Author: Julio Martinez-Clark

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current ANVISA, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim Hcor São Paulo as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Hcor Sao Paulo first-in-human, Hospital do Coracao Sao Paulo clinical trial, Hcor CRO, or “go direct Hcor São Paulo,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hcor in São Paulo, Brazil, is a real named hospital-campus string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the hospital is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANVISA, CEP / CONEP, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the hospital still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named São Paulo Hcor campus. It is DISTINCT from other live São Paulo campuses (Hospital São Paulo UNIFESP, Instituto do Coração HCFMUSP, Medcin, Beneficência Portuguesa — do not near-dup collapse Beneficência). Sharing São Paulo metro is not a license to collapse them. Hcor is not InCor HCFMUSP. Hcor is not Beneficência Portuguesa. Hcor is not Hospital São Paulo UNIFESP.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Hcor (São Paulo, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=17; DEVICE n=1. Example NCT IDs: NCT05398497.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this hospital as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching Hcor São Paulo first-in-human finds ALL n=17 (DEVICE n=1) without finding ANVISA. A named hospital campus is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named hospital can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the hospital can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the hospital is not built to own for an investigational device:

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at Hcor is not an InCor HCFMUSP file and is not a Beneficência Portuguesa file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANVISA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Hcor São Paulo is a serious named Brazilian campus on the public registry. ALL n=17 and DEVICE n=1 are registry volume, not a punchline. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANVISA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Hcor São Paulo directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The hospital can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your ANVISA applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this hospital. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Instituto do Coração HCFMUSP or Beneficência Portuguesa?

No. Instituto do Coração HCFMUSP is already published. Beneficência Portuguesa São Paulo is already published — do not near-dup merge. This page is Hcor only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT05398497?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. São Paulo sibling (do not merge): Instituto do Coração HCFMUSP.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current ANVISA, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim Federal University of Bahia Salvador as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Federal University of Bahia Salvador first-in-human, UFBA clinical trial, Universidade Federal da Bahia CRO, or “go direct Federal University of Bahia Salvador,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Federal University of Bahia (UFBA) in Salvador, Brazil, is a real named university-campus string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the university is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANVISA, CEP / CONEP, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the university still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Salvador UFBA campus (alias includes Hospital Universitário Professor Edgard Santos / HUPES-UFBA). It is DISTINCT from live IDOR Regional Bahia Salvador and Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia Salvador. Sharing Salvador / Bahia is not a license to collapse them. UFBA is not IDOR Regional Bahia. UFBA is not Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Federal University of Bahia (Salvador, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=18; DEVICE n=3. Example NCT IDs: NCT01968512, NCT02152267, NCT07633444.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this university as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching Federal University of Bahia Salvador first-in-human finds ALL n=18 (DEVICE n=3) without finding ANVISA. A named university campus is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named university can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the university can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the university is not built to own for an investigational device:

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at UFBA is not an IDOR Regional Bahia file and is not a Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANVISA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Federal University of Bahia Salvador is a serious named Brazilian campus on the public registry. ALL n=18 and DEVICE n=3 are registry volume, not a punchline. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANVISA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Federal University of Bahia Salvador directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The university can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your ANVISA applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this university. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as IDOR Regional Bahia or Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia Salvador?

No. IDOR Regional Bahia Salvador and Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia Salvador are already published. This page is Federal University of Bahia Salvador only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT01968512?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Salvador sibling (do not merge): IDOR Regional Bahia Salvador.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current ANMAT, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim IADT Buenos Aires as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched IADT Buenos Aires first-in-human, IADT Argentina clinical trial, IADT CRO, or “go direct IADT Buenos Aires,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. IADT in Buenos Aires, Argentina, is a real named institute/center string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANMAT file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the institute is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANMAT, accredited ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the institute still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Buenos Aires IADT campus. It is DISTINCT from live Psoriahue, IDIM, Centro Medico Arsema (separate page), and FLENI Buenos Aires. Sharing Buenos Aires / Argentina is not a license to collapse them. IADT is not Psoriahue. IADT is not IDIM. IADT is not FLENI.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• IADT (Buenos Aires, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=19; DEVICE n=1. Example NCT IDs: NCT04061733.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this institute as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching IADT Buenos Aires first-in-human finds ALL n=19 (DEVICE n=1) without finding ANMAT. A named institute is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named institute can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the institute can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the institute is not built to own for an investigational device:

