SFDA Medical Device Marketing Authorization (MDMA): Evidence Requirements, Submission Essentials, and Post-Market Obligations
Introduction
Medical devices are regulated to ensure they are safe and effective for patients. Obtaining marketing authorization is a critical step for manufacturers aiming to supply devices in Saudi Arabia – the largest medical device market in the Middle East with an annual growth rate around 10%. The Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) has developed a comprehensive regulatory framework that has evolved significantly over the past decade. An Interim Regulation issued in 2008 (amended 2017) was replaced by a permanent Medical Devices Law in 2021 (Royal Decree M/54), which mandates that medical devices may be placed on the market only after the SFDA grants a written Marketing Authorization. The overarching goal of this law is to protect public health by ensuring a high level of safety and performance throughout a device’s lifecycle (from manufacture to use).
In this context, manufacturers and distributors must navigate both global expectations and SFDA-specific requirements to successfully register a device. SFDA’s regulatory system is strongly influenced by international best practices and harmonization efforts, aligning Saudi requirements with global standards. However, local specifics – from documentation format to post-market vigilance – demand careful attention. This article provides a detailed overview of the evidence expectations, submission requirements, common pitfalls, and opportunities for local manufacturers in obtaining an SFDA Medical Device Marketing Authorization (MDMA).
Global-to-Saudi Evidence Expectations
Global regulators generally require robust evidence of a medical device’s quality, safety, and efficacy before market entry, and the SFDA is no exception. In fact, SFDA explicitly leverages international benchmarks: a core requirement for MDMA is proof that the device is already approved or authorized in at least one founding member jurisdiction of the Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) – such as the US, EU, Canada, Japan, or Australia. This policy means a manufacturer must demonstrate that their device has met the stringent regulatory standards of a reference market (or otherwise provide equivalent evidence) to be considered for Saudi approval. The intent is to ensure that devices entering the Kingdom have a baseline of recognized safety and performance data (Aldalaan, 2022). This approach aligns with practices in other regions; for example, some African regulators allow simplified dossiers for devices that already have stringent approvals (e.g. US FDA or CE-mark) or WHO prequalification, expediting access to proven technologies (Nkuku, 2024). In short, global evidence – whether in the form of prior market authorizations, international standards compliance, or published clinical data – is the foundation of the Saudi submission. SFDA’s reliance on GHTF-member approvals reflects its commitment to harmonization and reduces duplicative evaluations for well-regulated products.
Despite converging standards, manufacturers should be aware that regulatory requirements still vary across markets, which can lead to repetitive and costly evidentiary submissions if not managed strategically. A recent analysis of diagnostic device regulation noted that the lack of international harmonization often results in “repetitive, burdensome, and costly requirements and submissions,” delaying innovation (Rodriguez-Manzano et al., 2024). The COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted this challenge: in the rush to authorize novel tests and devices, many countries introduced emergency review processes that were rarely harmonized or mutually recognized across borders. Manufacturers could not simply transfer an approval from one jurisdiction to another, underscoring the importance of satisfying each regulator’s specific evidence demands. SFDA generally does not offer reciprocal “fast-track” acceptance of foreign approvals (outside of the GHTF prior-approval policy), so applicants must compile a complete technical file per SFDA’s guidelines even if they have approvals elsewhere. However, global initiatives are gradually improving convergence. The SFDA itself plays an active role in international regulatory forums – the current SFDA Medical Devices sector lead is the chair of the Global Harmonization Working Party (GHWP) – which signals continued alignment of Saudi requirements with internationally accepted frameworks. Such harmonization efforts ultimately benefit manufacturers and patients alike by facilitating quicker access to safe devices (Nkuku, 2024). Manufacturers should therefore leverage global standards (ISO, IMDRF/GHTF guidelines, etc.) in their evidence generation. In summary, SFDA expects that device sponsors bring forward globally credible evidence and adhere to international norms, while also meeting the specific documentation format and processes defined in Saudi regulations.
SFDA-Specific MDMA Requirements
To obtain SFDA marketing authorization, applicants must fulfill a comprehensive set of requirements that cover technical, clinical, and quality aspects of the device, as well as regulatory particulars of the Saudi system. The process typically involves registering the manufacturer’s establishment in KSA, listing the device in the national database, and appointing a local Authorized Representative for foreign manufacturers (Aldalaan, 2022). The MDMA application dossier itself is extensive and must include evidence of conformity to all applicable regulations. Key components of an SFDA MDMA submission include:
• Technical Documentation: A complete technical file describing the device and its design, intended use, and specifications. According to SFDA guidance, this should encompass the device’s trade name and identifiers, detailed physical description (with drawings or photos), composition and materials (especially those contacting the body), principles of operation, and any novel features. The intended medical purpose, indications, target patient population, and contraindications must be clearly stated, along with the intended user profile (e.g. specialist physician, general public). Furthermore, the technical file must include labeling to be used in Saudi Arabia (labels and Instructions for Use in English and/or Arabic as required) and any available marketing history (e.g. countries where the device is already on market). A product description in Arabic may be needed for device listing forms. Overall, the technical documentation must be sufficiently detailed to allow an independent conformity assessment.
