1
BACKGROUND
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has the responsibility for the scientific evaluation,
supervision, and safety monitoring of medicines in the European Union (EU) to ensure
that their benefits outweigh their risks. While the roots of medicines' safety monitoring
lie in the development of mechanisms for spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse
reactions by health‐care professionals and patients, the importance of using the full
spectrum of evidence including observational studies has long been acknowledged.1,
2, 3 The risk management system introduced in the EU in 2006 highlighted the need
to build capacity and to facilitate the conduct of multicenter independent postauthorization
studies to investigate important risks or missing information in European populations.4
In March 2006, the EMA contacted more than 90 academic centers in Europe identified
through the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and national drug
regulatory authorities to request information on their expertise and activities in
pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacovigilance. Over the following 12 months, possible
models for collaboration on independent observational studies were discussed with
representatives of academic and other research centers, pharmaceutical industry, other
existing clinical networks, EMA scientific committees, and the European Commission.5
The European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP;
www.encepp.eu) was launched on June 28, 2007 with 79 participants who agreed to develop
an active research network based on principles of transparency, scientific independence,
and common quality standards. The European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology
and Pharmacovigilance was presented in a symposium at the 24th International Conference
on Pharmacoepidemiology and Therapeutic Risk Management in August 2008.6 Ten years
on, we review ENCePP's main achievements, discuss its impact on the benefit‐risk evaluation
of medicinal products in Europe, and outline future perspectives.
2
WHY WAS ENCEPP NEEDED?
Although collaborations for multicenter studies have long existed, the pharmacoepidemiology
landscape in Europe has been heterogeneous and based on researchers using stand‐alone
data sources with limited sample sizes and applying differing quality standards. This
heterogeneity was compounded by differences between health‐care systems, uncertainty
about available databases, and uncertainty on existing collaborations with sufficient
expertise and capacity to conduct multicenter observational studies. It was often
considered easier for industry to conduct postauthorization studies requested by EU
regulators in the United States, despite differences in characteristics of study populations,
clinical practice, and prescription patterns. There was a need to foster a network
of researchers able to perform large observational studies in Europe and for a pool
of experts providing clear guidance on best practices in pharmacoepidemiology. At
the same time, rules and principles for quality standards and transparency of research
were also needed to ensure that these studies would be performed according to the
best possible level of scientific quality.5 New EU pharmacovigilance legislation entered
into force in July 2012 provided a legal framework for postauthorization safety studies
(PASS). This enabled regulators to impose PASS on pharmaceutical companies as a condition
of the marketing authorization and established a review process for PASS study protocols
and results by the EMA's Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC).7 In this
context, ENCePP has assumed a triple role: (a) to increase capacity for pharmacoepidemiology
research in Europe, (b) to define common methodological standards, and (c) to propose
governance principles for the conduct of collaborative studies.
3
WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED BY ENCEPP IN 10 YEARS?
3.1
A strong scientific network supporting evaluation of medicines
Initially, ENCePP foresaw nomination of coordinating centers taking responsibility
for research within defined therapeutic areas. However, besides the organizational
challenges posed by the differing interests and expertise of centers and the diverse
nature of research questions to be addressed, most centers were also concerned that
in a competitive environment, a structure with predefined subnetworks overseen by
a coordinating center would be too rigid and give too much prominence to such center.
They preferred a flexible approach whereby centers would be characterized in a public,
transparent, and searchable electronic inventory and could enter into ad hoc collaborations
for specific projects underpinned by common transparency and research standards. As
of July 31, 2017, ENCePP included 168 centers from 18 European countries, 126 (75%)
of them being not for profit organizations (eg, universities, hospitals, foundations,
or charities) and 42 (25%) for‐profit organizations (ie, contract research organizations).
The largest numbers of centers are located in the United Kingdom (35 centers), Italy
(24), France and Germany (18 each), Spain (17), and the Netherlands (10).8 Centers
applying to join the network undergo a check by the ENCePP Secretariat to determine
their focus on pharmacoepidemiology or pharmacovigilance. This is based on a description
of their activities and a list of publications, but level of expertise or quality
of research is not assessed. At an early stage, ENCePP discussed implementation of
a self‐accreditation system but considered that it would not guarantee the quality
of the studies performed by the centers.