• ANMAT. Argentina’s national medicines and devices authority (Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica) is the file a sponsor actually needs. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A published statutory target on the trial side is 90 business days and the clock pauses for RFIs. Trial authorization and commercial registro are separate petitions. A hallway conversation at IADT is not a Psoriahue file, not an IDIM file, and not a FLENI file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How ANMAT actually works (the short version)

Use live bioaccess® Argentina / ANMAT pages for the full pathway. Trial authorization and commercial registro are different petitions. Do not put both on one Gantt labeled “Argentina.” A published statutory target on the trial side is on the order of 90 business days and pauses for RFIs; ask for a protocol-specific calendar rather than treating an NCT row as start-up.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANMAT clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

IADT is a serious named Buenos Aires campus on the public registry. ALL n=19 and DEVICE n=1 are registry volume, not a punchline. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANMAT / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract IADT Buenos Aires directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The institute can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your ANMAT applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this institute. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Psoriahue, IDIM, or FLENI Buenos Aires?

No. Psoriahue has its own page. IDIM has its own page. FLENI Buenos Aires is already published. This page is IADT only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT04061733?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. CABA sibling (do not merge): FLENI Buenos Aires.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current INVIMA, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander first-in-human, FOSCAL clinical trial, Fundacion Oftalmologica Santander CRO, or “go direct Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander in Santander, Colombia, is a real named foundation-campus string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the INVIMA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the foundation is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns INVIMA, accredited ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the foundation still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Santander Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander campus. It is not Fundación CTIC Bogotá, not Fundación Reumatología Fernando Chalem Bogotá, and not a Bogotá merge. Sharing a Fundación name is not a license to collapse them. Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander is not CTIC. Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander is not Fernando Chalem.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander (Santander, Colombia) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=20; DEVICE n=1. Example NCT IDs: NCT05883943.

bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this foundation as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander first-in-human finds ALL n=20 (DEVICE n=1) without finding INVIMA. A named foundation is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named foundation can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the foundation can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the foundation is not built to own for an investigational device:

• INVIMA. INVIMA is the national file for an investigational device in Colombia. Resolución 8430/1993 still sits on the ethics and research side of that stack. A hallway conversation on this campus is not the INVIMA dossier. Resolución 2378 does not govern device clinical trials — see the live country pages rather than importing a drug-GCP resolution onto a device file. A hallway conversation at Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander is not a CTIC Bogotá file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How INVIMA actually works (the short version)

Use CRO in Colombia. Colombia ethics timing depends on each committee’s meeting schedule. Published comparison already on the Panama country page: per-patient $15,000–$25,000. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, INVIMA clocks in-country. We pick the country the device needs. A hospital email in Floridablanca is not INVIMA clearance.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not INVIMA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander is a serious named Colombian campus on the public registry. ALL n=20 and DEVICE n=1 are registry volume, not a punchline. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator. bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the INVIMA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The foundation can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your INVIMA applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this foundation. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Fundación CTIC Bogotá?

No. Fundación CTIC Bogotá is already published. This page is Fundacion Oftalmologica De Santander only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT05883943?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Colombia sibling (do not merge): Fundación CTIC Bogotá.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current ANVISA, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim Universidade Federal Fluminense Niterói as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Universidade Federal Fluminense Niteroi first-in-human, UFF Niteroi clinical trial, Universidade Federal Fluminense CRO, or “go direct Universidade Federal Fluminense Niterói,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Universidade Federal Fluminense in Niterói, Brazil, is a real named university-campus string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the university is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANVISA, CEP / CONEP, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the university still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Niterói UFF campus. It is DISTINCT from live Universidade Federal Fluminense Nova Friburgo (Nova Friburgo — different city) and from Complexo Hospitalar de Niterói. Sharing UFF / Niterói is not a license to collapse them. UFF Niterói is not UFF Nova Friburgo. UFF Niterói is not Complexo Hospitalar Niterói.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Universidade Federal Fluminense (Niterói, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=21; DEVICE n=3. Example NCT IDs: NCT03687047, NCT04512677, NCT06967649.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this university as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching Universidade Federal Fluminense Niterói first-in-human finds ALL n=21 (DEVICE n=3) without finding ANVISA. A named university campus is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named university can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the university can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the university is not built to own for an investigational device:

