Borderline products

Although it may be immediately obvious that a product is a medicine and should be regulated as such, some products are more difficult to distinguish from medicines or medical devices and may function for a medicinal purpose and another purpose, such as a cosmetic purpose. For these products, the classification is not immediately clear and multiple regulatory frameworks may apply. For example, it may be uncertain whether a more complex healthcare product might be viewed as a medical device, cosmetic, food, dietary supplement, herbal medicine or biocidal product. Sometimes it is certain circumstances or if certain criteria are met or even claims made about the product’s use that might cause it to be classified as a medicinal product, so it can be unclear which regulatory framework one should comply with for an effective regulatory strategy. These products are called borderline products until their status has been decided.

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

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

Amendments to draft Critical Medicines Act proposed to address impact of environmental over-regulation

The European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety has proposed key amendments to the draft Critical Medicines Act (CMA) to address the unintended consequences of overlapping environmental and chemical regulations on medicine supply. The committee acknowledges the importance of the EU’s environmental goals but warns that stricter rules—such as those on emissions, wastewater treatment, or substance restrictions—could raise production costs or push pharmaceutical manufacturing outside the EU. This could worsen medicine shortages and undermine the region’s competitiveness.

EMA reviews five-year regulatory response to nitrosamine medicines safety

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has published a comprehensive review of its regulatory response to nitrosamine impurities in medicines since 2018. The report outlines key developments including the Call for Review requiring marketing authorisation holders to evaluate nitrosamine risks, establishment of the Nitrosamine Implementation Oversight Group, and introduction of the Carcinogenic Potency Categorization Approach in July 2023. The framework includes ongoing market surveillance and international collaboration through the Nitrosamine International Technical Working Group. An addendum to ICH M7 Guideline on assessment and control of mutagenic impurities is being developed, with completion targeted for May 2028. The EMA continues to update guidance based on emerging scientific developments.

Life Sciences weekly highlights—31 July 2025

This week's edition of Life Sciences weekly highlights includes a Law360 report on the Court of Appeal’s decision against generic-drug makers to set aside remaining protections for Astellas Pharma’s blockbuster prostate cancer treatment and analysis by Freshfields of the European Commission’s Guidelines on the scope of obligations for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models. Further news stories this week include news that EU Notified Bodies have published a detailed position paper proposing reforms to medical device governance, the European pharmaceutical industry expressed concerns about the impact of the US-EU trade deal setting a 15% tariff on pharmaceuticals, the DSIT published guidance detailing the implementation timeline for the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, the European Parliament has recommended a strict liability regime for high-risk AI systems in its study examining the EU’s regulatory approach to civil liability for AI systems and MedTech Europe has published a position paper calling for guidance reform of the sampling requirements for diagnostic devices to be changed to a risk-based model. Also included, is news that the EMA intends to draft a reflection paper on the use of external controls in clinical trials to support regulatory decisions, amending Regulation (EU) 2025/788 has been adopted delaying the application date of the Master UDI-DI solution for contact lenses one year until 9 November 2026, the BioIndustry Association’s Q1 2025 finance report reflects healthy UK biotech venture capital investment raising £1.23bn and the MHRA opened a consultation on the effectiveness of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021; among other stories.

MedTech Europe publishes Reflection Paper calling on reform of diagnostic device sampling for certification

MedTech Europe has published a Reflection Paper calling on the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) to adopt a risk-based, rather than quota-based, sampling approach for Class B and Class C devices to reduce the burden stemming from duplicative sampling and focus the resources of the system on higher risk devices. The industry body emphasises that in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device manufacturers have increased technical documentation and administrative burden under the Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR). Notified Bodies dedicate most of their time in sampling lower risk Class B and Class C devices, rather than highest risk Class D devices. Class B and C diagnostics together make up over 90% of the EU IVD market. The Paper notes that the average number of samples taken under IVDR is more than double that under the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR), due to broader scope codes and more grouping categories for IVDs. MedTech Europe in this Paper argues that the current system leads to repetitive sampling of the same devices, particularly for SMEs with limited portfolios, offering little added value in terms of safety or performance assurance. The Paper argues that the mandated 15% sampling rate for technical documentation per certification cycle is disproportionate, especially when compared to the 100% review requirement for the highest-risk Class D devices. This quota-based system imposes a significant financial and operational burden on manufacturers, with average costs per technical file review nearing €38,000. MedTech Europe proposes a shift to a risk-based sampling model. This seems to take a page from the UK which just had the UK Government respond to a public consultation in support of future regulation that will create a more proportionate risk-based approach to diagnostic device certification that would, in particular, mean that certification of Class B IVDs for the Great Britain market would require UKCA self-declaration and ISO 13485 quality management system (QMS) certification. MedTech Europe proposes to eliminate automatic quotas for Class B devices during surveillance, reducing sampling for Class C devices to 5%, and applying a maximum of 5% sampling during initial certification for devices with stable post-market surveillance. Simulations in the paper show that such an approach would significantly reduce the total cost burden on the sector without compromising safety. The paper calls for the MDCG to revise its guidance to reflect this more proportionate, risk-based strategy