• Sarah L Miller, Alyson Haslam, and Vinay Prasad.
• Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
• Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 2024 Jun 1; 54 (6): e14184e14184.

ObjectiveTo assess the characteristics and financial conflicts of interest of presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with or hosted by the US FDA.SettingWe included information on all publicly available haematology or oncology FDA workshop agendas held between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022.ExposureGeneral and research payments reported on Open Payments, industry funding to patient advocacy organizations reported on their webpages or 990 tax forms and employment in both pharmaceutical and regulatory settings.ResultsAmong physicians eligible for payments, 78% received at least one payment from the industry between 2017 and 2021. The mean general payment amount was $82,170 for all years ($16,434 per year) and the median was $14,906 for all years ($2981 per year). Sixty-nine per cent of patient advocacy speakers were representing organizations that received financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Among those representing regulatory agencies or pharmaceutical companies, 16% had worked in both settings during their careers.Conclusions And RelevanceOur findings in this cross-sectional study show a majority of US-based physician presenters at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with members of the US FDA have some financial conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These findings support the need for clear disclosures and suggest that a more balanced selection of presenters with fewer conflicts may help to limit bias in discussions between multiple stakeholders.© 2024 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

20 keywords...

hide…