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at UFF Niterói is not a Nova Friburgo file and is not a Complexo Hospitalar Niterói file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANVISA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Universidade Federal Fluminense Niterói is a serious named Brazilian campus on the public registry. ALL n=21 and DEVICE n=3 are registry volume, not a punchline. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANVISA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Universidade Federal Fluminense Niterói directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The university can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your ANVISA applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this university. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as UFF Nova Friburgo or Complexo Hospitalar Niterói?

No. Universidade Federal Fluminense Nova Friburgo and Complexo Hospitalar de Niterói are already published. This page is Universidade Federal Fluminense Niterói only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT03687047?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Distinct sibling (do not merge): Universidade Federal Fluminense Nova Friburgo.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current ANVISA, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim Federal University of Santa Maria as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Federal University of Santa Maria first-in-human, UFSM clinical trial, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria CRO, or “go direct Federal University of Santa Maria,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM) in Santa Maria, Brazil, is a real named university-campus string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the university is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANVISA, CEP / CONEP, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the university still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Santa Maria UFSM campus (Brazil). It is DISTINCT from live Clínica Santa María Santiago (Chile — different country, different regulator). It is not Hospital de Clínicas Porto Alegre / HCPA and not Federal University of São Carlos. Sharing a Santa Maria name is not a license to collapse Chile and Brazil. UFSM is not Clínica Santa María Santiago. UFSM is not HCPA.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Federal University of Santa Maria (Santa Maria, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=25; DEVICE n=5. Example NCT IDs: NCT02088138, NCT02600182, NCT03154970.

Example device NCT IDs are the first 3 of the device list.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this university as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching Federal University of Santa Maria first-in-human finds ALL n=25 (DEVICE n=5) without finding ANVISA. A named university campus is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named university can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the university can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the university is not built to own for an investigational device:

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at UFSM Santa Maria Brazil is not a Clínica Santa María Santiago Chile file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANVISA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Federal University of Santa Maria is a serious named Brazilian campus on the public registry. ALL n=25 and DEVICE n=5 are registry volume, not a punchline. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANVISA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Federal University of Santa Maria directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The university can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your ANVISA applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this university. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Clínica Santa María Santiago?

No. Clínica Santa María Santiago is the Chile campus under ISP. This page is Federal University of Santa Maria (Brazil / ANVISA) only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT02088138?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Distinct Chile sibling (do not merge): Clínica Santa María Santiago.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current ANVISA, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim São Paulo State University São José dos Campos as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Sao Paulo State University Sao Jose dos Campos first-in-human, UNESP Sao Jose dos Campos clinical trial, Sao Paulo State University CRO, or “go direct São Paulo State University São José dos Campos,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. São Paulo State University in São José dos Campos, Brazil, is a real named university-campus string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the university is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANVISA, CEP / CONEP, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the university still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named São José dos Campos São Paulo State University (UNESP) campus. It is DISTINCT from live UNESP Faculdade de Medicina Botucatu (Botucatu — different city). It is not University of Sao Paulo, not Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), and not Medcin Instituto da Pele São Paulo. Sharing a São Paulo State / UNESP name is not a license to collapse Botucatu and São José dos Campos. UNESP São José dos Campos is not UNESP Botucatu. UNESP São José dos Campos is not USP.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• São Paulo State University (São José dos Campos, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=27; DEVICE n=2. Example NCT IDs: NCT05916716, NCT05916742.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this university as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching São Paulo State University São José dos Campos first-in-human finds ALL n=27 (DEVICE n=2) without finding ANVISA. A named university campus is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named university can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the university can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the university is not built to own for an investigational device:

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at UNESP São José dos Campos is not a Botucatu Faculdade de Medicina file and is not a USP file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANVISA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

São Paulo State University São José dos Campos is a serious named Brazilian campus on the public registry. ALL n=27 and DEVICE n=2 are registry volume, not a punchline. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANVISA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. In Panama and Colombia alike, ethics timing depends on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract São Paulo State University São José dos Campos directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The university can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your ANVISA applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this university. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as UNESP Faculdade de Medicina Botucatu?

