The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies

Helen Dolk, Rosa Gini, Xavier Fournie, Xavier Kurz, Patrice Verpillat, Francois Simondon, Valerie Strassmann, Kathi Apostolidis, Thomas Goedecke

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

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 post-authorisation 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 non-interventional 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 non-interventional research.
LanguageEnglish
Pages422-433
Number of pages12
JournalPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Volume28
Issue number4
Early online date5 Mar 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2019

Fingerprint

Practice Guidelines
Pharmacoepidemiology
Research
Research Personnel
Uncertainty
Ecosystem
Safety
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • conflict of interest
  • ethics
  • observational studies as topic
  • pharmacoepidemiology
  • pharmacovigilance
  • practise guideline
  • research

Cite this

Dolk, Helen ; Gini, Rosa ; Fournie, Xavier ; Kurz, Xavier ; Verpillat, Patrice ; Simondon, Francois ; Strassmann, Valerie ; Apostolidis, Kathi ; Goedecke, Thomas. / The ENCePP Code of Conduct : A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies. In: Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 2019 ; Vol. 28, No. 4. pp. 422-433.
@article{3d9d956fc67e453aa8ac913de7623af6,
title = "The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies",
abstract = "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 post-authorisation 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 non-interventional 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 non-interventional research.",
keywords = "conflict of interest, ethics, observational studies as topic, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance, practise guideline, research",
author = "Helen Dolk and Rosa Gini and Xavier Fournie and Xavier Kurz and Patrice Verpillat and Francois Simondon and Valerie Strassmann and Kathi Apostolidis and Thomas Goedecke",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/pds.4763",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "422--433",
journal = "Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety",
issn = "1053-8569",
number = "4",

}

Dolk, H, Gini, R, Fournie, X, Kurz, X, Verpillat, P, Simondon, F, Strassmann, V, Apostolidis, K & Goedecke, T 2019, 'The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies', Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 422-433. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4763

The ENCePP Code of Conduct : A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies. / Dolk, Helen; Gini, Rosa; Fournie, Xavier; Kurz, Xavier; Verpillat, Patrice; Simondon, Francois; Strassmann, Valerie; Apostolidis, Kathi; Goedecke, Thomas.

In: Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Vol. 28, No. 4, 01.04.2019, p. 422-433.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - The ENCePP Code of Conduct

T2 - Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

AU - Dolk, Helen

AU - Gini, Rosa

AU - Fournie, Xavier

AU - Kurz, Xavier

AU - Verpillat, Patrice

AU - Simondon, Francois

AU - Strassmann, Valerie

AU - Apostolidis, Kathi

AU - Goedecke, Thomas

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - 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 post-authorisation 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 non-interventional 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 non-interventional research.

AB - 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 post-authorisation 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 non-interventional 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 non-interventional research.

KW - conflict of interest

KW - ethics

KW - observational studies as topic

KW - pharmacoepidemiology

KW - pharmacovigilance

KW - practise guideline

KW - research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062556945&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/pds.4763

DO - 10.1002/pds.4763

M3 - Review article

VL - 28

SP - 422

EP - 433

JO - Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

JF - Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

SN - 1053-8569

IS - 4

ER -