As part of its policy goal of promoting innovation, the Commission’s proposed Regulation creates the concept of a “regulatory sandbox.” If the concept survives the legislative process, the sandbox will be a structured, regulated and time-limited environment in which innovative technologies, products, services or approaches might be tested in a “real world environment,” subject to
On 26 April 2023, the European Commission published its long awaited proposal to revise the EU’s general pharmaceutical legislation. As expected, the Commission’s proposal represents a significant overhaul of the EU medicine rules. Not least the incorporation of the EU’s amended paediatric and orphan medicine rules into a single
This is the first in a series of Covington blogs about the EU’s proposals to amend the current pharmaceutical regulatory framework, which were released today (see here). It introduces some of the key aims and themes and invites readers to read more in-depth summaries as we release them.
The proposals have been in
Complex international pharmaceutical supply chains often separate the physical flow of product from financial flows or flows of legal title. Tune in to this episode of Covington’s Life Sciences Audiocast, where Grant Castle, Robin Blaney and Marie Doyle-Rossi, discuss how the EU and UK pharmaceutical rules seek to regulate these tax and
Tune into the third episode of Covington’s Life Sciences Audiocast, where Grant Castle, Stefanie Doebler, and Raj Gathani discuss social media challenges for pharma companies in Europe and the U.S.
Last week, Jeremy Hunt, Chancellor of the Exchequer, published his Spring Budget for the UK. It identified life sciences and digital technologies as “high growth sectors,” which the UK Government wishes to prioritize. Among other things, the Budget outlined the Government’s plans to simplify medicines and technology approvals, plus changes to the regulation
Tune into the first episode of Covington’s Talking Life Sciences Audiocast, where Grant Castle, Peter Bogaert and Marie Doyle-Rossi discuss key developments and trends in the pharma sector. Our speakers review the major issues of 2022, including the Clinical Trials Regulation, the Health Technology Assessment Regulation, European Health Data Space proposal and Brexit.
On 26 January 2023, the UK’s Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (“PMCPA”) published its “Social Media Guidance 2023” (the “Guidance”).
The Guidance is the first of its kind in the UK and is long-awaited.
The PMCPA is the self-regulatory body that administers and enforces the ABPI Code (the voluntary advertising code that many pharmaceutical companies adhere to in the UK). The ABPI Code sets out a number of overarching principles but does not address social media in detail. The PMCPA had some years ago published “digital guidelines” but these were archived for updating.
The first – and probably most important – thing to say about the Guidance is that it (finally) exists. Social media has become a major compliance headache for UK pharmaceutical companies. These days a significant number of PMCPA complaints, investigations and adjudications concern corporate or employee social media activity, particularly on LinkedIn. The absence of clear and codified guidance until now led to a lack of clarity. Key regulatory principles had evolved through a series of case rulings, which were often highly fact-dependent. While dissecting cases into the early hours may be interesting for us pharmaceutical advertising lawyers, compliance teams will likely appreciate having codified guidelines to refer to.
Secondly, the Guidance is likely to disappoint anyone hoping for seismic shifts in the PMCPA’s regulatory approach. Much of the Guidance aligns closely to rules and principles that had developed in the Authority’s case history. It also broadly aligns with EFPIA’s and IFPMA’s recently published “Guidelines Concerning the Use of Social Media and Digital Media Channels” (see our blog post).
On 28 September 2022, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) published joint guidelines concerning the use of social media and digital media channels by pharmaceutical companies (Joint Digital Guidelines). IFPMA and EFPIA are umbrella trade bodies for the innovative pharmaceutical industry on the global and European stages, respectively.
The Joint Digital Guidelines are timely. Digital communications and the use of social media have become hot compliance topics for the pharmaceutical industry, both in Europe and globally. Actors in the healthcare world increasingly use digital communication channels; many clinicians, patients and patient organizations actually prefer to receive content digitally. With more content comes higher compliance risk. Digital communications, particularly over social media, can spread fast across borders and are often publicly accessible.
It is no surprise that a very significant number of pharmaceutical advertising cases in European markets now concern digital channels or social media. This certainly reflects our experience; and this is an area where our pharmaceutical advertising experts are continually advising clients.
In three days’ time (on May 26, 2022), the EU Regulation on In-vitro-Diagnostic Medical Devices (the “IVDR”) becomes applicable in Europe. But what will this mean for companies who sell in-vitro-diagnostic medical devices (“IVDs”) in the UK?
Following the UK’s exit from the EU, the IVDR will not become effective within Great Britain (i.e., England, Scotland and Wales), but it will apply to Northern Ireland. Companies operating in both the EU/Northern Ireland and Great Britain will therefore need to be aware of the different obligations applicable to IVDs between these jurisdictions.
IVDR Background
The IVDR will replace the existing EU IVD Directive (the “IVDD”), but will not change the fundamental principles of how IVDs are regulated. IVDs will be still be subject to a system of self-certification, notified body assessment (in certain instances) and CE marking. Most notably, under the current system, ~90% of IVDs are self-assessed for conformity and self-certified by the IVD’s manufacturer. By contrast under the IVDR, the new classification rules mean that this will be flipped to require ~90% of IVDs to be subject to notified body assessment. This creates practical issues for manufacturers, since there are currently only seven notified bodies who are authorized to conduct conformity assessments under the IVDR.
Continue Reading What do companies supplying IVDs to the UK market need to know about the IVDR?