No. UNESP Faculdade de Medicina Botucatu is already published for the Botucatu campus. This page is São Paulo State University São José dos Campos only — different city.

Did bioaccess® run NCT05916716?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Distinct Botucatu sibling (do not merge): UNESP Faculdade de Medicina Botucatu.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current INVIMA, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim Clínica Universitaria Colombia Bogotá as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Clinica Universitaria Colombia Bogota first-in-human, Clinica Universitaria Colombia clinical trial, Clinica Universitaria Colombia CRO, or “go direct Clínica Universitaria Colombia Bogotá,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Clínica Universitaria Colombia in Bogotá, Colombia, is a real named hospital/clinic-campus string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the INVIMA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the hospital is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns INVIMA, accredited ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the hospital still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Bogotá Clínica Universitaria Colombia campus. It is not Fundación CTIC Bogotá, not Fundación Reumatología Fernando Chalem Bogotá, and not a generic Bogotá hospital fold. Sharing Bogotá is not a license to collapse them. Clínica Universitaria Colombia is not CTIC. Clínica Universitaria Colombia is not Fernando Chalem.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Clínica Universitaria Colombia (Bogotá, Colombia) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=28; DEVICE n=1. Example NCT IDs: NCT06735547.

bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this hospital as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching Clínica Universitaria Colombia Bogotá first-in-human finds ALL n=28 (DEVICE n=1) without finding INVIMA. A named hospital/clinic campus is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named hospital can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the hospital can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the hospital is not built to own for an investigational device:

• INVIMA. INVIMA is the national file for an investigational device in Colombia. Resolución 8430/1993 still sits on the ethics and research side of that stack. A hallway conversation on this campus is not the INVIMA dossier. Resolución 2378 does not govern device clinical trials — see the live country pages rather than importing a drug-GCP resolution onto a device file. A hallway conversation at Clínica Universitaria Colombia is not a CTIC file and is not a Fernando Chalem file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How INVIMA actually works (the short version)

Use CRO in Colombia. Colombia ethics timing depends on each committee’s meeting schedule. Published comparison already on the Panama country page: per-patient $15,000–$25,000. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, INVIMA clocks in-country. We pick the country the device needs. A hospital email in Bogotá is not INVIMA clearance.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not INVIMA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Clínica Universitaria Colombia is a serious named Bogotá campus on the public registry. ALL n=28 and DEVICE n=1 are registry volume, not a punchline. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator. bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the INVIMA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. In Panama and Colombia alike, ethics timing depends on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Clínica Universitaria Colombia Bogotá directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The hospital can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your INVIMA applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this hospital. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Fundación CTIC Bogotá?

No. Fundación CTIC Bogotá is already published. This page is Clínica Universitaria Colombia Bogotá only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT06735547?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Bogotá sibling (do not merge): Fundación CTIC Bogotá.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from the live ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT07085741 (study first posted 25 July 2025; last update posted 11 September 2026) and the published bioaccess® Mexico country page, verified 11 September 2026. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current COFEPRIS, ethics-committee, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility and the trial those sources support. We do not publish site contact emails or phone numbers here. GT Metabolic Solutions is not claimed as a bioaccess® client. bioaccess® is not listed on this NCT.

If you searched Corporativo Hospital Satélite clinical trial, Hospital Satelite Naucalpan MAGNET, GT Metabolic Mexico duodeno-ileostomy, MAGNET 2 Study Mexico, or “go direct to the Naucalpan site,” you followed a facility string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes on NCT07085741. Corporativo Hospital Satelite in Naucalpan, Mexico is a real named facility on that record. It is not the operator of the COFEPRIS file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: Corporativo Hospital Satelite is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns COFEPRIS, institutional ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if Naucalpan is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the hospital still have to rebuild that stack. A completed location row does not become a CRO.

This page is for the Naucalpan / Hospital Satélite query. It does not repeat clinical trials in Mexico. That page stays the country operating system. Sibling Mexican pages stay on their own buildings: Especialistas de la Piel y Cirugía Monterrey, New Hope Fertility Centre Mexico City, and Reina Madre Mexico City. They are separate from this page.