Through the centers, ENCePP provides access to a large pool of experts in pharmacoepidemiology
and pharmacovigilance across Europe and to other relevant specialists such as clinical
pharmacologists, statisticians, specialist clinicians, and members of health technology
assessment (HTA) bodies, pediatric networks, and pharmacogenomic groups. Since 2010,
this expertise provides a strong support to the operation of the new pharmacovigilance
legislation by complementing regulatory guidance with methodological recommendations.
Although one of the aims of creating ENCePP was to increase the capacity for large
pharmacoepidemiology studies in Europe, the flexible approach adopted by ENCePP for
collaborations and the multiple sources of public and private funding do not allow
to confirm to date that multicenter studies were initiated with the support of ENCePP.
However, feedback received from members suggests that the new culture of collaboration,
the common scientific standards, and the common governance principles introduced by
the ENCePP have greatly facilitated the establishment of research consortia, for example,
in the context of the EMA‐funded studies (Table 1) and the European Commission's Seventh
Framework Program for drug safety studies (Table 2).3 Consortia were also created
in the context of public‐private partnerships established by the Innovative Medicines
Initiative.9 In addition, ENCePP members provided occasionally to EMA data that could
support drug safety reviews. This information covered topics such as combined hormonal
contraceptive and the risk of venous thromboembolism, strontium ranelate in the treatment
of osteoporosis, bromocriptine‐containing medicines indicated in the suppression of
lactation postpartum, ambroxol‐ and bromhexine‐containing medicines and allergic reactions,
codeine‐containing medicines and the risk of morphine toxicity, or hydroxyzine‐containing
medicines and pro‐arrhythmogenic potential.
Table 1
Studies funded by European Medicines Agency (EMA) to support the benefit‐risk evaluation
of medicinal products (2010‐2017)a
Study Title
EUPAS Register Numberb
Number of Databases
Number of Countries
Link to Publication of Results
A/H1N1 pandemic vaccines and pregnancy outcomes
1705
1
1
Link to study report included in EU PAS Register
Impact of risk minimization in patients treated with rosiglitazone‐containing products
1777
2
2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24068766
Isotretinoin and the effectiveness of the pregnancy prevention program in Europe
2474
5
3
Link to study report included in EU PAS Register
Patterns and determinants of use of oral contraceptives in the EU
2738
5
3
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26492444
Monitoring the effectiveness of risk minimization in patients treated with pioglitazone‐containing
products
2765
3
3
Link to study report included in EU PAS Register
Risk of cardiac valve disorders associated with the use of biphosphonates
2616
6
3
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26694594
Association between anxiolytic or hypnotic drugs and total mortality
3772
2
2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26256008
Metformin use in renal impairment
5249
2
2
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/9/e008531.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27504911
Study of regulatory communication and risk awareness following the article 31 referral
of combined hormonal contraceptives in relation to thromboembolism
21356
n/ac
6
Study ongoing
Characterizing the risk of major bleeding in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation:
noninterventional study of patients taking direct oral anticoagulants in the EU
16014
9
6
Study ongoing
Study of utilization of combined hormonal contraceptives in Europe
21352
3
3
Study ongoing
Antimicrobial resistance: choice of therapeutic interventions and outcomes for the
treatment of infections caused by multidrug (MDR) Gram‐negative pathogens
21359
1
5
Study ongoing
Methods and data sources for determining long‐term effects of drug exposure during
pregnancy, with application to antiepileptic medicines
21171
n/ad
28
Study ongoing
Impact of EU label changes for systemic diclofenac products: postreferral prescribing
trends
Study planned
4
3
Impact of EU label changes for hydroxyzine products: postreferral prescribing trends
Study planned
4
3
a
Studies listed in chronological order.
b
The EU PAS Register search page is available at http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/studySearch.htm.
c
Not applicable: study using a survey design.
d
Not applicable: survey of available data sources in all EU Member states.
