraged to consider including an English version if the trial did not include the UK.

 Table 3 below mentions the writing style indications to maximize the readability of the layperson summaries.

	According to our experience, reporting all available identifiers, such as the compound code when it comes to early trials or the international non-proprietary name and the trade names for later stages studies, is not a priority for the reader. These data do not represent the principal interest of the layperson reader, and they could even become a confounding factor, especially when fixed combinations and/or free combinations of molecules are at stake. Following these observations, we suggest using only generic names of the study drugs, avoiding incomprehensible acronyms or trade names that can vary in different countries.

Description of adverse reactions and their frequency 

		Were related or not to the study drug and if there were deaths in the trial.

			1. Regulation (EU) n. 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 16, 2014, on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. Off. J of the European Union L 158, 27.5.2014, p.1. Available online: 

			2. EMA policy on publication of clinical data for medicinal products for human use (Policy 0070). Available online: 

			3. Sroka-Saidi K, Boggetti B, Schindler TM. Transferring regulation into practice: The challenges of the new layperson summary of clinical trial results. EMWA. 2015;24(1):24–27. Available online: 

			4. Gillow, C. Layperson summaries of clinical trial results: Useful resources in the vacuum of regulatory guidance, 

			5. Brauburger K, New European clinical Trial Regulation: The Requirement for lay summaries and its impact on medical communicators, 

http://www.amwa.org/files/2015v30n2_online_RegulatoryInsights.pdf

 Annual Meeting, 2014; pp. 6-7. Available online: 

			7. Gross A, Lay Summary. Writing for Lay Audiences - Questions & Answers, pp.6-8. Available online:  http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nVbf5uaUj2sJ:www.clinesco.co.uk/   

			8. Summary of Clinical Trial Results for Laypersons. Available online: 

			9. Bierer B, Introduction to Harvard MRCT and the Return of Results Guidance Document, in Proceedings Harvard Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center (MRCT), 2014, pp. 5-6. Available online: 

			11. Health literacy - The solid facts, World Health Organization, 2013. Available online: 

			12. Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL). Available online: 

Outlining considerations on layperson summary writing of clinical trial results in Europe, and proposing a "reader-centered" approach to constructing these summaries.


Layperson Summary in the EU: Analysis of the Debate and Personal Remarks

	The European journey toward clinical trial transparency (see Figure 1) started in 2003 when the European Medicines Agency (EMA) first published the European public assessment reports. Since 2012, the EMA behavior on trial transparency was reactive, meaning that trial information was available upon request. In 2012, a more proactive measure was proposed for clinical trial transparency, and a long process of consultation with stakeholders, including clinicians, patients’ associations and pharmaceutical companies began.

 In 2014, a new regulation on clinical trials (EU Reg. n.536/2014)

 was published and in October 2014, the EMA policy 0070

 reinforced the concept of clinical trial transparency. In addition, in 2012, the EU Pharmacovigilance Regulation was published.

	According to the European Treaty, a regulation shall have a general application and is directly applicable to all member states. Therefore, each of them should implement the EU Reg. n.536/2014 that applies to all clinical studies conducted in Europe, except for non-interventional studies. This new legislation replaces the EU Clinical Trials Directive (EUCTD), which was approved in 2001 and implemented in 2004.

 The EU reg. n.536/2014 established a novel definition of a clinical study. As stated in article 2 of the Regulation, a clinical study is any investigation about humans with the objective of ascertaining the safety and efficacy of those medicinal products, intended to:

		Discover or verify the clinical, pharmacological or other pharmacodynamic effects of one or more medicinal products

		Identify any adverse reactions to one or more medicinal products

		Study the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of one or more medicinal products (Regulation 536/2014 art.2/1)

	To ensure a sufficient level of transparency in clinical trials, the EU reg. n. 536/2014 states that “the EU database should contain all relevant information as regards the clinical trial submitted through the EU portal. The EU database should be publicly accessible, and data should be in an easily searchable format, with related data and documents linked together by the EU trial number and with hyperlinks, e.g., linking together the summary, the layperson's summary, the protocol and the clinical study report of one clinical trial, as well as linking to data from other clinical trials which used the same investigational medicinal product. All clinical trials should be registered in the EU database before being started. As a rule, the start and end dates of the recruitment of subjects should also be published in the EU database.”
	
	Based on this legal context, on Oct. 2, 2014, EMA released the policy 0070 on the publication of clinical data for medicinal products for human use,

 as a complementary tool ahead of the implementation of the EU Reg. n. 536/2014, effective since May 2016. In order to fully accomplish the EU reg n. 536/2014 requirements to guarantee clinical trial transparency, biopharmaceutical companies should start implementing an internal procedure to upload information of clinical trials to the EudraCT platform and provide the layperson summaries (see Figure 2).


	
	Policy 0070 on publication of clinical data for medicinal products for human use is the result of an extensive EMA initiative, which started in 2012 and involved more than 1,000 stakeholders among academic, industry representatives, patients’ associations, editors and lawyers. EMA was committed to continuously extending its approach to clinical trials data transparency, with the aim to make medicine development more efficient.
	