• Essential Principles Compliance: The manufacturer must demonstrate that the device meets the Essential Principles of Safety and Performance as defined by SFDA (which mirror the GHTF/IMDRF essential requirements). SFDA’s guidance provides annexes listing these principles for general medical devices and for in vitro diagnostics. For each applicable essential principle, the application should provide evidence of conformity (such as test reports, standards certificates, or design analyses). Any principles that are not applicable to the device must be identified with a rationale explaining their irrelevance. This systematic mapping of evidence to regulatory principles is crucial – it ensures no aspect of safety or performance is overlooked. The Declaration of Conformity submitted by the manufacturer attests that the device complies with all relevant essential principles and regulations (SFDA, 2020).
• Quality Management System (QMS): An effective QMS is mandatory for device manufacturers. SFDA requires manufacturers to establish, document, and maintain a QMS in accordance with ISO 13485:2016 (or an equivalent international standard). Evidence of QMS compliance typically comes in the form of an up-to-date ISO 13485 certificate from a recognized certification body. SFDA may also audit or require an authorized third-party audit of the manufacturer’s facilities as part of the marketing authorization process. The emphasis on QMS ensures that the company has ongoing controls in design, production, and post-market processes to consistently produce safe devices. Notably, SFDA has an Implementing Rule (MDS-IR1) dedicated to auditing QMS and accrediting Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) for technical reviews, indicating how seriously manufacturing quality is taken in the approval process.
• Clinical Evidence: Depending on the device’s risk class and novelty, SFDA expects appropriate clinical evidence to support its safety and performance. All high-risk or implantable devices, for example, require a Clinical Evaluation Report (CER). The clinical evaluation is a thorough assessment of clinical data – it can include data from clinical investigations on the device, published literature on equivalent devices, and post-market clinical experience. SFDA’s guidance mandates that the clinical evaluation be objective and consider both favorable and unfavorable data, with a depth proportionate to the device’s risks. If clinical data from an equivalent device are used, the manufacturer must justify equivalence in terms of technical, biological, and clinical characteristics (per Annex 6 of SFDA guidance). The outcome is documented in a CER that supports the benefit-risk determination for the intended use. In addition, for new or high-risk devices, SFDA may scrutinize whether clinical investigations have been conducted ethically and in line with Good Clinical Practice. Overall, a clear demonstration of a favorable benefit–risk profile is required. If a device already has approvals (e.g., CE marking or FDA clearance), the clinical data underlying those approvals can be leveraged, but the data must be summarized and contextualized for the Saudi submission.
• Post-Market Surveillance (PMS) and Vigilance: Importantly, applicants must present plans and commitments for ongoing PMS. The SFDA views marketing authorization not as a one-time gate, but as the start of a continuous oversight process. Manufacturers are obliged to have a Post-Market Surveillance plan to actively monitor the device’s performance once it is on the market. This includes, for instance, scheduling post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) studies for higher-risk devices to gather real-world evidence of safety and effectiveness over time. Additionally, there is a requirement to promptly report adverse events and field safety corrective actions (recalls, safety notices) to the SFDA. In fact, an undertaking to inform SFDA of all reportable adverse events and any field safety actions (both domestically and internationally) is a required part of the MDMA application (SFDA, 2011). The SFDA has established the National Center for Medical Devices Reporting (NCMDR) to handle device vigilance, and manufacturers must participate by reporting incidents through this system (Aldalaan, 2022). The SFDA’s implementing rules detail how incident reporting and field safety notices should be managed. Thus, before approval is granted, SFDA seeks assurance that the manufacturer will proactively and transparently engage in post-market risk monitoring.
• Authorized Representation and Local Responsibilities: For overseas manufacturers, a Saudi Authorized Representative must be appointed to interface with SFDA and take responsibility for compliance in the KSA market. The application will need to identify this representative and include a letter of designation. All establishments (manufacturers, importers, distributors) also have to be registered with SFDA’s system (establishment licensing and listing per MDS-IR2/IR4 rules) to ensure traceability of who is placing devices on the market. Local suppliers should have appropriate distribution licenses. These administrative requirements, while not part of the technical file, are prerequisites to obtaining and maintaining the MDMA.
• Application Review Process: Once a complete MDMA application is submitted, the SFDA assigns it a reference number and conducts a technical review. Notably, SFDA may allocate the dossier to a recognized Conformity Assessment Body to perform the detailed technical evaluation on its behalf. These CABs, under SFDA oversight, verify that the device meets all regulatory provisions (e.g. essential principles, standards, clinical evidence adequacy). The use of CABs reflects SFDA’s adoption of a decentralized review model (similar to EU notified bodies) to manage workload and tap specialized expertise (Alsager et al., 2015). After technical review, SFDA will make the final decision on granting the marketing authorization. Upon approval, an MDMA certificate is issued (bilingual in Arabic and English) documenting the device details, manufacturer, and authorization number. SFDA also stipulates the validity period of the MDMA (often a few years, subject to renewal) and charges fees according to device class. Only devices with a valid SFDA MDMA may be legally sold and used in Saudi Arabia.
By meeting all the above requirements, a manufacturer demonstrates full compliance with Saudi regulations. The SFDA’s emphasis on technical rigor (complete documentation, standards compliance), clinical substantiation, quality systems, and post-market vigilance collectively ensures that authorized medical devices achieve the “safety, quality, and performance” standards the law is designed to uphold.
Common Deficiencies and Evidence Pitfalls
Achieving SFDA approval can be challenging, and regulators often encounter recurring shortcomings in submitted dossiers. Awareness of these common deficiencies can help applicants avoid costly delays or rejections:
• Incomplete or Disorganized Documentation: One pitfall is failing to provide all required documents or presenting them in a disjointed manner. Missing pieces such as an essential principles checklist, risk analysis, or proof of overseas approval are frequent issues. SFDA expects a clearly structured technical file where each requirement (device description, labeling, test reports, etc.) is addressed. If any item is omitted or inadequately evidenced, the application will likely be put on hold for clarification. For example, not demonstrating conformity with each applicable Essential Principle (or not justifying those deemed not applicable) is a serious oversight that can trigger deficiencies (SFDA, 2020). Manufacturers should ensure that every claim of compliance is backed by traceable evidence in the dossier.
• Insufficient Clinical Evidence: Another common deficiency is lack of adequate clinical support for the device’s intended use. This is especially problematic for higher-risk devices or innovative technologies. Applications that rely purely on literature or analogy, without direct clinical investigation data or a robust equivalence rationale, may fall short of SFDA’s expectations. The SFDA review will check that a proper clinical evaluation was conducted, weighing all relevant data. If the benefit–risk analysis is not well documented or if known unfavorable data are ignored, the submission will face scrutiny. It is a pitfall, for instance, to assume that having a CE mark is enough – SFDA will still expect to see the underlying clinical evidence summarized. Manufacturers should proactively include clinical study reports or performance data and not wait for SFDA to ask.
• Quality System Gaps: SFDA places heavy emphasis on quality systems; thus a frequent pitfall is an applicant lacking proof of an appropriate QMS. Submissions without an ISO 13485:2016 certificate (or evidence of a recent successful audit) will not inspire confidence in the manufacturing process. Similarly, if a QMS certificate is expired or issued by an unrecognized body, SFDA may flag this. Companies sometimes underestimate the need to have all their manufacturing sites registered and compliant – any ambiguity about where the device is made or how quality is managed can become a deficiency. Ensuring that quality documentation (like process validations, sterilization validation for sterile devices, etc.) is included can prevent such issues.
• Slow Responses and Poor Communication: The review process is interactive – SFDA (or its designated reviewer) may raise questions or require additional information. A notable pitfall on the part of sponsors is delay in answering these queries or providing incomplete answers. As observed in the pharmaceutical sector, SFDA’s review timelines can slip when sponsors take too long to respond or submit additional data (Alsager et al., 2015). Manufacturers should be prepared to address inquiries promptly and thoroughly. A related issue is poor communication or misunderstanding of SFDA requirements, leading to back-and-forth exchanges. Assigning a knowledgeable regulatory contact (or local agent) who can efficiently liaise with SFDA is critical to avoid protracted correspondence.