Why the hospital name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

NCT07085741 is an industry device listing. The registry’s own dates, retrieved 11 September 2026: study first submitted 8 April 2025; QC submitted 18 July 2025; first posted 25 July 2025; last update submitted 9 September 2026; last update posted 11 September 2026. Brief title: Creation of Side-to-Side Compression Anastomosis Using the GT Metabolic Solutions DI Biofragmentable Magnetic Anastomosis System in Mexico. Official title ends with the sponsor acronym MAGNET 2 Study. Organization study ID: GTM-002. Lead sponsor: GT Metabolic Solutions, Inc., class INDUSTRY, responsible party the sponsor. No collaborator is listed. No CRO is listed.

Design on the 11 September 2026 snapshot: interventional; intervention model description on the record says an open-label multicenter plan for up to 25 subjects at up to 3 study centers in Mexico; allocation N/A; no masking; primary purpose treatment; phase N/A; actual enrollment 10; status COMPLETED. Actual start 7 May 2025; actual primary completion 19 October 2025; actual completion 21 June 2026. Conditions: obesity; type 2 diabetes. The brief summary’s own words: evaluate the feasibility / performance, safety and initial efficacy of the MAGNET System, DI Biofragmentable for side-to-side duodeno-ileostomy diversion.

Intervention, in the registry’s words: a device — MAGNET System, DI Biofragmentable; anastomoses achieved by magnetic compression. Primary outcomes listed: magnet placement (≥90% alignment during the index procedure); natural magnet passage without surgical re-intervention through 90 days; anastomosis patency confirmed radiologically through 90 days. The registry’s oversight module records no data monitoring committee, and marks the study as not FDA-regulated drug and not FDA-regulated device — a sponsor-entered flag about this listing, not a statement about what a later U.S. filing would require.

Location rows currently published:

• Corporativo Hospital Satelite — the only location on the record — Naucalpan, Mexico. No site contact or overall official is printed on the public row as of the 11 September 2026 snapshot. We will not invent a principal investigator name.

Read the record as it is. A single Mexican facility string, an actual enrollment of 10, feasibility language in the brief summary, an industry sponsor, and no CRO in the public copy. That is the search gap: a sponsor searching MAGNET System Mexico, GT Metabolic Naucalpan, or Hospital Satélite metabolic anastomosis now lands on a named hospital with no operator between them and the file. MAGNET 2 naming and earlier MagDI listings elsewhere on ClinicalTrials.gov mean we will not invent a “world’s first implant” claim for this page; the page is the Mexico facility string, not a global first-case press release.

Naucalpan is a site. The CRO is the operator.

A Naucalpan hospital campus can provide operating rooms, metabolic/bariatric procedural capacity, imaging for anastomosis patency, and local research staffing when contracted. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for an investigational-device study a U.S. board expects to survive later scrutiny.

What a site can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and procedural feasibility for a magnetic-anastomosis protocol — when that service is available and appropriate for your device, which is not automatic.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote procedure, visit, and local staffing costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the site is not built to own for an investigational device:

• COFEPRIS. Clinical investigations sit under the Ley General de Salud and its implementing regulations. The submission is in Spanish: protocol, investigator brochure, informed consent, ethics approval, proof of insurance. A conversation with a Naucalpan hospital is not that dossier.
• Institutional ethics. Ethics-committee review under NOM-012-SSA3-2012 sits in front of the COFEPRIS file, and the committee is tied to the host institution once the site is chosen.
• Investigational import. Bringing an unapproved device into Mexico is a separate workstream from the trial authorization and from a later commercial registro sanitario. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a site-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, adverse-event reporting, and the TMF.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after the GCP and ethics documentation that rule defines. Eligibility is not clearance. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.
• Multi-country optionality. If one Mexican campus is not enough, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch to Colombia, Panama, Chile, or Brazil.