Table 2
Studies funded by the European Commission's Seventh Framework Program for drug safety
studies to support the benefit‐risk evaluation of medicinal products (2007‐2013)a
Study Title
EUPAS Register Numberb
No. of Data Sources (D, Database; R, Registry)
No. of Countries
Link to Information on CORDIS Websitec
SOS: Safety of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs
D: 8
4
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89349_en.html
ARITMO: arrhythmogenic potential of drugs
2361
D: 7
5
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/94061_en.html
ADDUCE: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder drug chronic effects
3985, 4551
D: 3
2
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/96780_en.html
EUROmediCAT: safety of medication use in pregnancy in relation to risk of congenital
malformations
2221
D: 7
5
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/98223_en.html
PHARMACHILD: long‐term pharmacovigilance for adverse effects in childhood arthritis
focusing on immuno‐modulatory drugs
1974
R: 4
4
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/96819_en.html
STOP: suicidality: treatment occurring in pediatrics
D: 3
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/97369_en.html
CARING: cancer risks and insulin analogues
5383
D: 3 R: 2
5
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100436_en.html
SAFEGUARD: safety evaluation of adverse reactions in diabetes
2895, 4364
D: 9
6
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100121_en.html
Astro‐Lab: assessment of safety of LABAs in asthma in routine care by combining health‐care
databases and direct patient follow‐up
3099
D: 2
2
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/101108_en.html
EpoCan: assessing long‐term risks and advancing toward better epoetin‐driven treatment
modalities
D: 3
2
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100286_en.html
PREDICTION‐ADR: personalization of treatment in cardiovascular disease through next‐generation
sequencing in adverse drug reactions
n/ad
n/a
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/109336_en.html
a
Studies listed in chronological order.
b
The EU PAS Register search page is available at http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/studySearch.htm.
c
CORDIS: European Commission's Community Research and Development Information Service.
d
Not applicable: the study objective was the development of genetic risk assessment
and diagnostic tools.
The long‐term success of the network will depend on its capacity to keep current members
engaged and involve new members to take‐up future methodological challenges, taking
into account that new data sources such as social media and big data will likely play
an increasing role in the benefit‐risk evaluation of medicinal products. In this regard,
a concept paper on methodological aspects associated with use of different models
for data extraction and analysis from electronic health records, their validation,
and their regulatory applications is being developed.
3.2
Better knowledge and accessibility of data sources
An objective of ENCePP is to identify data from clinical or administrative electronic
databases available in Europe, coordinate these data in a comprehensive and public
inventory, and facilitate their access to researchers. Database holders and professionals
with expertise in use of specific data sources are invited to provide a description
of their core data (eg, coding systems and dictionaries used, type of events, and
medicinal products covered), demographic information, information on data linkage
and data access, and a list of relevant publications derived from the data.8 Since
2017, disease registries are also registered in the context of the EMA Patient Registry
Initiative.10 As of July 31, 2017, the inventory included 83 data sources (Figure 1).
The inventory provides key information on a large number of databases and helps investigators
identify relevant data sources available to answer specific research questions. It
represents a core source of information on data available for the benefit‐risk evaluation
of medicines.11
Figure 1
Distribution of 83 data sources registered in ENCePP (as of 31/07/2017), by type chosen
by the center registering the study (the total is 138 as a same data source may be
of several types)
3.3
Increased transparency for studies
In November 2010, the ENCePP e‐Register of Studies was launched to increase the transparency
of observational postauthorization studies and maximize the availability and accessibility
of postauthorization evidence on medicines.1 The idea of the registration of observational
studies in pharmacoepidemiology or other areas of epidemiology was controversial in
2010. Some authors did not favor it,12, 13, 14 while others considered that the ability
to upload the study protocols, study interim and final reports, and other relevant
documents increase transparency, facilitate collaborations, allow feedback by peer‐reviewers,
and may ultimately lead to better science. 15, 16 The ENCePP e‐Register was adopted
as the EU electronic Register of Postauthorization Studies (EU PAS Register®) following
the new EU pharmacovigilance legislation, which made it mandatory for marketing authorization
holders to register PASS imposed as a legal obligation by regulators—the so‐called
Risk Management Plan (RMP) category 1 and category 2 studies, and subsequently the
recommendation made in the EU Good pharmacovigilance practices to register other PASS
included in the RMP (RMP category 3 studies).7 It therefore became an essential tool
for the implementation of the legislation. As of July 31, 2017, 1,145 studies had
been registered (Figure 2); 368 of them (30.4%) had been finalized, and more than
half of them (n = 583, 50.9%) were studies requested by a regulatory authority, of
which 95 (16.3%) have been imposed as a legal obligation and 316 (54.2%) are included
in an EU RMP (Figure 3). Risk assessment and effectiveness evaluation have been the
main purpose of 49.7% and 26.7% of studies, respectively (Figure 4). Both objectives
are mentioned for 13.5% of the studies.