• Data Quality and Consistency Issues: Applications may be deemed deficient if there are inconsistencies or credibility issues in the data presented. For example, discrepancies between the product specification in the label and the technical description, or internal inconsistencies in test results, will raise red flags. Ensuring data quality is paramount – all information submitted should be accurate, up-to-date, and consistent across documents. A comprehensive internal review of the dossier for consistency can prevent such pitfalls. Furthermore, regulators globally have noted challenges with data quality and completeness in regulatory submissions, which can stem from limited resources or expertise (Fouda et al., 2025). Investing time in data verification and perhaps a third-party expert review before submission can mitigate this risk.
• Neglecting Post-Market Obligations: Some manufacturers treat regulatory approval as the final hurdle and pay less attention to post-market plans. This is a mistake under SFDA’s system. Lack of a well-defined post-market surveillance plan or an inadequate system for adverse event reporting is a deficiency that can hold up approval. SFDA expects to see that the company has procedures in place for field safety corrective actions and incident reporting (e.g., membership in the NCMDR program). If these aspects are not addressed in the application (for instance, no mention of who will be responsible for vigilance activities in KSA or how PMS data will be gathered), SFDA may require corrective action before granting MDMA.
By anticipating these pitfalls, applicants can significantly smooth the path to approval. In practice, this means performing gap assessments against SFDA guidance, using checklists to ensure completeness, and perhaps seeking a regulatory consultant’s audit of the submission dossier. Avoiding common deficiencies not only speeds up the authorization but also demonstrates the manufacturer’s competence and commitment to regulatory compliance in the Saudi market.
Opportunities for Local Manufacturers
Saudi Arabia’s evolving regulatory landscape offers several opportunities for local device manufacturers and suppliers willing to meet high standards:
• Alignment with Global Standards: The SFDA’s harmonized requirements mean that devices designed to meet international standards can more easily fulfill Saudi criteria. Local manufacturers can use this to their advantage by building products in compliance with ISO and IEC standards and following IMDRF best practices from the outset. By aligning product development with global Essential Principles and regulatory science, a local company not only gains access to the KSA market but also improves its readiness for export to other jurisdictions. The push for regulatory convergence ensures that adhering to SFDA’s framework inherently elevates a device’s global acceptability (Nkuku, 2024). In other words, quality and safety investments pay dual dividends: they satisfy SFDA reviewers and bolster international competitiveness of Saudi-made devices.
• Leveraging International Guidance and Support: The SFDA is receptive to internationally recognized evidence, so local firms should leverage programs like the WHO’s guidance on medical device regulation and, where applicable, WHO prequalification for diagnostics. International organizations (WHO, IMDRF) and regional harmonization initiatives have been actively supporting capacity building in regulatory affairs. A Saudi manufacturer, for instance, might collaborate with global regulators or participate in WHO-led assessment schemes to strengthen their submission dossier. If a device achieves WHO prequalification (for example, an in vitro diagnostic test for global health), the credibility gained could streamline its review in KSA. As the SFDA continues to update its regulations in line with global frameworks, staying informed through such guidance can help local developers anticipate new requirements (such as upcoming rules for software as a medical device, cyber security, etc.) and proactively meet them.
• Responsive and Agile Regulatory Pathways: One lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic is that regulatory authorities can act swiftly and flexibly without compromising safety, especially for urgent needs. During the pandemic, agencies including SFDA adopted emergency authorizations for critical devices (e.g. diagnostic kits and ventilators) – processes that, while temporary, demonstrated that accelerated pathways are feasible. Globally, regulators are now institutionalizing some of these innovations; for example, the UK’s MHRA introduced an Innovative Devices Access Pathway (IDAP) to expedite evaluation of novel technologies, reflecting pandemic learnings (Rodriguez-Manzano et al., 2024). This global momentum for agile regulation is an opportunity for Saudi Arabia and its local industry. The SFDA could implement priority review schemes for devices addressing unmet medical needs or foster conditional approvals with rigorous post-market requirements. Local manufacturers of innovative devices (such as digital health tools or AI-based diagnostics) should be prepared to engage with any such programs. Early dialogue with SFDA – possibly through scientific advice meetings – can help companies take advantage of expedited routes if available. The opportunity here is twofold: regulators get life-saving innovations faster, and local innovators gain a faster track to market under supervised conditions. By capitalizing on a regulatory environment that is gradually becoming more adaptive, Saudi firms can shorten time-to-market for high-impact devices, especially those inspired by recent public health needs.
