Gini R., Fournie X., Dolk H., Kurz X., Verpillat P., Simondon François, 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, 28 (4), p. 422-433. ISSN 1053-8569.
Titre du document
The ENCePP Code of Conduct : a best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies
Gini R., Fournie X., Dolk H., Kurz X., Verpillat P., Simondon François, Strassmann V., Apostolidis K., Goedecke T.
Source
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2019,
28 (4), p. 422-433 ISSN 1053-8569
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.