Figure 2
Number of studies registered in the EU PAS Register by ENCePP centers and other centers,
2011 to 2017 (total: 1145)
Figure 3
Distribution of studies registered in the EU PAS Register as of 31/07/2017 and requested
by a regulatory authority (n = 583), by regulatory status
Figure 4
Distribution of 1145 studies registered in the EU PAS Register as of 31/07/2017 according
to the main scope(s) (the total is 1716 as more than 1 scope is mentioned for some
studies)
Registration of studies in the EU PAS Register has changed the landscape of pharmacoepidemiology
and pharmacovigilance by giving public access to evaluations carried out on specific
drugs and safety concerns and providing visibility on investigators, data availability,
methods, and funding sources. The register has become a must‐go‐to source to learn
about studies addressing specific research questions and learn about their design
as a tool to plan new studies.
With the exception of imposed PASS, study registration is voluntary. It has been shown
that up to July 2015 49% of the PASS reviewed by PRAC in the context of regulatory
procedures had been entered in the EU PAS Register and only 43% of these entries had
a protocol available.17 This limitation may affect the usefulness of the registration
to judge the quality of the studies on the basis of a detailed description of the
design and analytical approach.18
On June 29, 2011, a workshop with medical journal editors sought their views toward
upload of study results before their acceptance and appearance in print. Although
the editors accepted in principle that study results of public health relevance could
be shared without delay, this confirmation did not reassure many investigators reluctant
to upload the study protocol and report in the EU PAS Register prior to the publication
in a scientific journal online or in print.19 A way forward could be that medical
journal editors would require the EU PAS Register number for all manuscripts reporting
results of postauthorization studies (even if study results have not yet been uploaded)
as a means to decrease publication bias, similarly to the existing requirement for
clinical trials.
3.4
Better methods for studies
In early discussions, ENCePP agreed that, rather than establishing an accreditation
system for centers, research quality would be best supported by providing recommendations
on the practical implementation of pharmacoepidemiological principles based on published
guidance and illustrative examples. The first ENCePP Guide on Methodological Standards
in Pharmacoepidemiology was published in May 2011 and has been updated annually by
structured review to maintain its dynamic nature. The sixth revision in July 2017
has 31 authors and 424 electronic references.20 The guide offers a concise, dynamic,
and publicly available Web resource for methodological English language guidance in
pharmacoepidemiology. An electronic version was introduced for the third revision
in 2013, and the number of times each revision has been viewed has since steadily
increased to about 50,000 for revision 5 (2015‐2016), while the entire document has
been downloaded about 10,000 times during the same period (Figure 5). The guide is
used for training in many institutions including research centers and industry and
cited as a reference source of methodological best practice in several regulatory
documents such as the EU good pharmacovigilance practice.7
Figure 5
Number of times the electronic ENCePP Guide on Methodological Standards in Pharmacoepidemiology
was viewed and downloaded from July 2012 to July 2017 [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
In parallel, ENCePP developed a Checklist for Study Protocols to stimulate researchers'
consideration of important principles when designing and writing a pharmacoepidemiological
study protocol, to facilitate protocol review by other parties, and to promote transparency
regarding methodologies and design used in studies. To assist regulatory authorities
in identifying whether such principles have been applied in PASS protocols, pharmaceutical
companies have to append the checklist to protocols submitted to regulators.7, 21
3.5
Better governance for studies including management of interests
In line with its aim to promote transparency and scientific independence, the ENCePP
developed a Code of Conduct laying out best practice in the relationship between investigators
and study funders, irrespective of whether the study funder is a public body, industry,
or a regulatory authority.22 At the core of scientific independence is the provision
that no person with a financial, commercial, or personal interest in a particular
outcome of the study shall take part in any study activity that could influence the
results or their interpretation in any particular direction. To ensure transparent
research, the code requires registration of the study in a public registry (for instance,
the EU PAS Register) and agreement to make public relevant information including the
Checklist for Study Protocols, study data specified in the guidance for sharing of
ENCePP Study Data,23 and the content of the research contract or a declaration on
the use of own resources.
