Are FDA Panel Votes on Psych Drugs Tainted by Public Speakers' COIs?

"This study confirms what we've seen in the context of many other FDA advisory committee meetings, which is that a substantial number of public speakers have financial ties to the product sponsor and that, unsurprisingly, these speakers are likely to support product approval," Matthew McCoy, PhD, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

"In principle," said McCoy, who was not involved with the study, "public comment periods have the potential to enhance deliberations by providing patient and other perspectives that aren't represented on the advisory committee. These findings are concerning because they provide further evidence that public comment periods are actually being leveraged to reinforce the sponsor's message under the guise of neutrality suggested by the word 'public.' "