Going direct to Corporativo Hospital Satelite is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

Site versus CRO

Workstream	What the Naucalpan hospital (site) typically owns	What the CRO still owns
Procedure	OR, magnetic placement session, local imaging and staff	Protocol fit, training, device accountability
Ethics	Institutional committee calendar and local rules	Packet, ICF, IB alignment, deficiency cycle (NOM-012-SSA3-2012)
National authority	Not the permit holder by being listed on an NCT	COFEPRIS clinical-investigation file, in Spanish
Import	Receiving and storage if contracted	Importer of record for the investigational system
Quality	Hospital quality and the index procedure	ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, AE reporting, TMF
FDA conversation	Source documents from cases they run	21 CFR 812.28 narrative — eligibility, not clearance
Country optionality	One Naucalpan campus	Colombia (INVIMA) and the rest of the bioaccess® platform

How COFEPRIS and ethics sit next to the hospital

Use clinical trials in Mexico for the full pathway. Facts a sponsor searching this facility needs on one screen, already published there and not re-averaged here:

• Ethics committee review under NOM-012-SSA3-2012 comes first, then COFEPRIS review; the calendar is confirmed per protocol.
• Published per-patient range $18,000–$30,000; 10+ pre-qualified sites across Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey.
• The ~30-working-day COFEPRIS figure is registro sanitario / vía abreviada — a commercial market-access clock, not this trial clock.
• All COFEPRIS submissions are in Spanish, including protocol, investigator brochure, and informed consent.
• Under 21 CFR 812.28, foreign clinical data is eligible for FDA submission and review when the investigation meets that rule’s GCP conditions. Eligibility is not a guarantee of clearance or approval.
• bioaccess®’s published cost comparison versus a typical U.S. or EU program is an experience-based estimate from work since 2010, not a formal study.

We will not invent a facility-only day count. Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not a COFEPRIS authorization.

What the GT Metabolic public file actually supports — and what it does not

• Device: MAGNET System, DI Biofragmentable (magnetic side-to-side duodeno-ileostomy anastomosis), as described on NCT07085741.
• Sponsor: GT Metabolic Solutions, Inc. (industry). No collaborator. No CRO named.
• Site: Corporativo Hospital Satelite, Naucalpan, Mexico — the only location row on the 11 September 2026 snapshot.
• Design: interventional, phase N/A; actual n=10; COMPLETED; actual start 7 May 2025; actual completion 21 June 2026; brief summary uses feasibility / performance language; official title labels the file MAGNET 2 Study (org ID GTM-002).
• Named investigator (as published): none on the public location or overall-official fields as of this snapshot. We do not invent one.
• Not claimed here: that the NCT named bioaccess®; that GT Metabolic is a bioaccess® client; that we have MAGNET outcomes; that this listing is an FDA IDE; that the hospital holds a COFEPRIS authorization because it is printed on a registry row; that this Mexico row is the world’s first MagDI implant.

What the CRO still does after you have a hospital name

• Regulatory-fit, not tourism. Mexico is a sourced device geography. It is not automatically the right country for every indication. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
• Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the COFEPRIS / ethics packet — in Spanish.
• Importer of record and device accountability for the investigational system.
• ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative for a later FDA conversation.
• Optionality if one Estado de México campus is not enough.

The founder podcast, when a conversation needs a voice, is Global Trial Accelerators™. Background on why registry rows keep outranking operators: ClinicalTrials.gov FIH sites vs the CRO.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Corporativo Hospital Satelite directly?

You can try. The facility can discuss investigator interest, local procedure costs, and ethics-committee calendars. It cannot become your COFEPRIS applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager because GT Metabolic listed Naucalpan. Contract the CRO; let the CRO activate the site.

Did bioaccess® run the MAGNET 2 study?

No public bioaccess® page says so. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the study.

The registry says this is not an FDA-regulated device study. Does 21 CFR 812.28 still matter?

It matters the moment you want the data to travel. That sponsor-entered flag describes this listing. If a U.S. submission is ever the goal, the GCP, ethics, and documentation conditions in 21 CFR 812.28 are what make foreign data eligible for FDA submission and review — and eligibility is still not clearance.

Is this a first-in-human study?

The brief summary uses feasibility / performance language and the official title calls the file MAGNET 2 Study. Earlier MagDI / MAGNET System listings for GT Metabolic exist on ClinicalTrials.gov outside Mexico. We cover the Naucalpan facility string; we do not invent a global first-implant headline from this NCT alone.

Is Colombia still an option?

Yes. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia. A Naucalpan search is not an instruction to abandon INVIMA. See CRO in Colombia.