	Moreover, EMA intended to foster public scrutiny to clinical study information by the scientific community and to develop knowledge in the interest of public health, protecting and nurturing the latter, while promoting a better-informed use of medicines. Indeed, the policy states “A high degree of transparency will take regulatory decision-making one step closer to EU citizens, and promote the better-informed use of medicines. (…) The access to clinical data will benefit public health in the future.”

	The scope of the EMA Policy 0070 relates to proactively sharing study-level and patient–level clinical data, i.e., clinical reports (clinical overviews, clinical summaries, clinical study reports, protocol and protocol amendments, sample case report forms, documentation of statistical methods) and individual patient data (IPD), submitted under the centralized marketing authorization procedure after Jan. 1, 2015.


	
	The process included two sequential phases: in the first one, only the clinical reports supporting centralized marketing authorization application (MAA) submitted only after Jan. 1, 2015, and-starting from July 1, 2015-clinical reports supporting the request for line extensions followed the same rules. In the second phase, after finding the most appropriate way to make them available in compliance with privacy and data protection laws, the IPD will also be provided.


	
	To protect the privacy of patients, EMA issued guidance

 to the pharmaceutical industry on anonymization procedures of clinical reports. The direction aims at assisting companies by recommending methods, techniques and processes that could be applied to clinical reports in order to achieve an adequate anonymization, while retaining a maximum of scientifically useful information on medicinal products for the benefit of the public. Indeed, the same data can be adequately anonymized in different ways, depending on the context of the data release.
	
	In the case of public data release, the risk of re-identification should be slight, whereas, for non-public data sharing, a higher risk could be acceptable.
	
	Due to an active and rapid IT research in this field, many anonymization techniques are currently available to marketing authorization holders (MAHs)/applicants. The legislation is not prescriptive about the techniques to be used by data controllers. According to the Article 29 Working Party Opinion, examples of techniques that could apply to clinical reports are masking, randomization and generalization.


	
	When anonymizing structured data, the main goal is preventing the linkage of sensitive datasets to an identified dataset (or similar background knowledge about individuals). While it is obvious to remove the so called “identifiers,” the attributes that may be used for linkage are defined as “quasi-identifiers,” which are not identifiers, per se, but may be combined to generate a linkage. In addition, these data cannot be removed because they may be required for the analysis. Assuming that directly identifying information has been already eliminated from the dataset, the k-anonymity privacy model should be implemented to enhance data protection. A dataset is k-anonymous if, regarding the quasi-identifiers, each data item cannot be distinguished from at least k-1 other data items. This property can be used to define equivalence classes of indistinguishable entries.

 To fully accomplish the generalization procedure, entries from equivalence classes that violate the privacy model (i.e., outliers) are automatically replaced with semantic-free placeholders, while the percentage of suppressed records is kept under a given threshold.

 Available IT tools can calculate utility measures to guarantee the minimal loss of information after k-anonymization and aggregation procedures.
	
	

Redaction of commercially confidential information


	
	To allow pharmaceutical companies to protect any information contained in the clinical reports submitted to the EMA-which is not in the public domain or publicly available and where disclosure may undermine the legitimate economic interest of the applicant/MAH-EMA issued an External guidance on the identification and redaction of commercially confidential information (CCI) in clinical reports for the purpose of publication in accordance with EMA Policy 0070.


	
	For healthcare companies, the guidance is a working tool and a reference document that aims at supporting them in the procedure of redaction of CCIs and in the preparation of their justifications. EMA will scrutinize the justification for the redaction to assess whether the definition of CCI applies.


	
	Since 2014, the delivery of the EMA Policy 0070 certifies on a publicly available website that established policies and procedures are available to implement data-sharing commitments.

 Currently, any users with a straightforward and limited registration process can access the clinical data of all trials submitted under the centralized MAA, irrespective of the outcome of the latter. However, it is reasonable to think that only qualified scientific and medical researchers would benefit from highly complex data, such as those reported in clinical trial documentations. Some pressure from patients’ associations and a novel patient-centered attitude led EMA to increase the ethical responsibility toward patients who actively participate in clinical studies and introduce a further document, the layperson’s summary, in the MAA procedure. The layperson summary should be posted on the EU database and linked to other documentations of the trial. Therefore, article n. 37 of the EU Reg. n. 536/2014 requires the sponsors to provide the summary results of clinical trials in a format understandable to laypersons. The Annex V of this regulation sets out the 10 elements that the document should include.


	
	The consistency in the way that trial results are presented will help participants, patients and other third parties improve familiarity and comprehension of the trial. Research participants and the general public are expected to be the primary audience of the lay summaries. Healthcare professionals and academics will also be able to access them. Given this broad audience, the summaries will need to take into account the literacy level of the general population, provide simple explanations and apply other measures to support health literacy. Indeed, the general principles of the layperson summary are not assuming any prior knowledge of the trial from the audience. The document should, therefore, be shaped in the most understandable way for people who have neither the level of competence nor the priority of interest of healthcare professionals. Conveniently, the Annex V does not provide any hierarchy of information but defines only the required contents (see Figure 3).

