Introduction

On 4 June, EU Member States, meeting in the Council of the European Union (‘Council’), have agreed on a position on the pharmaceutical reform package.

This agreement was reached despite significant divergences between EU Member States in the preceding weeks. It marks a key milestone in the process for adoption of the EU revision of EU’s general pharmaceutical legislation, as it sets out the Council’s position for the trilogue negotiations to find a text agreeable to the Parliament and the Council, which can now begin.

The innovative pharmaceutical industry will welcome aspects of the Council’s adopted negotiating mandate as it provides greater certainty with regards to regulatory data protection and it lightens some of the obligations introduced in the European Commission proposal for reform of the EU pharmaceutical legislation adopted in April 2023 and the European Parliament’s position adopted on 10 April 2024 (see our detailed advisory). At the same time, the Council has adopted positions on some aspects of the proposals that could be seen as less favourable to industry.

We discuss some of the key provisions and changes in the Council’s adopted position below. This is, however, not covering all elements of the reform of the EU pharmaceutical legislation and the final outcome of the legislative process remains uncertain.

Continue Reading Council of the European Union backs reforms to the EU Regulatory Framework for Medicinal Products

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has published a draft Reflection Paper proposing a streamlined pathway for the approval for certain biosimilar medicinal products (biosimilars) in the EU by reducing the clinical data requirements where justified.

Biosimilars are biological medicinal products that are demonstrated to be highly similar to an already authorised biological medicinal product, known as the reference medicinal product (RMP), with no clinically meaningful differences in terms of quality, safety, or efficacy. Biosimilar marketing authorisation applications are subject to reduced data requirements compared to a full application. However, the applicant must submit a data package from a comparability exercise demonstrating that the purported biosimilar is highly similar to the RMP. Typically, this will require a comparative Clinical Efficacy Study (CES) to confirm the similarity (though this requirement can already be waived in certain circumstances).

In its Reflection Paper, the EMA sets out the prerequisites for more general principles for when requirements for a CES may be waived, and only a limited, targeted clinical data package (based on a comparative pharmacokinetic (PK) trial) will be accepted. Where this approach is adopted, this is likely to reduce the clinical development burdens for biosimilar companies.

Continue Reading The European Medicines Agency Proposes Streamlined Pathway for the Approval of Biosimilar Medicinal Products in the EU

Welcome to the latest installment of Arnold & Porter’s Virtual and Digital Health Digest. This digest covers key virtual and digital health regulatory and public policy developments during April and early May 2025 from the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union.

Cybersecurity is a hot topic in the UK and EU this month. In both, cybersecurity plans are developing, with the European Commission conducting a consultation on the EU Action Plan to strengthen cybersecurity within hospitals and health care providers, and the UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill being published, introduced partly because of cyberattacks on UK hospitals. This is clearly an important area for developers of digital products and services, who should watch the progress of these policies closely.

Continue Reading Virtual and Digital Health Digest – May 2025

On 21 May 2025, the European Commission published its Proposal for a Regulation (“Proposal”), amending several existing regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/67 (“GDPR”), to simplify obligations for small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and extend certain mitigating measures to small mid-cap enterprises (“SMCs”).

Continue Reading Proposed GDPR Simplifications for SMEs and SMCs

Do discount campaigns on prescription-only medicines (POMs) run by mail order pharmacies lure patients into consuming medicinal products? The European Court of Justice (CJEU) in the case of Apothekerkammer Nordrhein (C-517/23) has held that they do not.

Following on from the AG Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, which we provided an update on earlier in the year, this case is the latest in a stream of cases on advertising practices involving DocMorris, a Dutch mail-order pharmacy that supplies medicines to end customers in Germany. The CJEU concluded that the discount campaigns regarding unspecified POMs do not fall within the definition of “advertising of medicinal products” (Article 86(1) Directive 2001/83) as the discount is implemented at the point of purchase of the POM.  The decision of which product to prescribe has already been taken by a doctor and all the patient is left to do is choose the dispensing pharmacy. As such, the Court held that the purpose of the discount campaign is not to encourage patients to purchase medicinal products. Rather, it is simply to attract them to a specific pharmacy.

The facts of the case are set out in our previous blog available here.

Continue Reading An update from the European Court of Justice on discount campaigns run by mail order pharmacies

The current EU regulatory landscape for biotechnology is widely viewed as insufficient to be able to exploit the full potential of such technologies. Regulatory hurdles exist at EU and Member State level, and this is thought to have driven investment into other regions.

To help tackle this problem, the introduction of a new EU Biotech Act (the Act) has been proposed by the Commission to encourage innovation in areas such as health technology assessment and clinical trials. A simpler regulatory landscape, with no reduction to safety standards, will be a central aim of the Act.

However, it was announced on 20 March 2025 that the Act has been delayed until the third quarter of 2026 (initially due in the last quarter of 2025). As such, it remains to be seen what shape the Act will take, including whether any changes will be limited to setting out general guidelines, or whether it will take the form of a binding legal instrument, imposing specific measures to which Member States and EU institutions must adhere. Various studies and papers have been developed following the announcement of the proposed Act, and it is hoped that as these are finalised, they will provide further insight into what we can expect.

Continue Reading EU Biotech Act– what we know so far

Welcome to the latest installment of Arnold & Porter’s Virtual and Digital Health Digest. This digest covers key virtual and digital health regulatory and public policy developments during March and early April 2025 from the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union.

The biggest change this month is that as of March 25, 2025, the European Health Data Space Regulation (EHDS Regulation) is now in force. This means that, as it is gradually implemented, companies will be able to request access to electronic health data for health care purposes, including for use in scientific research, and may be required to share certain health data that they hold. The implementation of the EHDS Regulation is likely to raise a number of questions, which future European Commission implementing regulations or guidelines may clarify.

Continue Reading Virtual and Digital Health Digest – April 2025

On 11 April 2025, the MHRA announced  that the much anticipated changes to the clinical trial rules in the UK, the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (the new Regulations), have been signed into law.

In January, we posted a detailed blog on the upcoming changes to the UK law governing clinical trials, noting that this had been described as the “biggest overhaul of the clinical trial regulations in 20 years”, and is intended to cement the UK as a world-class destination for conducting international clinical trials, to “support [a] more streamlined and flexible regulation of clinical trials, removing unnecessary administrative burdens on trial sponsors, whilst protecting the interests of trial participants.”

The new Regulations will come into effect on 10 April 2026, following a 12 month roll out period. The MHRA states in its announcement that it is “committed to implementing a flexible and risk-proportionate regulation of clinical trials, which accelerates patient access to potentially life-saving medicines without compromising safety.”

Continue Reading Recent updates on reform of UK clinical trial landscape

The European Data Protection Body (EDPB) has published a study on how personal health data is and/or can be reused for scientific research in the EU under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The study highlights the related practical challenges due to divergent interpretations of the GDPR and national rules across EU Member States.

The key conclusions of the study are set out below:

Continue Reading European Data Protection Board publishes study on secondary use of personal health data for scientific research

 In our blog in December 2024, we provided an update on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) final rule, revising the regulatory definition of an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) to explicitly capture IVDs manufactured by laboratories (known as laboratory developed tests or LDTs). We noted that two cases had been filed challenging the FDA’s authority to regulate LDTs.

On March 31, 2025, the Eastern District of Texas granted the laboratory plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and vacated the FDA’s LDT Final Rule, ruling in favor of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP). The ruling was widely anticipated and is among the first challenges to FDA rulemaking decided post-Loper Bright. In rejecting the final rule, the court agreed with ACLA and AMP that laboratory-developed tests are services, not devices.

Read our Advisory for details on this ruling.