3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

          To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support. Medline (January 1966 to December 2002) and Embase (January 1980 to December 2002) searches were supplemented with material identified in the references and in the authors' personal files. Data were independently abstracted by three of the authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus. 30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality. Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

            Despite increasing awareness about the potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on biomedical research, no comprehensive synthesis of the body of evidence relating to financial conflicts of interest has been performed. To review original, quantitative studies on the extent, impact, and management of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (January 1980-October 2002), the Web of Science citation database, references of articles, letters, commentaries, editorials, and books and by contacting experts. All English-language studies containing original, quantitative data on financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions were included. A total of 1664 citations were screened, 144 potentially eligible full articles were retrieved, and 37 studies met our inclusion criteria. One investigator (J.E.B.) extracted data from each of the 37 studies. The main outcomes were the prevalence of specific types of industry relationships, the relation between industry sponsorship and study outcome or investigator behavior, and the process for disclosure, review, and management of financial conflicts of interest. Approximately one fourth of investigators have industry affiliations, and roughly two thirds of academic institutions hold equity in start-ups that sponsor research performed at the same institutions. Eight articles, which together evaluated 1140 original studies, assessed the relation between industry sponsorship and outcome in original research. Aggregating the results of these articles showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions (pooled Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio, 3.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.63-4.91). Industry sponsorship was also associated with restrictions on publication and data sharing. The approach to managing financial conflicts varied substantially across academic institutions and peer-reviewed journals. Financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions are widespread. Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Promoting and Protecting Public Health: How the European Union Pharmacovigilance System Works

              This article provides an overview of the European Union pharmacovigilance system resulting from the rationalisation and strengthening delivered through the implementation of the revised pharmacovigilance legislation. It outlines the system aims, underlying principles, components and drivers for future change. At its core, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee is responsible for assessing all aspects of the risk management of medicinal products, thus ensuring that medicines approved for the European Union market are optimally used by maximising their benefits and minimising risks. The main objectives of the system are to promote and protect public health by supporting the availability of medicines including those that fulfil previously unmet medical needs, and reducing the burden of adverse drug reactions. These are achieved through a proactive, risk proportionate and patient-centred approach, with high levels of transparency and engagement of civil society. In the European Union, pharmacovigilance is now fully integrated into the life cycle of medicinal products, with the planning of pharmacovigilance activities commencing before a medicine is placed on the market, and companies encouraged to start planning very early in development for high-innovation products. After authorisation, information on the safety of medicines continues to be obtained through a variety of sources, including spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions or monitoring real-world data. Finally, the measurement of the impact of pharmacovigilance activities, auditing and inspections, as well as capacity building ensure that the system undergoes continuous improvement and can always rely on the best methodologies to safeguard public health.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                thomas.goedecke@ema.europa.eu
                Journal
                Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf
                Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf
                10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1557
                PDS
                Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1053-8569
                1099-1557
                05 March 2019
                April 2019
                : 28
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1002/pds.v28.4 )
                : 422-433
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Osservatorio di Epidemiologia Agenzia regionale di sanità della Toscana Florence Italy
                [ 2 ] Global Medical Affairs ICON Commercialisation & Outcomes Lyon France
                [ 3 ] Faculty of Life and Health Sciences University of Ulster at Jordanstown Jordanstown UK
                [ 4 ] Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology Department, Inspections, Human Medicines Pharmacovigilance and Committees Division European Medicines Agency Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 5 ] Global Epidemiology Merck Group Darmstadt Germany
                [ 6 ] Mother and Child Health Research Unit IRD Universite Paris Descartes Paris France
                [ 7 ] Pharmacovigilanz Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM) Bonn Germany
                [ 8 ] Vice President European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC) Brussels Belgium
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                T. Goedecke, Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology Department, Inspections, Human Medicines Pharmacovigilance and Committees Division, European Medicines Agency, Domenico Scarlattilaan 6, 1083 HS Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

                Email: thomas.goedecke@ 123456ema.europa.eu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6250-877X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6639-5904
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9838-7754
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0931-2652
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0141-4518
                Article
                PDS4763 PDS-19-0017.R1
                10.1002/pds.4763
                6594014
                30838708
                8db85ca0-c96f-4857-95eb-c3c8794b0ff8
                © 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.

                History
                : 15 January 2019
                : 08 February 2019
                : 12 February 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Pages: 12, Words: 5829
                Categories
                Review
                Reviews
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                pds4763
                April 2019
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.6.5 mode:remove_FC converted:26.06.2019

                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine
                conflict of interest,ethics,observational studies as topic,pharmacoepidemiology,pharmacovigilance,practise guideline,research

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content79

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors194