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 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.

Assessment of preparation time with fully-liquid versus non-fully liquid paediatric hexavalent vaccines. A time and motion study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Simplified vaccine preparation steps would save time and reduce potential immunisation errors. The aim of the study was to assess vaccine preparation time with fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine (DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T, Sanofi Pasteur MSD) versus non-fully liquid hexavalent vaccine that needs reconstitution (DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals). METHODS: Ninety-six Health Care Professionals (HCPs) participated in a randomised, cross-over, open-label, time and motion study in Belgium (2014). HCPs prepared each vaccine in a cross-over manner with a wash-out period of 3-5min. An independent nurse assessed preparation time and immunisation errors by systematic review of the videos. HCPs satisfaction and preference were evaluated by a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Average preparation time was 36s for the fully-liquid vaccine and 70.5s for the non-fully liquid vaccine. The time saved using the fully-liquid vaccine was 34.5s (p≤0.001). On 192 preparations, 57 immunisation errors occurred: 47 in the non-fully liquid vaccine group (including one missing reconstitution of Hib component), 10 in the fully-liquid vaccine group. 71.9% of HCPs were very or somewhat satisfied with the ease of handling of both vaccines; 66.7% and 67.7% were very or somewhat satisfied with speed of preparation in the fully-liquid vaccine and the non-fully liquid vaccine groups, respectively. Almost all HCPs (97.6%) stated they would prefer the use of the fully-liquid vaccine in their daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: Preparation of a fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine can be completed in half the time necessary to prepare a non-fully liquid vaccine. The simplicity of the fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine preparation helps optimise reduction of immunisation errors.