	The author should keep in mind that the hierarchy of information is a discriminating criterion for the comprehensibility of the layperson summaries. For instance, common sense suggests that the clinical trial identification is not at the top of layperson priorities, with more interest in questions such as “what is this clinical study for?" and "does it demonstrate that this drug is safe and effective?” Furthermore, it is important that a professional writing team, which wrote the other clinical reports, also provides and/or reviews the layperson summary. This will guarantee the full consistency of the summary with other clinical data.
	
	The trial sponsor should ensure that the layperson summary is developed and submitted to the EU database. The summaries are expected to be available in the local language of each European country where the trial took place. Where resources allow, sponsors should consider including an English version, as the use of a common language will allow greater accessibility across Europe; however, this is not mandatory.


	
	The debate on the best way to write a layperson summary is still open, and NHS is actively working on it. Although no official guidelines have been provided yet to write a fair layperson summary, the industry and patients’ associations have released some recommendations. The collaboration between sponsors and patients, patient representative, or advocated may be crucial to ensure that the layperson summary meets its expectation. This process won’t be feasible for some studies, but where it is a possibility, it may enhance the final version.

	The document should be as short as possible (one or two pages at maximum, but no word number limitations have been established), focusing on unambiguous, factual information and void of any promotional content. The layout and content for each section should meet the needs of the general public regarding style, language and literacy level. Well-chosen and clearly designed visual aids can help enhance understanding of the text. Indeed, the combination of clear infographics with explanatory text can be a good way of presenting complex information.

	Where used, visuals should offer one message per image and be clearly labelled with captions. Visuals should be near the text that they attempt to illustrate. On the other hand, very complex images, such as graphs showing several relationships, can be easily misinterpreted and should be avoided. Creative and interactive solutions to ensure understanding could include videos, cartoons and animation; these tools may be particularly appealing for younger patients.


	
	The EU Reg. n.536/2014 represents a significant step toward harmonization for the conduct of clinical trials in Europe. It sets up a common procedure for all types of clinical trial applications with a coordinated assessment by the reporting member state for the scientific documents. Furthermore, the provisions laid down in the Regulation also reflect societal demands for increased transparency on the clinical trial information both for healthcare professionals and for laypersons. Moreover, the Regulation also provides simplified and streamlined safety reporting requirements and establishes that the member states shall cooperate on safety information assessment.
	
	However, despite the publication of Policy 0070, several aspects remain to be determined or evaluated at a national level, thus leaving room for additional requirements and local interpretation. To ensure a smooth transition to the new regulatory framework, MAH/sponsors should not only closely follow the development of the upcoming implementing measures but also start putting in place relevant measures to ensure compliance (e.g., adaptation of clinical trial application process, implementation of a suitable system for notifications).

		Agency moves towards proactive publication of clinical-trial data. 

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report		/2012/12/WC500135841.pdf

		Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) n. 520/2012 of 19th June 2012 on the performance of pharmacovigilance activities provided for in Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Off. J of the European Union L 159, 20.6.2012, p. 5 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:159:0005:0025:EN:PDF

		Regulation (EU) n. 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16th April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. Off. J of the European Union L 158, 27.5.2014, p.1. 

http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2014_536/reg_2014_536_en.pdf

		EMA policy on publication of clinical data for medicinal products for human use (Policy 0070). 

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2014		/10/WC500174796.pdf

		Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the 4th April on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Off. J of the European Union L 121, 1.5.2001, p. 34. 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:121:0034:0044:en:PDF

		External guidance on the implementation of the European Medicines Agency policy on the publication of clinical data for medicinal products for human use 

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory		_and_procedural_guideline/2016/03/WC500202621.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/index_en.html

		Kohlmayer F., et al The cost of quality: Implementing generalization and suppression for anonymizing biomedical data with minimal information loss. 

		Summary of Clinical Trial Results for Laypersons. Consultation Document. 

http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/clinicaltrials/2016_06_pc_guidelines		/gl_3_consult.pdf

		EFPIA layperson summary Principles that apply to Clinical Trial Transparency. 

http://www.efpia.eu/uploads/EFPIA_Reflection_Paper_-_Guiding_Principles_on_The_Content_of_the_Layperson_Summary		_Sep_2015_FINAL_clean.pdf

		Sroka-Saidi K., et al Transferring regulation into practice: The challenges of the new layperson summary of clinical trial results. 

In 2014, EU Regulation n.536/2014 represented a significant step toward transparency of clinical trials in Europe. However, despite the EMA’s policy 0070, which reinforced this concept, several aspects remain to be determined or evaluated, leaving room for additional requirements and local interpretation.

E. Sala, PhD

Articles

Considerations on Layperson Trial Summaries in the EU

Layperson Summary in the EU: Analysis of the Debate and Personal Remarks

Transparency: The EU Prospective