Another day, another conflict involving the FDA advisory panel held last week to review the Avandia diabetes pill. As it turns out, a doctor who voted against leaving Avandia on the market was a paid speaker for Takeda Pharmaceutical, which sells the rival Actos drug. The panel member is Abraham Thomas, who heads the endocrinology and diabetes division at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, according to The Wall Street Journal.

A Takeda spokewoman confirms that Thomas was a member of its Diabetes Speakers Bureau from September 2007 and September 2008, and gave two presentations for which he was paid between $2,000 and $3,000, but is no longer part of the program (see a recent disclosure here). “I do not remember there being any issue brought up about the Takeda speakers bureau” by the FDA” he tells the paper. “This may be due to the fact this was several years ago.”

Yesterday, David Capuzzi, who has been a professor at Thomas Jefferson University in Phildelphia, acknowledged he has been a paid speaker for GlaxoSmithKline, which sells Avandia, although he maintains he spoke about other drugs. However, a Glaxo spokesman told us Capuzzi has spoken one time about the Glaxo pill (back story). All totaled, Capuzzi received $14,750.

The FDA committee voted 20-12 to leave Avandia on the market, although most of the 20 voted for extra restrictions and stronger warnings. Thomas was one of the 12 panelists who voted to remove the drug. Yesterday, the FDA told us it is investigating the relationship between Capuzzi and Glaxo. An FDA spokeswoman says today a decision is expected by the end of the week and, if the agency determines there was misconduct, the matter could be referred to the HHS Office of Inspector General.

A failure to disclose any financial relationship within the previous 12 months is a serious no-no, so Thomas’ relationship to Takeda may not be an issue. Nonetheless, the agency may want to take a close look at their conflict-of-interest procedures and ensure that questions are asked in such a way that panel members are clear about the info they are expected to provide. Capuzzi, for instance, claims the wording of the questions were unclear.