REGARA · Medical Regulatory Intelligence Est. 2025 · Las Vegas

Speed to market using REGARA Intelligence.

REGARA compresses the years of regulatory work behind every medical device, drug, and diagnostic — drafting submissions, surfacing precedent, and keeping every claim defensible.

regara.app / submissions / k251104
Submission Sections · 27
FDA · 510(k) · Class II
On track
§4 — Indications for UseDraftedReviewed12 min
§5 — Substantial EquivalenceDraftedReviewed38 min
§6 — Predicate ComparisonIn review2 flags21 min
§7 — Performance TestingDraftingGenerating
§8 — LabelingQueuedWaiting
§5 Substantial Equivalence Discussion
K251104 · Draft v3 · Reviewed by M. Patel · 14:22 UTC

The subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate K203482 (Predicate A) with respect to intended use, technological characteristics, and performance. Minor differences in the optical assembly do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Bench performance testing per ISO 80601-2-61:2017 demonstrates equivalent oxygen saturation accuracy (ARMS ≤ 3.0%) under both motion and low-perfusion conditions, consistent with the predicate's labeled claims.

REGARA note

Three guidance documents apply to this device class. The most recent (Sept 2024) shifts cybersecurity expectations — see the suggested edit to §9.

The platform, in motion

Eight surfaces. One workspace. Every artifact source-anchored.

From predicate search to RTQ drafting — every output cites its evidence.

regara.app · submissions · K25110402:14
§4 — Indications for Use100%
§5 — Substantial Equivalence91%
§6 — Predicate Comparison62%
§7 — Performance Testing86%
§8 — Labeling44%
Submission dossierEvery section, drafted against live guidance.
regara.app · predicates00:48
★ 0.94 matchK203482 · 2020
★ 0.91 matchK194116 · 2019
★ 0.84 matchK183290 · 2018
★ 0.79 matchK162204 · 2016
Predicate IntelligencePredicates a reviewer would accept.
§5 Substantial Equivalence · draft v301:22
Substantial Equivalence Discussion
⊕ K203482 · §6.2
⊕ ISO 80601-2-61
Citation provenanceEvery claim, traceable to its source.
regara.app · guidance atlas00:32
FDA · Cybersecurity (Sept 2024)NEW
EMA · MDCG 2024-03REV
PMDA · J-NDA labelingQ1
MHRA · UKCA transitionDEC
Health Canada · TPD updateNOV
Guidance AtlasThe regulatory corpus, indexed daily.
RTQ · K251104 · Question 0303:01
FDA — Additional Info Request
Drafted response · 2 citations
⊕ Predicate K203482 · §7.4
Review & RTQRespond in days, not weeks.
regara.app · claims library00:54
"Accuracy ARMS ≤ 3.0% under motion conditions."
v4 · ActiveUsed in 3 submissions
⊕ Study CLN-021 · §4.3 · 2024-08
⊕ ISO 80601-2-61 · §201.12
Claims LibraryOne source of truth for every claim.
regara.app · audit trail01:08
14:22
M. Patel
Approved §5 · v3 · 2 citations verified
14:18
REGARA
Drafted §5 · pulled K203482 + ISO 80601-2-61
14:11
L. Park
Flagged §6.2 for predicate review
14:02
REGARA
Section scaffolded · 27 sections required
Audit TrailReproduce any submission, on any date.
simulators · reviewer panel02:47
Q1 · Predicate clinical evidence
Q2 · Cybersecurity SBOM completeness
Q3 · Labeling carve-out
SimulatorsSee the deficiency letter before it lands.
The problem

Regulatory is the longest mile between science and patients.

A single 510(k) takes 6–9 months and a thousand citations. A PMA, three years. Every word is reviewed by FDA, EMA, PMDA, NMPA — and your claims must survive all of them.

  • 01
    The bottleneck is reading, not writing.

    Most regulatory time is spent finding the relevant guidance, predicate, or precedent — not authoring the argument that follows from it.

  • 02
    Guidance drifts. Submissions don't.

    FDA issued 312 new and revised guidance documents in 2024 alone. A submission written six months ago may already be obsolete in three sections.

  • 03
    Every claim becomes a question.

    If a reviewer can't trace a sentence back to its evidence in under a minute, the deficiency letter is already drafting itself.

  • 04
    Generalist AI doesn't know the rulebook.

    Chat tools hallucinate citations and miss the difference between a Special 510(k) and a Traditional one. Regulators notice.

The REGARA platform

An augmented partner for the regulatory team — not a replacement for it.

01 · Author

Draft every section against live guidance.

REGARA writes against the agency, device class, and submission type you select — pulling from the current FDA, EMA, PMDA, and NMPA guidance corpora.

02 · Defend

Every claim, traceable to a source.

Each generated sentence is anchored to the predicate, standard, or study that supports it. Click any claim to see the evidence.

03 · Submit

Workflow that fits your QMS, not the other way around.

Integrates with Veeva, MasterControl, Greenlight Guru, and SharePoint. Exports to eCTD, eSTAR, and IDMP without re-formatting.

From the team

"We built REGARA because we spent careers asking why a submission has to take a year. The answer was never because the science is hard."

Aaron Kim · Founder
67%
Median time saved on first-draft authoring
3.2×
More predicates surfaced per search
0
Uncited claims at submission
  • ·
    A regulatory corpus, not a chatbot.

    We curate, version, and re-index every guidance document, standard, and consensus publication that touches medical product regulation. Daily.

  • ·
    Speed and quality, together.

    REGARA drafts faster than a regulatory team writing from scratch — and to a higher standard, because every section is anchored to current guidance, precedent, and the customer's own evidence base.

  • ·
    An audit trail any inspector would respect.

    Every prompt, edit, and citation is captured. Reproduce any submission, on any date, in one click.

Why REGARA

The questions a reviewer would ask — answered before they're asked.

Augmented intelligence means the regulator is still the regulator. REGARA handles the volume; your team handles the judgment.

Read the platform overview
Get started

See your next submission, twelve weeks sooner.

A 30-minute walkthrough on a submission of your choosing. We bring the demo data — or you bring yours, under NDA.