Prevalence of ties to industry-funded organizations among patient and consumer representatives on FDA advisory committees

Clicks: 7
ID: 331669
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #158 of 168 articles by views in Health Affairs Scholar

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 168 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction FDA advisory committees are primarily composed of scientific experts, but also include a patient representative and a consumer representative providing public perspectives. Although the FDA has enacted policies to curb conflicts of interest common among its scientific members, it has paid less attention to potential conflicts arising from patient and consumer representatives who have ties to organizations financially supported by pharmaceutical companies. Methods We analyzed the prevalence of industry funding of advocacy organizations in which patient and consumer representatives were actively involved in the year they attended FDA advisory committee meetings between 2013 and 2022. Results Between 2013 and 2022, nearly two in five (38%) FDA advisory committee meetings included either a patient or consumer representative with active ties to a pharmaceutical-funded advocacy organization. For several FDA committees, this share was greater than 50%. More than 1 in 10 (11%) advisory committee meetings included a representative affiliated with an organization receiving funds from the sponsor of the drug under review. Conclusion These prevalence rates show that these organizational relationships extend beyond isolated cases and signal a broader problem warranting FDA policy attention.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220858323 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Genevieve P. Kanter, Toni Mankowitz
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Health Affairs Scholar
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/haschl/qxag269
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag269
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.