Pharmaceuticals—regulatory framework

Introduction to the regulation of medicinal products

A medicinal product is defined as a substance that is either:

  1. presented as preventing or treating disease, or

  2. used to correct or modify a physiological function by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to make a medical diagnosis

It is often obvious whether a product should be classified as a medicinal product, medical device, cosmetic product, food, or a biocide. On the other hand, the regulatory status of so-called ‘borderline products’ is not immediately clear. The regulatory classification of a product can have important ramifications, for example, on how the product is regulated (and by whom), how long it will take before such product can be commercialised (especially if pre-market approval is required), how the product can be marketed and what advertising claims can be made etc. For an analysis of the definition of medicinal product and the borderline between medicinal products and other products, see Practice Note: Introduction to borderline products.

The borderline between cosmetic products and those that are regulated as a medicinal product or medical device or have health claims made when promoting them

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Life Sciences News

Life Sciences weekly highlights—3 April 2025

This week's edition of Life Sciences weekly highlights includes analysis by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP of the UK Court of Appeal judgment confirming it cannot deviate from previous UK precedent on second medical use SPCs (Merck Serono v Comptroller-General of Patents), analysis by Arnold & Porter of the Court of Justice decision clarifying whether various promotional schemes offered by pharmacists such as discounts or rewards schemes constitute ‘advertising of medicines’ under Directive 2001/83/EC, as well as, Law360 analyses of the Court of Appeal’s injunction decision striking a compromise to permit rival Glenmark to ship supplies of its generic already packed in trucks without progressing to retail sales (AstraZeneca v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals), the impact of the Unified Patent Court asserting its authority to hear claims involving UK patents, reporting of a nonbinding opinion advising the Court of Justice to uphold a €60.5m fine against Teva and Cephalon for an alleged pay-for-delay conspiracy and the impact of the new EU Product Liability Directive on tech and AI. Also included, is news of the ICO levying a £3.07m fine against Advanced Computer Software Group following a 2022 ransomware attack that compromised personal data including NHS patient data, the European Commission publishing an Explanatory Guide to the microplastics restriction regulation, of MHRA CEO Dame June Raine’s retirement, and the DHSC dispute resolution panel ruling that B. Braun is liable for scheme rebate payments because its off-contract sales of a branded sedative do not qualify for exceptional central procurement exemption under VPAS due to NHS England procurement, among several other important stories.

View Life Sciences by content type :

Popular documents