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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gini, Rosa, Fournie, Xavier, Dolk, Helen, Kurz, Xavier, Verpillat, Patrice, Simondon, François, Strassmann, Valerie, Apostolidis, Kathi, Goedecke, Thomas
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