Tariff-driven disruptions in regulatory compliance

An adjustment made in response to tariffs may require parallel filings with the European, Canadian or other global authorities. Credit: Basar / Shutterstock

Tariffs can have a significant indirect impact on regulatory compliance within the medical device industry, as any disruption in the components, materials or manufacturing processes used in these devices can trigger additional regulatory requirements, complicating the approval and post-market surveillance landscape.

When tariffs are imposed on imported materials or components, manufacturers may be forced to adjust their supply chains, either by switching suppliers, modifying components or relocating production facilities. While these changes may be necessary to maintain cost efficiency, they often result in regulatory consequences.

The US Food and Drug Administration requires that manufacturers submit new 510(k) notifications or supplements to existing approvals if there are significant modifications to a device’s design, materials or manufacturing process. Even small changes in internal circuitry may require revalidation and regulatory resubmission, delaying product availability and increasing compliance costs. For example, for companies such as Medtronic in the diabetes care space, where 88.89% of diabetes care devices are wholly manufactured in the US, the immediate exposure to tariffs may be lower but the broader impact is still felt. Many components or raw materials may still be imported and subject to tariffs, creating potential bottlenecks and compliance triggers if alternatives are introduced.

Companies operating internationally must also consider how such changes affect their regulatory obligations in multiple jurisdictions. An adjustment made in response to tariffs may require parallel filings with the European, Canadian or other global authorities. This multiplies administrative workload and extends timelines, diverting resources away from innovation and toward compliance maintenance. Abbott Laboratories offers a clear example of these tariff pressures. With key components of its FreeStyle Libre CGM system manufactured abroad, the company experienced cost hikes following US-China tariff escalations. In response, Abbott began exploring US-based production alternatives to mitigate trade exposure. However, this shift required regulatory revalidations and documentation updates for multiple global markets, straining internal compliance resources and delaying enhancements to its product pipeline.

In essence, tariffs, though designed as economic tools, have ripple effects that extend deeply into the regulatory framework of the medical device sector. Maintaining compliance while navigating supply chain disruptions and evolving trade landscapes requires strategic agility. Balancing innovation, cost containment and regulatory integrity has become increasingly complex, particularly for multinational manufacturers striving to ensure uninterrupted access to life-sustaining technologies.

Navigate the shifting tariff landscape with real-time data and market-leading analysis.
Request a free demo for GlobalData’s Strategic Intelligence here.

Taking top spot in biotech IPOs this year is CG Oncology – the cancer drug specialist raised $380m when it hit the NASDAQ trading boards in January. This increased to $437m at IPO close after the underwriters exercised the option to purchase additional shares.

Funds raised are going towards CG’s lead asset, cretostimogene grendenorepevec, an oncolytic virus immunotherapy, which is in development for the treatment of high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

GlobalData’s business fundamentals senior analyst Ophelia Chan says: “Oncology continued to dominate as the leading therapeutic area for IPOs this year, highlighted by CG Oncology’s $437m upsized IPO—the largest and first of the year. The company’s robust clinical data and ability to secure substantial capital have contributed to its strong performance in 2024.”

After a quiet summer, the IPO market reached full swing in autumn when Bicara Therapeutics, Zenas BioPharma, and MBX Biosciences all opened on the NASDAQ on the same Friday in September. The ‘triple-header event’ saw the three companies pull in over $700m combined. It was no surprise that the surge in activity came after the Federal Reserve’s decision to lower interest rates for the first time in years, ushering in a more inviting funding environment. This fruitful month was a stark contrast to August, which saw a significant global stock market dip amid fears of a US recession.

In June, Telix Pharmaceuticals – an emerging player in the fast-growing radiopharmaceutical space – pulled a last-minute plug on its IPO. The Australian company had been planning to list on NASDAQ and was on course to raise $232m – a value that would have placed it high on the list of biotech IPO sizes this year. Telix cited that its board did not move forward with the plans due to market conditions at the time.

Numb feet, bleeding legs and dehydrated bodies mark their journeys – not to mention infectious diseases and psychological trauma. Studies have identified outbreaks of measles, diphtheria and malaria across Venezuela, while tuberculosis, typhoid and HIV, are also resurgent.

Australia could be one of the main beneficiaries of this dramatic increase in demand, where private companies and local governments alike are eager to expand the country’s nascent rare earths production. In 2021, Australia produced the fourth-most rare earths in the world. It’s total annual production of 19,958 tonnes remains significantly less than the mammoth 152,407 tonnes produced by China, but a dramatic improvement over the 1,995 tonnes produced domestically in 2011.

The dominance of China in the rare earths space has also encouraged other countries, notably the US, to look further afield for rare earth deposits to diversify their supply of the increasingly vital minerals. With the US eager to ringfence rare earth production within its allies as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, including potentially allowing the Department of Defense to invest in Australian rare earths, there could be an unexpected windfall for Australian rare earths producers.