To confirm a commitment to comply with the provisions of the code, the lead investigator
may apply for an ENCePP Seal. This requires the provision of a signed checklist and
signed declaration of compliance with the Code of Conduct, the signed Checklist for
Study Protocols, and a signed Declaration of Interests to the ENCePP Secretariat prior
to study start. The study has also to be registered in the EU PAS Register, and the
full protocol must be uploaded prior to data collection or extraction. Once the ENCePP
Secretariat has confirmed the a priori eligibility for the seal, it adds the ENCePP
Seal logo to the registration record and the investigators can use this logo on materials
and publications. The lead investigator may, however, ask to postpone the publication
of the protocol until the study is finalized. As of July 31, 2017, 45 studies had
an ENCePP Seal. The protocol and final study report have been published for all of
the 15 finalized studies, while the study protocol has been published for 7 of the
22 ongoing studies (31.8%) and for 2 of 8 planned studies (25.0%).
The ENCePP Code of Conduct has been a landmark document defining the relationships
between study sponsors and investigators willing to conduct studies with full scientific
independence. It became a key reference for the conduct of studies and underpinned
the development of guidance by other groups,24 but it has shown some limitations:
the key principle of scientific independence is not explicitly defined and, even though
many provisions of the code are written as obligations, their application is a matter
of commitment without verification that they have been implemented. The ENCePP Seal,
which was developed to formalize this commitment, has a low uptake, and the publication
of the protocol was often postponed until the study end. Furthermore, the wording
of the code may be interpreted as suggesting that some of its provisions do not apply
if the seal is not requested. A working group is currently evaluating the need to
improve the ENCePP Code of Conduct and the ENCePP Seal concept in light of the experience
and to better define and implement the principle of scientific independence.
3.6
Other activities
To answer specific questions or respond to consultations, different ad hoc working
groups have been created over time (information on www.encepp.eu). A concept paper
addressed the legal definition of “noninterventional trials,” and a collaboration
with representatives of HTA bodies looked at specific HTA‐related methodological aspects
of studies. A special interest group (SIG) on Drug Safety in Pregnancy was created
to inform future activities of ENCePP in medicines used in pregnancy and lactation,
to liaise with other relevant groups in this field, and to develop an overview of
data sources for drug safety in pregnancy research. A SIG on Measuring the Impact
of Pharmacovigilance Activities was created to provide recommendations to the PRAC
on key methodologies for measuring health outcomes of pharmacovigilance measures in
the context of the overall evaluation of the impact of pharmacovigilance systems.25
4
LESSONS LEARNED
The ENCePP has been created in a heterogeneous landscape of academic centers, research
organizations and database owners, and a changing regulatory environment in pharmacovigilance
and pharmacoepidemiology. There was therefore a risk that differing priorities and
constraints would lead to divergent routes after an initial period of collaboration.
We believe that several factors explain that ENCePP achieved important outcomes from
its onset and remained a coherent, dynamic, and active network over 10 years: (1)
a recognized need for collaboration to address limitations in the pharmacoepidemiological
landscape and keep abreast of methodological, regulatory, and organizational developments
(eg, increased use of existing data sources, new legislation on PASS, new funding
opportunities); (2) a firm commitment to common guiding principles of transparency,
scientific independence, and quality standards; (3) an acknowledgment of the diversity
in the centers' domain of expertise and capacity to collaborate; (4) a strong governance
based on an elected Steering group and several working groups, with the support from
EMA; (5) last but not least, the ability to meet face to face in plenary meetings
on a periodic basis and to actively contribute to the development of good practice
and regulatory guidance. All these factors have been instrumental to foster and accelerate
partnership between research centers and improve the implementation of collaborative
studies.
