History of Privacy 1

Abstract. Discussion on privacy issues is as old as mankind. Starting with the protection of one's body and home, it soon evolved in the direction of controlling one's personal information. In 1891, the American lawyers Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis described the right to privacy in a famous article: it is the right to be let alone. In 1967 a new milestone was reached with the publication of Alan Westin's Privacy and Freedom when he defined privacy in terms of self determination: privacy is the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others. History of privacy makes clear that there is a strong relationship between privacy and the development of technology. The modern discussion started with the use of cameras and went on to include the development and use of computers in an information society in which personal data on every individual is collected and stored. Not only is it a great concern that privacy is eroding but also that we are entering a surveillance society. This loss of privacy seems to be even more the case since the protection of privacy is strongly dependant upon the political will to protect it. Since 9/11, however, this political will world-wide is oriented more toward the effective and efficient use of technology in the battle against criminality and terrorism than it is toward protecting privacy. Therefore it is time to re-evaluate the use of technology and the protection of privacy. It is not only privacy that is at stake but above all democracy

Development of a core outcome set for immunomodulation in pregnancy (COSIMPREG): A protocol for a systematic review and Delphi study

Introduction To establish pregnancy, the maternal immune system must adapt to tolerate the semiallogenic fetus. Less than optimal adaptation of the maternal immune system during (early) pregnancy is implicated in several complications of pregnancy. The development of effective immune modulation interventions as preventive or therapeutic strategies for pregnancy complications holds promise. Several studies sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of various approaches. However, a limitation is the high variability in clinical and immune outcomes that are reported. We, therefore, aim to develop a core outcome set for application to studies of immune modulation in pregnancy (COSIMPREG). Methods and analysis We will use a stepwise approach to develop a COSIMPREG. First, we will perform a systematic review to identify reported outcomes. For this review, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed. Second, we will use the Delphi method to develop a preliminary COSIMPREG. In three rounds, the outcomes of the systematic review will be scored. A panel comprising experts from relevant disciplines and diverse geographical locations will be assembled until a sufficient quality of the panel is reached. We will use predefined decision rules for outcomes. After each round outcomes, including scores, will be returned to the panel for further refinement. The outcomes not excluded after the third round will be taken to a consensus meeting. In this meeting, experts from all relevant disciplines will discuss and finalise the COSIMPREG. Ethics and dissemination For this study ethical approval is not required. The systematic review will be published in an appropriate open access reproductive immunology journal. Once the COSIMPREG is finalised, it will be published in an open access reproductive immunology journal, and disseminated at appropriate international meetings, as well as through relevant research and scientific societies. Experts involved in the Delphi study will be asked to give informed consent

Effect of a second, booster, influenza vaccination on antibody responses in quiescent systemic lupus erythematosus: An open, prospective, controlled study

Objective. In SLE, a decreased antibody response on influenza vaccination has been reported. In this study, we assessed whether a booster vaccination could improve antibody responses, as determined by seroprotection rates, in SLE patients. Methods. SLE patients (n = 52) with quiescent disease (SLEDAI = 40. Results. Following the first vaccination, seroprotection rates and geometric mean titres (GMTs) to each vaccine strain increased in both SLE patients and controls to comparable levels. Seroprotection rates in SLE patients after the first vaccination were 86.5% to A/H1N1, 80.8% to A/H3N2 and 61.5% to the B-strain while GMTs were 92.6, 56.2 and 39.2, respectively. Overall, the booster vaccination did not lead to a further rise of seroprotection rates and GMTs in SLE patients. However, in patients not vaccinated in the previous year, GMT and seroconversion rate to A/H1N1 did rise following the booster vaccination. Both influenza vaccinations did not increase SLEDAI scores. Conclusions. Additional value of a booster influenza vaccination in SLE is limited to patients who were not vaccinated in the previous year

Cell-mediated immune responses to influenza vaccination in Wegener's granulomatosis

Background: Both antibody and cell-mediated immune responses are involved in the defence against influenza. In Wegener's granulomatosis (WG), antibody responses to influenza vaccination appear to be similar to those in healthy controls, but cell-mediated responses have not been studied. Objective: To determine whether cell-mediated responses to influenza vaccination in WG vary from those in controls. Methods: Twenty-five patients with WG and healthy controls received subunit influenza vaccine. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were obtained before and 1 month after vaccination. Cell-mediated responses to A/H1N1 and A/H3N2 were assessed using interferon γ (IFNγ) ELISpot and intracellular cytokine staining for IFNγ, tumour necrosis factor and interleukin 2. Results: Before vaccination, patients and controls showed similar recall responses to A/H1N1 and A/H3N2. After vaccination, patients and controls showed similar levels of increase in spot-forming cells against A/H1N1 and A/H3N2. By flow cytometry, upon vaccination, proportions of cytokine-producing CD4 T cells increased in patients and controls for A/H1N1 and A/H3N2. Conclusions: Cell-mediated responses to influenza vaccination in patients with WG are comparable to those in healthy controls