• Strengthening Post-Market Surveillance as a Competitive Edge: SFDA’s stringent post-market surveillance requirements should not be seen merely as an obligation, but as an opportunity for continuous improvement. Local manufacturers who establish strong PMS programs can detect and address issues proactively, thereby improving their product’s safety profile and reputation. The SFDA actively monitors devices through both proactive and reactive measures, from conducting post-market studies and hospital audits to analyzing incident reports. Manufacturers that fully cooperate with these activities – for example, by running post-market clinical follow-up studies in local populations – can gather valuable real-world evidence. This data can not only ensure ongoing compliance but also be leveraged to refine the device or even support next-generation product development. Moreover, demonstrating a robust vigilance system builds trust with healthcare providers and the SFDA. In a market that values safety, companies that excel in post-market surveillance and prompt reporting may find that they enjoy smoother regulatory interactions (e.g. quicker approvals for modifications or new devices, given their track record). The emphasis on PMS aligns with global trends and World Health Organization recommendations for regulators to continuously oversee product performance, something local manufacturers can turn into a quality hallmark of Saudi medical devices.
In summary, the maturing regulatory ecosystem in Saudi Arabia, while stringent, creates an environment in which local manufacturers can thrive by embracing best practices. By designing products to global standards, utilizing international regulatory tools, engaging with agile approval processes, and committing to strong post-market oversight, Saudi manufacturers have the opportunity to not only achieve compliance but to become leaders in medical device quality and innovation in the region. The SFDA’s alignment with international norms and its focus on lifecycle accountability mean that those who invest in compliance from start to finish will find a supportive pathway to market.
Summary and Recommendation
The journey to SFDA medical device marketing authorization demands diligence and a clear strategy. Manufacturers must align global evidence with local regulatory expectations – from ensuring their device meets internationally benchmarked safety and performance principles, to preparing thorough technical and clinical documentation tailored to SFDA’s requirements, and establishing robust quality and post-market systems. The evolving Saudi regulatory landscape, underpinned by the 2021 Medical Devices Law, has raised the bar for evidence and accountability, but it also provides a transparent framework that echoes global standards (Aldalaan, 2022). By avoiding common pitfalls (such as incomplete dossiers or inadequate clinical justification) and leveraging the opportunities presented by regulatory harmonization and innovation, companies can efficiently navigate the MDMA process. Ultimately, the effort to obtain SFDA approval is rewarded by access to a large and growing healthcare market and by the confidence of clinicians and patients in the certified medical devices. Manufacturers are encouraged to engage early with SFDA guidance, invest in compliance expertise, and view regulatory rigor not as a hurdle but as an integral part of product development and market success. For medical device registration and end-to-end assistance in obtaining SFDA Marketing Authorisation (MDMA), contact RegDossier Cloud.
References
Aldalaan, A. (2022). Saudi Arabia: Medical Device Regulation System. In J. Wong & R. K. Y. Tong (Eds.), Medical Regulatory Affairs: An International Handbook for Medical Devices and Healthcare Products (3rd Edition) (pp. 377–384). Jenny Stanford Publishing.
Alsager, S., Hashan, H., & Walker, S. (2015). The Saudi Food and Drug Authority: Shaping the regulatory environment in the Gulf region. Pharmaceutical Medicine, 29(2), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-015-0089-3
Bin Sunaid, F. F., Al-Jawaldeh, A., Almutairi, M. W., Alobaid, R. A., Alfuraih, T. M., Bensaidan, F. N., … Jabbour, J. (2021). Saudi Arabia’s healthy food strategy: Progress & hurdles in the 2030 road. Nutrients, 13(7), 2130. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13072130
Fouda, M. I., Alakeel, A., Alamri, R. M., Al Shahrani, M. S., & Al Shahrani, A. Y. (2025). Signal detection at SFDA: A comprehensive analysis of current practices and future directions. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 31(1), e70062. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70062
Nkuku, K. Z. (2024). Feasibility of an internationally recognized Conformité Européenne equivalent mark for medical devices in Africa: A review of current literature (Master’s thesis, University of the Western Cape). https://etd.uwc.ac.za/xmlui/handle/11394/9794
Rodriguez-Manzano, J., Subramaniam, S., Uchea, C., Szostak-Lipowicz, K. M., Freeman, J., Rauch, M., … Awandare, G. A. (2024). Innovative diagnostic technologies: navigating regulatory frameworks through advances, challenges, and future prospects. Lancet Digital Health, 6(12), e934–e943. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00242-5
Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA). (2011). MDS-IR6: Implementing Rule on Marketing Authorization (Version 3).
Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA). (2020). MDS-G5: Guidance on Requirements for Medical Device Listing and Marketing Authorization (Version 5.0).
Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA). (n.d.). Post-market surveillance and vigilance requirements (Sections 24.14.1–24.14.2). In Medical Devices Law Guidance. (Retrieved from SFDA Medical Devices Sector publications)