Cargando…
The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies
PURPOSE: The ENCePP Code of Conduct provides a framework for scientifically independent and transparent pharmacoepidemiological research. Despite becoming a landmark reference, practical implementation of key provisions was still limited. The fourth revision defines scientific independence and clari...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6594014/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30838708 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pds.4763 |
_version_ | 1783430172262793216 |
---|---|
author | Gini, Rosa Fournie, Xavier Dolk, Helen Kurz, Xavier Verpillat, Patrice Simondon, François Strassmann, Valerie Apostolidis, Kathi Goedecke, Thomas |
author_facet | Gini, Rosa Fournie, Xavier Dolk, Helen Kurz, Xavier Verpillat, Patrice Simondon, François Strassmann, Valerie Apostolidis, Kathi Goedecke, Thomas |
author_sort | Gini, Rosa |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The ENCePP Code of Conduct provides a framework for scientifically independent and transparent pharmacoepidemiological research. Despite becoming a landmark reference, practical implementation of key provisions was still limited. The fourth revision defines scientific independence and clarifies uncertainties on the applicability to postauthorisation safety studies requested by regulators. To separate the influence of the funder from the investigator's scientific responsibility, the Code now requires that the lead investigator is not employed by the funding institution. METHOD: To assess how the revised Code fits the ecosystem of noninterventional pharmacoepidemiology research in Europe, we first mapped key recommendations of the revised Code against ISPE Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices and the ADVANCE Code of Conduct. We surveyed stakeholders to understand perceptions on its value and practical applicability. Representatives from the different stakeholders' groups described their experience and expectations. RESULTS: Unmet needs in pharmacoepidemiological research are fulfilled by providing unique guidance on roles and responsibilities to support scientific independence. The principles of scientific independence and transparency are well understood and reinforce trust in study results; however, around 70% of survey respondents still found some provisions difficult to apply. Representatives from stakeholders' groups found the new version promising, although limitations still exist. CONCLUSION: By clarifying definitions and roles, the latest revision of the Code sets a new standard in the relationship between investigators and funders to support scientific independence of pharmacoepidemiological research. Disseminating and training on the provisions of the Code would help stakeholders to better understand its advantages and promote its adoption in noninterventional research. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6594014 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65940142019-07-10 The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies Gini, Rosa Fournie, Xavier Dolk, Helen Kurz, Xavier Verpillat, Patrice Simondon, François Strassmann, Valerie Apostolidis, Kathi Goedecke, Thomas Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Reviews PURPOSE: The ENCePP Code of Conduct provides a framework for scientifically independent and transparent pharmacoepidemiological research. Despite becoming a landmark reference, practical implementation of key provisions was still limited. The fourth revision defines scientific independence and clarifies uncertainties on the applicability to postauthorisation safety studies requested by regulators. To separate the influence of the funder from the investigator's scientific responsibility, the Code now requires that the lead investigator is not employed by the funding institution. METHOD: To assess how the revised Code fits the ecosystem of noninterventional pharmacoepidemiology research in Europe, we first mapped key recommendations of the revised Code against ISPE Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices and the ADVANCE Code of Conduct. We surveyed stakeholders to understand perceptions on its value and practical applicability. Representatives from the different stakeholders' groups described their experience and expectations. RESULTS: Unmet needs in pharmacoepidemiological research are fulfilled by providing unique guidance on roles and responsibilities to support scientific independence. The principles of scientific independence and transparency are well understood and reinforce trust in study results; however, around 70% of survey respondents still found some provisions difficult to apply. Representatives from stakeholders' groups found the new version promising, although limitations still exist. CONCLUSION: By clarifying definitions and roles, the latest revision of the Code sets a new standard in the relationship between investigators and funders to support scientific independence of pharmacoepidemiological research. Disseminating and training on the provisions of the Code would help stakeholders to better understand its advantages and promote its adoption in noninterventional research. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-03-05 2019-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6594014/ /pubmed/30838708 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pds.4763 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Reviews Gini, Rosa Fournie, Xavier Dolk, Helen Kurz, Xavier Verpillat, Patrice Simondon, François Strassmann, Valerie Apostolidis, Kathi Goedecke, Thomas The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies |
title | The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies |
title_full | The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies |
title_fullStr | The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies |
title_full_unstemmed | The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies |
title_short | The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies |
title_sort | encepp code of conduct: a best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies |
topic | Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6594014/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30838708 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pds.4763 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ginirosa theenceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT fourniexavier theenceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT dolkhelen theenceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT kurzxavier theenceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT verpillatpatrice theenceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT simondonfrancois theenceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT strassmannvalerie theenceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT apostolidiskathi theenceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT goedeckethomas theenceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT ginirosa enceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT fourniexavier enceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT dolkhelen enceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT kurzxavier enceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT verpillatpatrice enceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT simondonfrancois enceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT strassmannvalerie enceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT apostolidiskathi enceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies AT goedeckethomas enceppcodeofconductabestpractiseforscientificindependenceandtransparencyinnoninterventionalpostauthorisationstudies |