Medical, Legal and Regulatory review — the internal process most pharmaceutical companies use to approve promotional and other public-facing content before publication, involving sign-off from medical, legal and regulatory functions to confirm claims are accurate, substantiated and compliant.
Medical reviewers check scientific and clinical accuracy, legal reviewers check for liability and intellectual property concerns, and regulatory reviewers check compliance with advertising and labelling rules for the relevant market — all three typically need to sign off before content publishes.
A website’s publishing workflow that ignores MLR review, or runs as a disconnected shadow process, is one of the most common sources of delay and risk on a pharmaceutical site — see MLR workflow integration for how we connect the two properly.
See how to speed up MLR for web content — the gain worth chasing is removing process friction, not reducing genuine scrutiny.
No, medical, legal and regulatory review stays with your internal or contracted reviewers — that’s a compliance function, not something a website partner performs. What we do is connect your publishing workflow to whatever MLR process you already run, so review status, approvals, and required disclosures are reflected accurately in what goes live on the site.
Yes, it’s one of the most widely used dedicated MLR platforms in pharma, built specifically to manage the review and approval of promotional and other regulated materials. Not every company uses Veeva specifically, but the workflow it represents — structured, auditable review before publication — is the general model MLR platforms follow. See what is Veeva PromoMats for more detail.
That’s common, particularly for smaller companies or those earlier in commercialisation. In that case, we can build the review and approval workflow directly into the website CMS itself, with sign-off steps, audit trails, and controlled publishing built around your existing team structure rather than around a dedicated third-party platform. It’s a practical alternative rather than a compromise.
That’s a compliance risk that varies by market and by what the content claims, ranging from required corrections to regulatory scrutiny in more serious cases. The practical fix is a publishing workflow that makes it difficult to skip review, whether through platform integration or CMS-level approval gates, rather than relying on manual diligence alone to catch every case before it goes live.
Tell us your review process and we will tell you how we would connect it to publishing.