Comparative Regulatory Requirements And Strategic Decisions For Gcc, Mena & Africa Markets For Topical And Nasal Route Dosage Forms

Niranjan Kanaki¹, A V Haragopal², Asha Dasgupta³, Ankit Trivedi⁴, Akshita Parekh⁵

---

ABSTRACT

Background: Topical and nasal dosage forms constitute an important segment of pharmaceutical therapeutics due to their ability to deliver active ingredients directly to the site of action, provide a rapid onset of effect, and reduce systemic exposure relative to oral or parenteral routes. These advantages create unique regulatory expectations, especially with respect to excipient qualification, drug–device integration, in‑use stability, and performance testing aligned with region‑specific climatic and environmental conditions. The regulatory systems governing these dosage forms differ substantially among global regions. Markets within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have achieved partial harmonization through the GCC‑Drug Registration framework, resulting in relatively predictable submission procedures. Conversely, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region remains characterized by fragmented regulatory processes with limited inter‑agency alignment. Meanwhile, African regulatory systems are experiencing rapid modernization, accelerated digitization, and expanding reliance‑based models; however, significant variability persists across national authorities. Despite this progress, Africa remains highly diverse, with country‑specific Module 1 requirements, varying dossier expectations, and different timelines for topical and nasal dosage forms.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to perform a detailed comparative evaluation of regulatory requirements for topical and nasal dosage forms across GCC, MENA, and African regions. The analysis aims to identify divergences in dossier architecture, stability expectations, device‑related requirements, GMP and quality standards, and administrative procedures. A further objective is to highlight how emerging harmonization initiatives influence approval pathways, reliance mechanisms, lifecycle management, and market‑entry strategies.

Methods: A structured comparative review approach was adopted. Regulatory guidelines, Module 1 specifications, submission templates, and publicly available policies were collected from major authorities, including GCC‑DR, the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA), the UAE Ministry of Health and Prevention (MOHAP), the Egyptian Drug Authority (EDA), and the Jordan Food and Drug Administration (JFDA). For African markets, documentation from the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), and additional National Medicines Regulatory Authorities (NMRAs) was reviewed. Harmonization frameworks from ZAZIBONA, the East African Community Medicines Regulatory Harmonization initiative (EAC‑MRH), and the African Medicines Agency (AMA) were assessed. Comparative extraction focused on submission format (eCTD/CTD), stability zone classification, device functionality testing, labelling and artwork requirements, GMP and quality expectations, and pathways utilizing reliance or work‑sharing.

Results: The GCC region demonstrates moderate regulatory harmonization driven by GCC‑DR, resulting in common requirements for eCTD format, Zone IVb stability studies, and standardized quality documentation. Nonetheless, national procedures—such as country‑specific Module 1 requirements, fee structures, and administrative timelines—continue to influence approval predictability. The MENA region exhibits substantial heterogeneity, including varying CTD interpretations, divergent labelling rules, differing expectations for in vitro release testing for topical formulations, and inconsistent device‑related testing requirements for nasal products. African markets reflect the highest degree of regulatory diversity; however, significant progress is underway. SAHPRA's full implementation of eCTD and stringent validation criteria has raised technical expectations. NAFDAC continues to refine CTD submission processes and strengthen GMP oversight. Regional platforms such as ZAZIBONA and EAC‑MRH have reduced assessment duplication through joint dossier reviews and reliance models, supporting faster but technically rigorous approvals. The operational establishment of AMA represents a major step toward continental regulatory convergence with potential long‑term implications for unified assessments.

Conclusion: GCC markets offer relatively predictable regulatory pathways due to partial harmonization, although national differences still necessitate localized planning. MENA markets require tailored, country‑specific regulatory strategies owing to their fragmented and heterogeneous requirements. African markets, while currently the most diverse, demonstrate strong momentum toward modernization through digitization, reliance models, and regional coordination. Enhanced regulatory convergence across these regions has the potential to reduce technical review duplication, improve dossier assessment efficiency, and accelerate patient access to safe, high‑quality topical and nasal pharmaceutical products. This comparative analysis provides a practical basis for optimizing submission strategies and anticipating regulatory challenges in these dynamic markets.

Keywords: topical dosage forms; nasal formulations; regulatory convergence; eCTD/CTD; GCC; MENA; Africa; ZAZIBONA; EAC‑MRH; African Medicines Agency; stability Zone IVb; reliance pathways.

How to cite this article: Kanaki N, Haragopal AV, Dasgupta A, Trivedi A, Parekh A. Comparative Regulatory Requirements And Strategic Decisions For Gcc, Mena & Africa Markets For Topical And Nasal Route Dosage Forms. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026;16(6s): 416-432; DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16.6s.67

Source of support: Nil.

Conflict of interest: None