Same device, same data, same algorithm. Clear, precise words about who it's for and what it concludes can open a faster, more efficient route to market.
Many founders assume the FDA pathway is a property of the device. Build something novel, and you're headed for De Novo. Build something conventional, and you're headed for a 510(k).
In practice, the pathway is shaped by how you describe what the device does: the intended use statement and the indications that follow from it. Same hardware, same algorithm, same clinical data. Thoughtful choices about who the device is for and what conclusion it supports can align a program with a more efficient pathway, often with meaningful savings in time and budget.
That is an opportunity. It means the pathway is something a team can plan, not only something it discovers. We see this often enough that we now approach indication language as a strategic budget decision, not just a labeling step. Five recent engagements show how.
What the right sentence makes possible
A company developing a flow cytometry reagent kit for an autoimmune kidney condition came to us with claim language that read as a standalone diagnostic, which pointed toward a Class III burden. Refining the intended use to an adjunctive role kept the program on a 510(k) route and supported a defensible predicate argument. The revision saved an estimated six months against a De Novo timeline and spared rework we valued at more than $500,000.
A digital health company with an AI-enabled sleep apnea application had drafted an indication that positioned the software as a diagnostic tool. Reframed as an adjunctive pre-screening aid, the same product supported a substantial equivalence argument rather than a De Novo assessment. Estimated savings: $2 million to $4.5 million in clinical and operational costs.
A neurostimulation company with an existing 510(k) clearance was pursuing a new neurological indication. The language under consideration described the device as changing the course of the condition. Language focused on symptom reduction supported a De Novo route instead of a PMA, and we estimated the savings at $2.5 million to $4 million.
A pediatric communication software platform was confirmed as 510(k)-exempt, requiring only establishment registration and device listing. The product could launch immediately. We also identified two boundaries that keep that exemption in place as the company grows, the most important being to keep the described use outside clinical decision support. Clear, consistent marketing language protects that advantage.
A behavioral support platform for patients on GLP-1 medications was operating as wellness software in four countries and preparing to enter the U.S. We evaluated each function separately against FDA's general wellness policy and its guidance on multiple function devices. Several features were ready to launch as-is; others would fall under Class II. Mapping that line function by function let the company focus its regulatory investment only where it was needed. Preparing a submission for functions that don't require one routinely runs $50,000 to $250,000 and up before user fees.
Two audiences, one sentence
The intended use statement is often written twice, by two different groups, for two different audiences.
The first version is written for investors and customers. It's ambitious by design. It describes where the product is headed, because vision is what raises capital. The second version is written for FDA, and it works best when it reflects the evidence that exists today.
Both versions have a job to do. The opportunity is to write each one deliberately, so the language in the pitch deck doesn't carry into the regulatory documentation by default. Words like "detects," "diagnoses," "predicts," and "identifies patients at risk" each carry a different evidentiary standard. So does the distinction between a tool a clinician consults and a tool a clinician relies on.
These are all good words. The strongest submissions choose them on purpose.
A Pre-Submission is designed to test a pathway, not to discover one. Teams that arrive with settled indication language get the most from a limited FDA interaction: feedback on the version of the product they're actually bringing to market.
Before the Pre-Sub request goes out, three things are worth resolving:
Start with the narrowest defensible form. Write the indication from what your current evidence supports, not from what the roadmap promises. An expansion is easier to plan from a clear, well-supported starting point than to adjust after FDA has responded.
Test the variants against their outcomes. Draft two or three versions of the indication and map each to its likely classification, evidence requirements, and timeline. The exercise takes days. The difference between versions is frequently measured in years, which makes those days well spent.
Separate the launch claim from the growth claim. Several of the engagements above resolved into a phased strategy: a focused initial authorization that generates revenue and clinical experience, followed by a planned expansion supported by data the first phase produces. That sequencing is a regulatory decision and a commercial one at the same time.
Specific, early and confident
The companies that handle this well aren't more cautious than their peers. They're more specific, earlier, and that specificity keeps the FDA conversation focused on the product they're bringing to market.
If you're drafting or refining an indication statement ahead of an FDA interaction, a scoped regulatory memo brings clarity to the pathway before you commit the budget.
Related reading: The Strategic Second Opinion: Why One FDA Pre-Submission Is Rarely Enough
Talk to the FDA, before you talk to the FDA™