5
FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
Table 3 lists priorities proposed for the next years of ENCePP based on the further
development of existing activities described in this article.
Table 3
Future perspectives for the next years of ENCePP network
(1) Facilitate the initiation and conduct of observational research in Europe and
propose mechanisms to support multinational and multidatabase studies
(2) Improve the ENCePP code of conduct with additional tools to promote transparency,
scientific independence, and good governance of pharmacoepidemiological research
(3) Ensure that the ENCePP network remains focused on public health and supports health
decision‐makers such as regulatory authorities, health technology assessment bodies,
and public health institutions
(4) Ensure that the network embraces relevant innovative data sources and areas of
activity, eg, social media information and big data
(5) Continue to support best methodological practices in the conduct of pharmacoepidemiology
(6) Further develop the “pharmacovigilance” component of ENCePP and develop a methodological
framework for measuring the public health impact of pharmacovigilance activities
The integration of the “pharmacovigilance” component into the network's activities
has not been fully realized so far. This may be because a well‐structured network
of national and/or regional pharmacovigilance centers has existed for a long time
in Europe with a coordination of activities at national and European levels and that
a 5 year research project on methods in pharmacovigilance (the IMI PROTECT project)
was started in September 2009 with the objective to review and develop if necessary
methods for signal detection,26 and its results were integrated into the ENCePP Guide
on methodological standards. An ENCePP SIG has been initiated to review the application
of pharmacoepidemiological methods to measure the public health impact of pharmacovigilance
activities (information on www.encepp.eu), and ENCePP will work together with the
PRAC, the International Society of Pharmacovigilance, and other networks to identify
other areas where a collaboration will strengthen the benefit‐risk evaluation of medicines.
A Joint Task Force of ISPE and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and
Outcome Research recently published recommendations to enhance decision‐makers' confidence
in evidence derived from real‐world studies.27, 28 The principles of transparency
in the process for database studies, transparency in study execution, and good procedural
practices they promote are very close to those recommended in the ENCePP Code of Conduct,
Checklist for Study Protocols, and Guide for Methodological Standards. Close collaboration
among ISPE, IPOR, and ENCePP, for example, through cross‐reference to each other's
recommendations, common publications, and collaboration in the annual updating of
the ENCePP Guide on Methodological Standards, would provide a unique opportunity to
promote common principles and standards on a global scale.
An important challenge remains: studies still take a long time to be finalized, often
because of administrative aspects, slow access to available health data often due
to data protection concerns, heterogeneous systems, or lack of resources. The European
Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance will need to address
the challenges by using innovative tools and designs and new data sources to conduct
faster studies through collaborations.
6
CONCLUSIONS
In 10 years, the ENCePP has made a major contribution to the benefit‐risk evaluation
of medicinal products in Europe and beyond by providing methodological recommendations
complementing regulatory guidance on postauthorization safety studies. The development
of the EU PAS Register also changed the landscape of pharmacoepidemiology in Europe
by increasing transparency of observational research, giving access to study protocols
and results and supporting the implementation of the pharmacovigilance legislation.
The ENCePP Code of Conduct aims to promote transparency and scientific independence
in research, but its implementation depends on researchers' commitment and it is being
reviewed in light of the constraints imposed in transparency and restriction of study
funders' involvement in the study. Perhaps most importantly, ENCePP has created a
strong European community supporting methodological standards, transparency, and scientific
independence in pharmacoepidemiological research.
DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors and may
not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the positions
of their employer organization.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
X.K. is an employee of the EMA, the chair of the ENCePP Steering Group, and the co‐chair
of ENCePP WG1 on Research Standards. S.P.G. is the vice president and global head
of epidemiology at RTI‐HS, a former co‐chair of the ENCePP Steering Group, and a former
co‐chair of ENCePP WG1 on Research Standards.