Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Valeant May Add As Many As Three New Board Members This Week
The Wall Street Journal: Valeant In Talks To Add New Board Members
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. is in discussions to add as many as three new directors to its board as the drugmaker seeks to reassure investors, according to people familiar with the matter. Three candidates the Canadian drugmaker is considering, the people said, are Fred Eshelman, a veteran pharmaceutical executive; Stephen Fraidin, a senior executive at William Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management LP, a major Valeant shareholder; and Thomas Ross, former president of the University of North Carolina system. (Hoffman and McNish, 3/8)
Reuters: Valeant To Appoint Three New Directors As Soon As Wednesday: Sources
Embattled drug company Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc, whose stock price has tumbled 38 percent this year, will appoint three new board members as soon as Wednesday, people familiar with the matter said on Tuesday. The drug maker will award one of the seats to Pershing Square Capital Management, one of its biggest investors, two people familiar with the matter said. (Herbst-Bayliss and O'Donnell, 3/8)
In other news, the Food and Drug Administration makes a deal with Amarin —
The New York Times: F.D.A. Deal Allows Amarin To Promote Drug For Off-Label Use
In a deal that could change the way some companies market their drugs, the Food and Drug Administration has agreed to allow a pharmaceutical company to promote a drug for a use that the agency has not approved, the company said on Tuesday. The agreement settles a legal case between the agency and the company, Amarin, a small drug maker that sued the F.D.A. last year for the right to promote its only product, Vascepa, to a broader range of patients. In August, a federal district judge in Manhattan ruled that the F.D.A. could not prohibit Amarin from using truthful information to promote its drug, even for unapproved uses, because doing so would violate the company’s right to free speech. (Thomas, 3/8)
