Advanced therapeutics

Advanced therapy medicinal products

The development of medicine, biomicrobiology and biotechnology has led to the emergence of a category of medicinal product that use gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and engineered tissues for preventing, treating or even curing human diseases. The novelty, complexity and diversity of such products has demanded new regulatory tools to allow an appropriate balancing of the risks and the benefits for the patients. EU and UK legislation regulates this category of products as ‘advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs)’ in order to ensure the highest level of protection of public health and to take into account their specific challenges, in particular with regard to clinical trials, manufacturing and pharmacovigilance.

There are three categories of ATMPs that are based on genes, cells (including stem cells), and tissues, respectively. ATMPs are a type of what is known as regenerative medicine (which refers to methods to replace or regenerate human cells, tissues or organs in order to restore or establish normal function and includes cell therapies, tissue engineering, gene therapy and biomedical engineering as well as more traditional treatments

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Life Sciences News

Life Sciences weekly highlights—1 May 2025

This week's edition of Life Sciences weekly highlights includes two news analyses on the EU AI Act, its key developments and strategic implications for business as well as the challenges of the EU AI Act-GDPR interplay, and news that the European Commission opened a targeted consultation on guidelines to clarify rules for general-purpose artificial intelligence (GPAI) models under the EU AI Act, the Association of British HealthTech Industries (ABHI) published guidance to help UK policymakers considering international regulatory reform and recognition understand the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) process of pre-market submission for devices deemed substantially equivalent to those already legally marketed, the EFPIA released a research on assessment of the impact of the transferable exclusivity voucher (TEV) system proposed as part of the pharmaceutical legislation reform package, both the EFPIA and MedTech Europe have submitted responses to the Commission’s call for evidence on the EU Life Sciences Strategy. Also included is news that the MHRA issued new guidance on risk minimisation measures to reduce or prevent the risk of an adverse event, the HRA published updated model agreements for research as well as a report on clinical trial registration and a blog on the impact of its 2022–25 strategy, and the EMA and ICH released two new Step 2b guidelines on drug development, among other stories.

MedTech Europe warns European Commission about risks of medical import tariffs

MedTech Europe and various medical associations have issued an open letter to the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, expressing concerns over potential new trade tariffs on medical technology imports. The letter requests exclusion of medical technology from any new trade defence measures, citing risks to European healthcare systems' supply chains and costs. The association emphasises the need to protect the EU medical technology sector's competitiveness while maintaining access to essential healthcare products.

Main challenges of EU AI Act-GDPR interplay identified by Member States

MLex: Potentially conflicting legal requirements, national governance approaches to ensure regulatory consistency, as well as clear legal advice to minimise the compliance burden, are the main issues seen by EU Member States in the interplay between the EU AI Act and the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR). European governments have pointed out that the two laws' diverging regulatory approaches might lead to conflicting outcomes, which should be avoided with systematic cooperation between the responsible authorities.

Where there's no waiver, there's no way (Barclays Bank plc v VEB.RF)

Commercial analysis: The English High Court has provided further guidance on the interpretation of ‘no waiver’ clauses in a recent decision. The backdrop to this decision was a sanctions related dispute about the termination of a currency swap agreement between two banks, one of which was Russian, the other English. The agreement had a dispute resolution clause where the forum was arbitration unless the English bank gave notice that a dispute should be heard by the English courts. Pamela Vassil, lawyer at A&O Shearman, examines the court’s decision.