For the second time in as many years, an analysis has found that public speakers at Food and Drug Administration advisory committee meetings have notable financial conflicts, raising questions about the extent to which such ties may somehow influence the deliberations.

In the latest analysis, 25 percent of the public speakers at 15 meetings held between September 2009 and April 2017 by the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee, which reviews opioids and other painkillers, had conflicts of interest.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • STAT+ Conversations
  • Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.
  • It cuts both ways. I have seen “public speakers” from company B show up to criticize the product of company A that was under review by the advisory committee. The public speakers at these sessions are really quite a grab bag.

  • From the meetings I’ve spoken at and commented on in CNS and antibiotics, I’m surprised it’s only 25% here. More of this kind of scrutiny needs to happen, and more attention paid to patient advocacy groups, who receive millions from the drug companies as marketing arms for them.

  • As a frequent panelist, this comes as no surprise. It seems that most disclose that travel was paid for by the sponsor, but even if they don’t I would assume that a (insert middle class job / retiree) who travels from Iowa to speak for 5 minutes at an AdCom isn’t spending a grand or more because they love the product so much.

    Furthermore, while it’s valuable to hear from actual patients, I’m sure the AdCom members (myself included) rely far more on the RCT data than on anecdotes from patients — it’s clearly a biased sample who cares enough to show up and speak.

    As an AdCom member the most valuable thing is when we get to ask patients a question or two, which can help us understand side effects or how easy a product (particular medical devices) are to use.

Comments are closed.

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy