PRACTICAL GUIDE | 2026

First-in-Human for Biopharma in Latin America: Phase 1, Healthy Volunteers, and Bioanalytical Lab Selection

For biopharma FIH, the study is only half the question. The other half is who runs the assays — and whether regulators will accept the data.

By Julio G. Martinez-Clark

CEO, bioaccess®

Last verified: September 2026 | General information only—not legal or regulatory advice. Rules change frequently; confirm the strategy with qualified regulatory counsel.

Publishing package

Key entities, defined plainly. FIH means first-in-human — the first time a drug is given to people. Phase 1 is the first clinical stage, usually in healthy volunteers (HV). A bioanalytical lab measures drug concentrations (PK, pharmacokinetics), effects (PD, pharmacodynamics), immune responses (ADA, anti-drug antibodies), and biomarkers in study samples. GCP (Good Clinical Practice) governs clinical studies; GCLP (Good Clinical Laboratory Practice) applies GCP principles to labs that analyze clinical samples; GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) governs nonclinical studies. ICH M10 is the international guideline for bioanalytical method validation and study-sample analysis. LC-MS/MS (liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry) and LBA (ligand-binding assay) are the two main analytical platforms. INVIMA is Colombia’s regulator, ANMAT is Argentina’s, and ANVISA is Brazil’s. B/BE means bioavailability/bioequivalence; ISO 17025 is a laboratory competence standard; SLA is a service-level agreement on turnaround time.

Why does bioanalytical lab selection start before first patient in?

In a device FIH, the data product is the clinical outcome. In a biopharma FIH, the data product is the assay result — PK curves, ADA incidence, biomarker movement. If the lab is wrong, the study is wrong, no matter how good the clinic is. Dose-escalation decisions run on bioanalytical turnaround: slow assays mean slow cohorts. Select the lab during synopsis development, not after the protocol is final.

What should a sponsor check when selecting a bioanalytical lab?

Six checks. Every one of them is verify-before-you-commit:

1. GCP/GCLP compliance — not “GLP accreditation.” The lab analyzes clinical samples, so require GCP/GCLP compliance. GLP governs nonclinical studies; a lab with GLP experience for nonclinical support is a plus, but “GLP-accredited” is the wrong standard for a clinical bioanalytical lab.
2. PK methods validated or transferred per ICH M10. Chromatographic (LC-MS/MS) or ligand-binding methods, as appropriate to the molecule. Method validation or a documented method transfer — not a handshake.
3. ADA and biomarker assays validated fit-for-purpose. Immunogenicity (ADA) and biomarker assays must be validated under fit-for-purpose approaches consistent with FDA and EMA immunogenicity guidance. Be explicit about this: ICH M10 does NOT cover immunogenicity or biomarker assays. A lab that answers “we follow M10” for an ADA assay has not answered the question.
4. Documented regulatory inspection history. Ask for inspection history and findings. There is no formal “prior data acceptance” register at INVIMA, ANVISA, or ANMAT — do not let anyone sell you a listing that does not exist. Prefer labs that sit inside a regulator-authorized Phase 1 center (for example, under ANMAT’s post-7516/2025 FIH-center authorization framework).
5. Turnaround SLA fast enough for dose escalation. Dose-escalation committees decide on data. Get the turnaround commitment in writing, and keep a central-lab fallback (US or EU) for any method not locally validated.
6. Lock the assay format, matrices, and biomarker panel early. In the synopsis — not during study startup. Late changes to the assay panel are one of the most common preventable causes of FIH delay.

Criterion	What good looks like	Red flag
Compliance standard	GCP/GCLP-compliant lab; GLP experience for nonclinical support a plus	“GLP-accredited” presented as the clinical-lab standard
PK validation	ICH M10-validated or transferred methods (LC-MS/MS or LBA)	No validation package; verbal assurance only
ADA / biomarkers	Fit-for-purpose validation per FDA/EMA immunogenicity guidance	“We follow ICH M10” for an ADA assay
Regulatory track record	Documented inspection history; lab inside a regulator-authorized Phase 1 center	Claims of a formal “accepted lab” register that does not exist
Turnaround	Written SLA supporting dose-escalation cadence; central-lab fallback	No SLA; no fallback plan
Assay lock	Format, matrices, and panel fixed in the synopsis	Assay decisions drifting into startup

Does INVIMA B/BE certification or ISO 17025 settle the question?

No — and this is a common expensive misunderstanding. INVIMA’s bioavailability/bioequivalence (B/BE) certification is a BE-only scheme built for generic-drug registration. For an FIH program, treat it as an optional quality signal about a lab’s general discipline — never as an FIH requirement. A lab without B/BE certification is not disqualified from FIH work, and a lab with it is not automatically qualified.

ISO 17025 works the same way: a genuine differentiator in laboratory competence, but not a requirement for FIH bioanalysis. Use it as a tiebreaker between two otherwise equal labs, not as a gate.

Where do healthy-volunteer Phase 1 units fit in Latin America?

Argentina and Chile make a strong primary/backup healthy-volunteer pairing: established Phase 1 unit infrastructure, experienced investigators, and — in Argentina — a defined Phase I review clock of 35 technical plus 10 administrative business days (about 45 total) under ANMAT Disposición 7516/2025, Annex III. Mexico and Brazil have deep clinical infrastructure, but their healthy-volunteer Phase 1 capacity is less established than Argentina’s and Chile’s — factor that into country selection for a healthy-volunteer study, not just the regulatory clock.

Frequently asked questions

Is GLP accreditation required for the bioanalytical lab?

No. GLP governs nonclinical studies. For a lab analyzing clinical FIH samples, require GCP/GCLP compliance. GLP experience supporting nonclinical work is a bonus, not the standard.

Does ICH M10 cover immunogenicity and biomarker assays?

No. ICH M10 covers chromatographic and ligand-binding PK assays. ADA and biomarker assays need fit-for-purpose validation consistent with FDA and EMA immunogenicity guidance.

Can I use my US or EU central lab instead of a local one?

Yes — keep a central-lab fallback for any method not locally validated. Build it into the plan and the budget from the start, not as an emergency fix.

Does an INVIMA B/BE certificate qualify a lab for FIH bioanalysis?

It is an optional quality signal only. B/BE certification is a generic-registration scheme, not an FIH requirement.

Is there an official list of regulator-accepted bioanalytical labs?

No. There is no formal prior-acceptance register at INVIMA, ANVISA, or ANMAT. Evaluate documented inspection history instead.

How fast can a Phase 1 start in Argentina?

ANMAT’s Phase I clock is 35 technical plus 10 administrative business days — about 45 total — under Disposición 7516/2025, Annex III.

That discipline — lock the assays early, select the lab on documented evidence, and pair your healthy-volunteer units across countries — is what First-in-Human for Biopharma in Latin America: Phase 1, Healthy Volunteers, and Bioanalytical Lab Selection is really about. The lab is part of the study design, not a procurement line item.

References

• ICH M10 — Bioanalytical Method Validation and Study Sample Analysis.
• FDA and EMA immunogenicity/ADA assay guidance (fit-for-purpose validation).
• ANMAT Disposición 7516/2025, Annex III (Phase I review clock: 35 technical + 10 administrative business days).
• OECD Principles of GLP and GCLP guidance documents (scope: nonclinical vs. clinical-sample analysis).

PRACTICAL GUIDE | 2026

The homework every investigator completes — even the preselected one.

By Julio G. Martinez-Clark

CEO, bioaccess®

Last verified: September 2026 | General information only—not legal or regulatory advice. Rules change frequently; confirm the strategy with qualified regulatory counsel.

Suggested URL slug	qualify-fih-sites-investigators-latam
SEO title	How We Qualify FIH Sites and Investigators in Latin America | 2026 Guide
Meta description	Inside bioaccess®'s site qualification method: questionnaire, sponsor approval, outreach, on-site evaluation — and why even preselected investigators do the homework.
Suggested excerpt	What does a site-search line item actually buy? The four-step qualification method bioaccess® has run for twenty years — and the five elements every site must pass.

A sponsor once told us our site-search line item seemed very high. Fair question. Here is the answer, with nothing hidden: how we qualify FIH sites and investigators in Latin America, step by step. We have been doing this for twenty years — and the method is the same whether the investigator is new to us or preselected by the sponsor.

• bioaccess® — a first-in-human (FIH) contract research organization (CRO) running early-stage clinical trials across Latin America.
• FIH (first-in-human) — the first clinical use of a device or drug in people — typically a small, closely monitored early-feasibility study.
• Site qualification — the structured process of selecting and vetting a clinical site and investigator before a study starts — distinct from site initiation, which activates an already-selected site.
• CRO (contract research organization) — the company contracted to run the clinical trial on the sponsor's behalf.

What does the site-search line item actually include?

Four things: questionnaire build, sponsor approval, outreach, and evaluation. The questionnaire is built for your device and your protocol — not a generic form. You approve it before it goes out. Then we run outreach to candidate sites and evaluate the responses on site. That is the line item. It looks expensive until you price a wrong site: a site that cannot enroll, cannot execute, or cannot survive an inspection costs multiples of the qualification fee.

What are the four steps of qualification?

Step	What happens	Why it matters
1. Questionnaire build	A site-qualification questionnaire tailored to the device, the procedure, and the protocol.	Generic forms miss device-specific risks.
2. Sponsor approval	You review and approve the questionnaire before outreach begins.	No surprises about what we are screening for.
3. Outreach	Structured contact with candidate sites and investigators.	Breadth before depth — the shortlist earns its place.
4. On-site evaluation	In-person assessment of the site and the team.	Paper claims get verified where the work happens.

What do you assess at each site?

Five elements — the whole environment, not just the physician's CV:

• The investigator — clinical credibility, FIH-relevant experience, and genuine interest. Interest is a qualification criterion, not a pleasantry — it predicts enrollment.
• Patient flow — real, current, eligible-patient volume for this indication — the direct input to the enrollment model.
• Coordinators — the study coordinators who run the day-to-day: experience, bandwidth, and language capability.
• Equipment — the procedure requires specific equipment; its presence and condition are verified on site, not assumed from a brochure.
• Certified site — the site's certifications and inspection readiness, so the data file survives regulatory scrutiny.

What if we already chose our investigator?

Even a preselected investigator gets the homework. The questionnaire goes out, the evaluation happens, and the environment gets qualified. Preselection is a head start, not a waiver — some of our best-performing sites were preselected, and some preselected sites failed the evaluation. The process is the same either way, because how we qualify FIH sites and investigators in Latin America does not change with who made the introduction.

Does the investigator need experience with our exact device?

Exact prior-device experience is nice to have, not required. What is required: relevant procedural skill, research discipline, real patient access, and a team that can execute a first-in-human protocol. A great investigator learns a new device quickly; a weak environment cannot be fixed by device familiarity. We weight the five elements accordingly.

What should I ask any CRO about site qualification?

• Show me the questionnaire you would build for my device — is it tailored or generic?
• Who approves it, and when — before or after outreach?
• What specifically happens during the on-site evaluation?
• What are your go/no-go criteria?
• What happens when a preselected investigator fails the evaluation?
• How do you verify patient flow — self-reported numbers or chart-level evidence?

Frequently asked questions

Have you worked with these sites before?

We have been doing this for twenty years, so the answer is often yes — but every program re-qualifies. Past work is a head start, not a substitute for the current questionnaire and evaluation.

Why not skip qualification for a site we already know?

Because sites change: investigators move, coordinators turn over, equipment ages, patient flow shifts. The homework verifies the site as it is today, not as it was in the last program.

How long does site qualification take?

It runs in parallel with regulatory preparation; the timeline depends on the country, the number of candidate sites, and how quickly the sponsor approves the questionnaire. Ask us to map it against your startup clock.

What is the difference between site qualification and site initiation?

Qualification selects the site — it answers whether this site should run the study. Initiation activates an already-selected site: training, contracts, and green-lighting enrollment.

Do you qualify backup sites?

Yes. Backup sites are prequalified before first patient in, so adding enrollment capacity later is a decision, not a new project.

What fails a site most often?

In our experience, it is rarely the investigator's skill — it is patient flow that does not match the claims, or coordinator bandwidth that cannot absorb a first-in-human protocol's demands.

See the questionnaire we would build for your device

bioaccess® qualifies FIH sites and investigators across Latin America — questionnaire, sponsor approval, outreach, and on-site evaluation, with the whole environment assessed. Send us your protocol and we will show you what the homework looks like.

Talk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategyTalk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategy

References

• Methodology described reflects bioaccess® site-qualification practice and sponsor Q&A, 2021–2026 (all clients anonymized).
• Related reading: “How to Choose the Right CRO for First-in-Human Studies in Colombia” (bioaccessla.com blog).
• General: confirm site-selection strategy against the final protocol before contracting sites.

PRACTICAL GUIDE | 2026

The Two-Country FIH Strategy: De-risking Timelines and Enrollment with Parallel Programs

One country is a plan. Two countries are insurance.

By Julio G. Martinez-Clark

CEO, bioaccess®

Last verified: September 2026 | General information only—not legal or regulatory advice. Rules change frequently; confirm the strategy with qualified regulatory counsel.

Publishing package

FIH is first-in-human: the first time a device or drug is tested in people. A two-country FIH strategy does not mean running the same study twice. It means designing one program with staged, sequential cohorts across two countries in Latin America — early cohorts enrolling in the faster-activating market while the second market completes startup, with each cohort's safety data reviewed before the next begins. The two-country FIH strategy is timeline insurance: if one country's startup stalls or enrollment underperforms, the program still moves.

This is a design framework, not a promise about any specific pair of countries. Every pairing below is illustrative — an example of how the selection logic works, not a guaranteed outcome. The right pair depends on your device, your indication, and the feasibility data.

How does a staged two-country program actually work?

The architecture is sequential cohorts, parallel infrastructure:

1. Country A activates first. Typically a fast-corridor market — Panama, El Salvador, Chile, or Costa Rica — where ethics and regulator submissions run in parallel and activation is measured in weeks. Early cohorts enroll here.
2. Country B starts up in parallel. A larger market — Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, or Argentina — with deeper investigator benches and larger patient populations, on its longer startup clock. Its sites come online as later cohorts begin.
3. Safety gates between cohorts. Each cohort's safety data is reviewed independently before the next cohort enrolls, regardless of which country hosts it. The safety review is per-cohort, not per-country.
4. Enrollment flexes to reality. If Country A enrolls faster than modeled, later cohorts can expand there. If it underperforms, Country B's sites absorb the load. The program is no longer hostage to a single site's patient flow.

Note what this is not: it is not two independent studies, and it is not a way to dodge safety oversight. One protocol, one safety standard, two (or more) national regulatory pathways executed in parallel.

How do you choose the country pair?

Pair selection is the whole game. The framework bioaccess® uses weighs six criteria — and the answer is almost never 'the two fastest countries':

Selection criterion	What to evaluate	Why it matters
Activation speed	Weeks-to-activation by pathway: fast corridor (weeks) vs. major markets (months).	Determines which country hosts the early cohorts.
Patient flow for your indication	Real site-level flow, not national population. Small countries can starve a program; large countries with the wrong referral patterns can too.	Enrollment is the risk you are insuring against.
Investigator depth	Number of qualified investigators and backup sites per country.	One brilliant investigator is a single point of failure.
Perceived data rigor	How regulators and future partners view data from each market. Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, and Chile generally sit in the top tier.	Matters when the FIH data must support FDA or partner discussions.
Cost tier	Site and hospital fees vary widely — hospital fees in El Salvador, for example, run well below Panama's.	A fast country that breaks the budget is not fast.
Import and startup mechanics	Import-permit lead times, IOR requirements, translation burden.	Two countries means two import workstreams; plan both from day one.

What do illustrative pairings look like?

These are design examples showing how the criteria combine — not recommendations for your study and not guaranteed outcomes:

• Fast corridor + major market. Early cohorts in a fast-activating country (Panama, El Salvador) while a larger market (Brazil, Colombia) completes startup for later cohorts. Speed now, scale and data-rigor perception later.
• Fast corridor + backup. Primary enrollment in one fast country with a second fast country on standby — for example, Panama primary with El Salvador or Chile ready to activate. Lower startup cost than a major-market pairing; less enrollment depth.
• Major market + major market. For programs that need enrollment volume from day one and can fund two full startup tracks. Maximum enrollment insurance, maximum cost.

The pattern: one country buys speed, the other buys depth, redundancy, or perception. If both countries in your pair serve the same purpose, you have not designed a strategy — you have duplicated a budget.

What does the two-country FIH strategy cost — and what does it buy?

Honest accounting. A second country roughly duplicates the startup-phase costs: a second ethics and regulatory filing, a second import-permit workstream, additional site qualification, translation, and CRO startup fees. It does not duplicate the per-patient economics — you are still enrolling the same total cohort; you are buying a second place to enroll them.

What that buys: the two-country FIH strategy converts the two largest FIH schedule risks — a stalled approval and a dry enrollment pipeline — from program-killers into manageable variances. For a venture-backed sponsor whose runway is measured in months, that insurance is frequently cheaper than the delay it prevents. For a well-funded sponsor with a common indication and proven sites, it may be unnecessary. The feasibility data should make the call, not the ambition.

When should you NOT go multi-country?

• The indication enrolls easily and one country's feasibility numbers are strong — redundancy without risk is overhead.
• The budget cannot absorb two startup tracks without cutting corners on monitoring or data quality. Never fund the second country by thinning the first.
• The device or protocol is still changing. Multi-country startup multiplies the cost of every amendment.
• No feasibility work has been done in either country. Two unvalidated countries are not diversification; they are two guesses.

Design checklist: the two-country FIH strategy done right

1. Run feasibility in both countries before committing. Test two to three countries; let site-level patient flow and startup clocks — not enthusiasm — pick the pair.
2. Assign each country a job. Speed, depth, redundancy, perception: if a country has no defined role, cut it.
3. Stage the cohorts with safety gates. Sequential cohorts, independent safety review between them, regardless of which country hosts each cohort.
4. Run both startup tracks in parallel. A backup country that starts up after the primary fails is not a backup; it is a rescue mission.
5. Budget the full second startup. Two filings, two import workstreams, two site qualifications. Price it honestly or do not do it.
6. Keep one protocol and one data standard. ICH-GCP (International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice) data from qualified sites is what makes multi-country FIH data usable downstream — including for FDA discussions.

Frequently asked questions

Does a two-country FIH study mean double the patients?

No. The total cohort is the same; it is distributed across the two countries' sites. You are buying a second enrollment engine and a second regulatory pathway, not a second study.

Which country should enroll the first cohort?

Usually the faster-activating one, so first-patient-in is not hostage to the slower market's startup clock. The slower market's sites join for later cohorts once activated.

Will the FDA accept FIH data from two Latin American countries?

FDA acceptance turns on ICH-GCP compliance and qualified sites and investigators — not on the number of countries. Multi-country data generated to one protocol and one standard is routinely usable; see our post on FDA acceptance of LATAM FIH data.

How much more does the two-country FIH strategy cost?

Roughly a duplicated startup track: second ethics/regulatory filing, second import workstream, added site qualification and translation. Per-patient costs do not double. The honest comparison is against the cost of a multi-month delay.

Can we add the second country later if the first one stalls?

You can, but a country added in panic starts its clock at zero — months behind. The insurance value comes from running both startup tracks in parallel from the beginning.

Is a two-country strategy the same as a backup site?

No. A backup site is redundancy within one regulatory pathway. A second country is redundancy across regulatory pathways — it protects against approval delays and country-level enrollment failure, which no backup site can fix.

Design the program before you commit to the countries

The two-country FIH strategy is a program-design decision, not a reaction to a stalled startup. bioaccess® builds staged multi-country FIH programs across Latin America — feasibility in two to three markets, parallel startup tracks, sequential cohorts with independent safety review — so your timeline survives contact with reality.

Talk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategy

Regulatory references

• ICH E6 Good Clinical Practice (GCP) — the data standard underlying multi-country FIH programs.
• bioaccess® blog: Will the FDA Accept Data from a Latin American First-in-Human Trial? (2026).
• bioaccess® blog: How Long Does It Take to Start a First-in-Human Trial in Latin America? A Country-by-Country Startup Clock (2026).
• bioaccess® blog: El Salvador, Panama, Chile, Costa Rica: Inside Latin America's Fast-Track FIH Corridor (2026).
• bioaccess® blog: Patient Recruitment for FIH Trials in Latin America: What the Feasibility Numbers Actually Look Like (2026).

PRACTICAL GUIDE | 2026

No checklist. One standard: convince the committee the product will be safe in humans.

By Julio G. Martinez-Clark

CEO, bioaccess®

Last verified: September 2026 | General information only—not legal or regulatory advice. Rules change frequently; confirm the strategy with qualified regulatory counsel.

How much preclinical data do you need before a first-in-human in Latin America? Sponsors usually arrive expecting a checklist — a fixed list of studies, species, and durations that unlocks the clinic. Latin American regulators do not work that way. There is no region-wide preclinical checklist and no codified rule that studies must be GLP-compliant as a condition of first-in-human authorization. There is one standard instead: prove the device or drug will be safe in humans. The burden of proof is on you.

Definitions first. Preclinical (nonclinical) data is the bench and animal testing done before a product enters humans — biocompatibility, toxicology, safety pharmacology, animal performance studies. GLP means good laboratory practice (21 CFR Part 58 in the US): the quality system for nonclinical lab studies. Non-GLP or “R&D-grade” data was generated without that formal quality system. The distinction matters less in Latin America than sponsors expect — and more, later, at FDA.

Is there a fixed preclinical checklist for a LATAM first-in-human?

No. No Latin American regulator publishes a 21 CFR Part 58-style list of required preclinical studies for first-in-human authorization. Colombia’s INVIMA publishes an inventory of approved and not-approved device studies — protocol, product, sponsor, site, investigator — but no required species, sample sizes, durations, or GLP stamp. Chile’s guidance requires preclinical testing and risk evaluation to be exhaustive and sufficient to support the investigation, under ISO 14971, while expressly disclaiming any device-specific test menu. The file that is actually read is a risk-management file plus an investigator’s brochure — not a checklist with boxes to tick.

Is non-GLP preclinical data enough?

For medical devices, yes — with rationale. “If you have the rationale to support why that drug doesn’t need that specific test, that should be sufficient.” R&D-grade data has supported real first-in-human device programs in the region: biocompatibility files, animal performance studies, and risk assessments accepted on the strength of their science rather than their quality-system stamp. A rationale can substitute for a specific test when it explains why the test is unnecessary — not merely that it was skipped.

For drugs and biologics, narrow the claim. Colombia’s medicines framework expects an ICH M3(R2)-type nonclinical safety package, and a non-GLP pivotal toxicology study for a new chemical entity or biologic will draw questions from INVIMA and the ethics committee in the same way it would from FDA. There is no Colombian rule that says “tox studies must be GLP” — but say “no explicit GLP mandate” rather than “non-GLP is accepted.” And note Brazil: ANVISA’s nonclinical guidance expects GLP-conducted safety studies for medicines — the closest thing to an explicit GLP expectation in the region, though it sits at guidance level and applies to drugs, not the device pathway.

Can we reuse the data we already generated abroad?

Yes — origin is not the criterion. Sponsors ask, “Can we just use everything we already used?” — testing done in China, non-GLP work from years ago. The answer: “They don’t care… GLP, non-GLP… regardless of where.” No LATAM regulator imposes a country-of-origin restriction on preclinical data. Three practical caveats make reuse succeed or fail:

• Language: reports must be submitted in Spanish, or with translation. Budget for it.
• Completeness: for novel products, reviewers expect full study reports — not summaries or slide decks.
• Traceability: show the standard used, the laboratory’s quality system (reviewers frequently ask about accreditation, such as ISO/IEC 17025 or a national GLP program, even where GLP is not mandated), and that the tested article matches the clinical product.

What does a convincing preclinical package look like?

Think of the package as an argument, not an inventory. Every study should answer a human-safety question, and the investigator’s brochure should tie the answers together:

• Map each test to a risk: what human harm does this study rule out, and for which patient population?
• Write the rationale for every test you did not run — the missing study with the best explanation beats the missing study with none.
• In Colombia, include the procedure risk matrix: regulators there want the risk analysis of the clinical procedure, not just the product. Confirm exactly what the committee expects before filing.
• Tie it to ISO 14971 risk management for devices: hazards, harms, controls, and residual risk, all traceable.
• Keep the test article consistent: the device or formulation tested preclinically must be the one going into humans, or the bridge must be explicit.

Does a LATAM-sufficient package satisfy the FDA later?

Not automatically — and this is the strategic point. FDA generally expects IND-enabling safety pharmacology and toxicology to follow GLP (21 CFR Part 58). A package that clears a Latin American first-in-human and a package that supports a US IND are not always the same thing. Design the preclinical program for both endpoints from the start: run the LATAM FIH on the rationale the region accepts, but build the tox package so it also serves the later FDA path. The cheapest preclinical program is the one you run once.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Is GLP required for a first-in-human trial in Colombia?

A: No codified GLP requirement exists for FIH authorization in Colombia — for devices, R&D-grade data with strong rationale has been accepted. For drugs and biologics, expect INVIMA and the ethics committee to probe non-GLP pivotal toxicology closely.

Q: Can we use preclinical data generated in China?

A: Yes. No LATAM regulator restricts preclinical data by country of origin. Submit full study reports in Spanish (or translated), with lab accreditation and test-article traceability documented.

Q: What if we skipped a standard preclinical test?

A: Provide the scientific rationale for why that test was unnecessary for your product. A reasoned omission is defensible; an unexplained gap is not.

Q: Who decides whether our preclinical package is sufficient?

A: The national regulator (e.g., INVIMA in Colombia) together with the ethics committee — which in Colombia does primary review. Their standard is sufficiency of evidence for human safety, not checklist compliance.

Q: How much preclinical data do you need before a first-in-human in Latin America — really?

A: Enough to convince a regulator and an ethics committee that the product will be safe in humans, documented so each study maps to a risk. That is the entire rule. Everything else is execution.

Q: Does non-GLP preclinical data hurt us with FDA later?

A: It can, for drugs: FDA generally expects IND-enabling safety studies under GLP. Plan the program so the LATAM FIH package and the future IND package are built together, not twice.

How much preclinical data do you need before a first-in-human in Latin America? As much as it takes to meet the burden of proof — no more, no less, and no checklist will tell you the number. Bring the rationale, not just the reports.

Talk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategy

Bring us your existing preclinical package — GLP, non-GLP, generated anywhere. We will assess it against the burden-of-proof standard for your target countries and tell you what is sufficient, what needs a rationale, and what needs to be run.

Talk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategy

References

• Colombia: Decreto 4725 de 2005 (medical-device regime, including investigational use of unregistered devices); Resolución 8430 de 1993 (ethical norms for health research); INVIMA device clinical-investigation guidance. Resolución 2378 de 2008 adopts GCP for medicines trials.
• Chile: ANDIM/ISP guidance — preclinical testing and risk evaluation must be exhaustive and sufficient under ISO 14971; no device-specific test menu.
• Brazil (medicines): ANVISA nonclinical guide expects GLP-conducted safety studies — guidance-level expectation; confirm current text before relying on it.
• US reference: 21 CFR Part 58 (GLP for nonclinical laboratory studies); ICH M3(R2) (nonclinical safety studies for human trials).
• bioaccess® preclinical sufficiency experience across LATAM FIH programs, 2021–2026. Last verified: September 2026.

PRACTICAL GUIDE | 2026

When the rebate math works, when it doesn’t, and what sponsors learn too late.

By Julio G. Martinez-Clark

CEO, bioaccess®

Last verified: September 2026 | General information only—not legal or regulatory advice. Rules change frequently; confirm the strategy with qualified regulatory counsel.

Latin America vs. Australia for first-in-human trials is the comparison sponsors actually run. Australia is bioaccess®’s real FIH competitor — sponsors arrive already sold on offshore FIH and ask us to argue the other side. So here is the honest version: Australia’s genuine advantages, where it falls short, where Latin America wins, and when each region is the right call.

Definitions first. FIH means first-in-human — the first testing of a device or drug in people. Australia’s R&D Tax Incentive (RDTI) is a government tax offset for eligible research and development: a 43.5% refundable offset for companies with aggregated turnover under A$20 million, meaning the credit is paid in cash even to companies with no tax liability. TGA is Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the national regulator.

What does Australia offer FIH sponsors?

Australia’s headline advantage is real money. The RDTI provides a 43.5% refundable tax offset on eligible R&D expenditure for companies with aggregated turnover below A$20 million (larger companies receive a non-refundable offset starting at 38.5%, scaling with R&D intensity). For a cash-constrained startup, a cash refund on nearly half of eligible spend is a powerful funding mechanism. Clinical trials are a core use case: biotech companies routinely claim trial costs, and the program is jointly administered by AusIndustry and the Australian Taxation Office.

Beyond the rebate: English-language operations, mature TGA-regulated early-phase units, world-class hospitals in Sydney and Melbourne, and a global reputation for high-quality data that regulators everywhere recognize. Foreign companies can access the incentive, typically through an Australian subsidiary or local structure, provided the R&D is conducted in Australia — though eligibility turns on who incurs the expenditure and who owns the resulting IP, a frequent focus of audits.

Where does Australia fall short?

Cost before the rebate is high — early-phase unit fees, investigator costs, and operational overhead run well above Latin American levels, which is why the incentive exists at all. Recruitment is the deeper problem: Australia’s population is small and trial competition for patients is intense, so enrollment can drag. And approvals are not the smooth path sponsors expect — one US sponsor told us it lost three years in Australia because it could not get approval. That is one company’s experience, not a national statistic, but it is the kind of story that makes sponsors ask us for the comparison in the first place.

Where does Latin America win?

• Cost: typically 30–50%+ savings versus the US — lower per-patient and operational costs, with no rebate paperwork required to realize them.
• Speed: activation in as little as four weeks in the fast corridor (Panama, Chile, El Salvador, Costa Rica) versus the eight-month timelines sponsors report elsewhere.
• Recruitment: deep investigator access and large treatment-naïve populations; enrollment risk — the binding constraint in most FIH programs — is structurally lower.
• Time zones: US-aligned working hours, versus a 10–16 hour gap with Australia.
• Data acceptance: ICH-GCP data from qualified LATAM sites is routinely usable with FDA under 21 CFR 812.28 (devices) and 21 CFR 312.120 (drugs).

Dimension	Australia	Latin America
Net-cost lever	43.5% refundable R&D tax offset (eligible entities, turnover < A$20M)	30–50%+ lower base costs vs. the US; no claim process
Activation	Months; delays reported by sponsors	As little as 4 weeks in the fast corridor
Recruitment	Difficult; small population, high trial competition	Strong investigator access; large patient pools
Language	English	Spanish / Portuguese; bilingual CRO staff standard
Regulator	TGA	INVIMA, COFEPRIS, ANVISA, ANMAT, ISP, DIGEMID
US time-zone gap	10–16 hours	Aligned

When should you choose Australia over Latin America?

Honestly: when the rebate math genuinely works for you. If you already have — or will build — an Australian entity conducting eligible R&D, the 43.5% cash offset can beat LATAM’s base-cost advantage on paper. Australia also fits sponsors who specifically value TGA oversight, whose therapeutic area matches an Australian unit’s deep expertise, or whose investors simply prefer the jurisdiction. Run both models with real quotes before deciding — rebate-on-paper versus all-in cost are different numbers.

When should you choose Latin America?

When speed is the critical path. When recruitment risk — not budget — is what keeps you up at night. When you are a startup that needs the lowest absolute cash outlay, not a future tax refund. And when you want physician-level local execution in your time zone, with FDA-usable GCP data at the end of it.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a US company claim Australia’s R&D tax incentive for a clinical trial?

A: Yes, if the R&D is conducted in Australia — typically through an Australian subsidiary or local arrangement. Eligibility depends on who incurs the expenditure and effective ownership of the resulting IP, which auditors scrutinize.

Q: Is Australia cheaper than Latin America after the 43.5% rebate?

A: Sometimes on paper. The rebate applies to eligible expenditure; Australia’s pre-rebate costs are substantially higher, and the refund arrives after filing. Compare all-in, time-adjusted cost with real quotes — not headline rates.

Q: Will FDA accept FIH data from both Australia and Latin America?

A: Yes, under the same rules: GCP-compliant data from qualified sites. Geography is not the criterion in either case.

Q: Can we run FIH in both regions?

A: Yes — staged or parallel multi-region programs are common for de-risking timelines and enrollment. Each region’s data must meet the same GCP standard.

Q: How long do approvals take in Australia?

A: Timelines vary by study and pathway; sponsors have reported significant delays, including multi-year cases. Verify current expectations with a local regulatory advisor for your specific program.

Q: Latin America vs. Australia for first-in-human trials — what is the simplest decision rule?

A: If your binding constraint is absolute cash and speed to data, Latin America usually wins. If you have an Australian structure and the rebate math closes the gap, Australia deserves a real quote. Never decide on reputation alone — decide on quotes, clocks, and enrollment risk.

Latin America vs. Australia for first-in-human trials is not a contest with one winner. It is a trade: a world-class rebate compensating for world-class costs and recruitment friction, against lower base costs, faster activation, and deeper enrollment access. Know which constraint binds your program — and choose accordingly.

Talk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategy

Considering Australia, Latin America, or both? Send us your synopsis and we will model the two paths side by side — real startup clocks, real enrollment assumptions, real budget anatomy — so you decide on numbers, not narratives.

Talk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategy

References

• WilmerHale Launch (April 2026): Australia’s R&D Tax Incentive — 43.5% refundable offset for eligible entities with aggregated turnover below A$20 million — https://launch.wilmerhale.com/research/blog/20260413-dont-let-australias-r-d-tax-incentive-trigger-unintended-us-international-tax-cost-sharing-issues
• Opportuna Legal: Australia’s R&D Tax Incentive — general overview for clinical trials — https://www.opportunalegal.com.au/single-post/australia-s-r-d-tax-incentive-a-general-overview-for-clinical-trials
• bioaccess® client experience with Australia benchmarking and LATAM FIH programs, 2021–2026. Last verified: September 2026.

PRACTICAL GUIDE | 2026

El Salvador, Panama, Chile, Costa Rica: Inside Latin America's Fast-Track FIH Corridor

Speed is a pathway design, not a shortcut.

By Julio G. Martinez-Clark

CEO, bioaccess®

Last verified: September 2026 | General information only—not legal or regulatory advice. Rules change frequently; confirm the strategy with qualified regulatory counsel.

Publishing package

FIH is first-in-human: the first time a device or drug is tested in people. Sponsors ask which Latin American country activates fastest, and the honest answer has been stable for years: Panama, El Salvador, Chile, and Costa Rica. This is the fast-track FIH corridor — not because standards are lower, but because the pathway is designed for speed: ethics committee and regulator receive submissions in parallel rather than sequentially, committee cadence is frequent, and requirements are predictable.

A companion post — How Long Does It Take to Start a First-in-Human Trial in Latin America? A Country-by-Country Startup Clock — publishes the comparison table across all major markets. This post is the deep dive: why each corridor country is fast, what infrastructure each offers, where each falls short, and which study types fit. Timelines below are drawn from bioaccess® operational experience; treat country-level clocks as indicative and confirm the current pathway before planning around them.

Why is Panama the corridor's proven sprinter?

Panama is the country bioaccess® cites when sponsors ask whether fast activation is real: 'We got it activated in about 15 days in Panama.' The mechanics behind that number: the ethics submission receives an ID number in about three business days, the Ministry of Health (MINSA) pathway runs in parallel with the ethics review, and requirements are few — 'we barely get any requirements.'

• Speed drivers: parallel ethics/regulator submissions; ~3-business-day ethics ID; predictable, light requirements.
• Infrastructure: experienced private-hospital research sites; established trial import mechanics.
• Where it falls short: small population — recruitment can be the constraint, not the approval. Panama rewards narrow, well-defined indications and punishes optimistic enrollment models.
• Cost tier: mid-to-upper among corridor countries; hospital fees run higher than El Salvador's.
• Best fit: small early cohorts where speed to first-patient-in dominates and the indication matches available patient flow.

What makes El Salvador the cost leader?

El Salvador matches the corridor on pathway speed and undercuts it on cost. Julio's standing comparison: 'hospital fees in El Salvador are way less than in Panama.' For budget-sensitive FIH programs, that gap can decide the country.

• Speed drivers: fast ethics and regulatory pathway; parallel submissions where applicable.
• Infrastructure: capable hospital sites at a lower cost tier; growing investigator experience with early-stage trials.
• Where it falls short: small population and a thinner investigator bench than Panama or Chile — backup sites matter more here.
• Cost tier: the corridor's cost leader on hospital and site fees.
• Best fit: cost-sensitive FIH programs with modest enrollment targets and a defined patient population.

Why does Chile punch above its weight?

Chile is the corridor country that also sits in the top tier of perceived data rigor — alongside Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia in how regulators and partners view its clinical data. That combination is rare: corridor speed without the 'small fast market' discount some sponsors worry about.

• Speed drivers: efficient ethics and Instituto de Salud Pública (ISP) pathways; experienced committees.
• Infrastructure: deep investigator bench, strong academic hospitals, mature research ecosystem.
• Where it falls short: higher cost tier than El Salvador or Panama; competition for top investigators and sites.
• Cost tier: upper among corridor countries — you pay for depth and perception.
• Best fit: programs where the FIH data must impress FDA reviewers or licensing partners, and where enrollment needs a real investigator bench.

What does Costa Rica offer?

Costa Rica completes the corridor: a fast, stable pathway with solid hospital infrastructure and a research-friendly regulatory posture. It is the corridor's quiet option — less cited in sponsor conversations than Panama, but consistent in execution.

• Speed drivers: streamlined ethics and Ministry of Health pathway; predictable requirements.
• Infrastructure: strong private-hospital sector; experienced coordinators.
• Where it falls short: small population like the rest of the corridor; investigator depth concentrated in a few centers.
• Cost tier: mid-range within the corridor.
• Best fit: sponsors who want corridor speed with institutional stability and are comfortable with concentrated site options.

How do the four corridor countries compare?

Country	Speed driver	Key strength	Key limitation	Cost tier
Panama	Parallel submissions; ~3-business-day ethics ID; ~15-day activation achieved	Proven speed record	Small population; enrollment risk	Mid-upper
El Salvador	Fast ethics/regulatory pathway	Lowest hospital/site fees in the corridor	Thinnest investigator bench	Lowest
Chile (ISP)	Efficient ethics + ISP pathway	Top-tier perceived data rigor + investigator depth	Higher cost; site competition	Upper
Costa Rica	Streamlined ethics/Ministry pathway	Stable institutions; solid private hospitals	Concentrated sites; small population	Mid

Clocks are indicative and drawn from bioaccess® operational experience — confirm the current pathway per country before building a program around any specific number.

Which study types fit the fast-track FIH corridor — and which do not?

• Strong fit: small first-in-human cohorts (the classic 5–15 patient early study); early feasibility studies; programs where months of runway are worth more than marginal per-patient savings.
• Conditional fit: moderate-enrollment studies, if feasibility confirms real patient flow at the specific sites — investigator interest beats headline population.
• Poor fit: large-enrollment programs that need deep patient pools; indications with no established referral flow in small markets. That is when the major markets (Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina) earn their longer clocks.

The recurring mistake: picking the fastest country, then discovering the indication cannot enroll there. Speed to activation means nothing if enrollment never starts. Inside Latin America's fast-track FIH corridor, feasibility — real site-level patient flow for your indication — is the selection step that matters more than the startup clock.

Frequently asked questions

Which Latin American country is fastest for a first-in-human trial?

Panama, El Salvador, Chile, and Costa Rica form the fast-track FIH corridor, with activation measured in weeks versus 6–9 months in the major markets. Panama holds the demonstrated record at bioaccess: about 15 days to activation.

Why is Panama so fast for clinical trial startup?

Ethics committee and regulator (MINSA) submissions run in parallel; the ethics submission receives an ID in about three business days; and requirements are light — 'we barely get any requirements.' It is pathway design, not lower standards.

Is El Salvador really cheaper than Panama for FIH trials?

On hospital and site fees, yes — materially so, in bioaccess® experience. El Salvador is the corridor's cost leader, which makes it the value option for budget-sensitive programs with modest enrollment needs.

Does fast mean lower data quality for FDA purposes?

No. FDA acceptance turns on ICH-GCP (International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice) compliance and qualified sites and investigators, not on how fast the trial activated. Chile additionally offers top-tier perceived data rigor for sponsors who need it.

What is the biggest risk of choosing a fast-corridor country?

Enrollment. All four are small markets; the approval is rarely the constraint — patient flow is. Model enrollment from actual site flow, not population, and prequalify backup sites.

Should we run feasibility in more than one corridor country?

Yes. Test two to three countries and let the feasibility numbers choose. That screening costs little and is the cheapest insurance in the program.

Find your corridor fit before you commit to a clock

Inside Latin America's fast-track FIH corridor, the right country is the one whose patient flow matches your indication — not simply the fastest one. bioaccess® runs feasibility across two to three corridor markets, models enrollment from real site flow, and activates in weeks where the data supports it.

Talk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategy

Regulatory references

• Panama: Ministry of Health (MINSA) clinical trial and ethics submission procedures; timelines per bioaccess® operational experience, confirm current procedure at filing.
• El Salvador: national clinical trial authorization procedures; cost comparisons per bioaccess® operational experience.
• Chile: Instituto de Salud Pública (ISP) clinical trial procedures; confirm current procedure at filing.
• Costa Rica: Ministry of Health clinical trial procedures; confirm current procedure at filing.
• ICH E6 Good Clinical Practice (GCP).
• bioaccess® blog: How Long Does It Take to Start a First-in-Human Trial in Latin America? A Country-by-Country Startup Clock (2026).
• bioaccess® blog: Will the FDA Accept Data from a Latin American First-in-Human Trial? (2026).

PRACTICAL GUIDE | 2026

The parallel pathway most sponsors don't expect.

By Julio G. Martinez-Clark

CEO, bioaccess®

Last verified: September 2026 | General information only—not legal or regulatory advice. Rules change frequently; confirm the strategy with qualified regulatory counsel.

Suggested URL slug	latam-ethics-committees-parallel-submissions
SEO title	Ethics Committees in Latin America: Parallel vs. Sequential Submissions | 2026 Guide
Meta description	In LATAM's fast markets, ethics committee and regulator submissions run in parallel — a designed-in accelerator. How pathway design, not IRB shopping, shapes the startup clock.
Suggested excerpt	Sponsors expect ethics review, then regulatory review. In Panama, Chile, El Salvador, and Costa Rica, both run at once — by design. How parallel submissions change the FIH startup clock.

Sponsors expect a sequence: ethics committee first, regulator second. In Latin America's fast markets, that is not how it works. The ethics committee and the regulator receive submissions in parallel — a designed-in timeline accelerator that most sponsors never see coming. Here is how ethics committees in Latin America actually shape the startup clock, and why the sponsors who plan for parallelism start faster.

• bioaccess® — a first-in-human (FIH) contract research organization (CRO) running early-stage clinical trials across Latin America.
• FIH (first-in-human) — the first clinical use of a device or drug in people — typically a small, closely monitored early-feasibility study.
• Ethics committee — the independent body that reviews a trial's ethics — known as an IRB (institutional review board) in the United States.
• Regulator — the national health authority that authorizes the clinical trial — for example, INVIMA in Colombia or COFEPRIS in Mexico.
• Fast corridor — bioaccess®'s term for the fastest FIH startup markets in the region: Panama, Chile, El Salvador, and Costa Rica — typically 15–45 days to activation.
• Committee cadence — how often an ethics committee meets and issues decisions — a direct input to the startup clock.

Do the ethics committee and the regulator review in parallel or sequentially?

In the fast markets, in parallel. The ethics committee and the national regulator receive the submission at the same time and run their reviews concurrently. This is not a shortcut or a favor — it is the designed pathway. Sponsors who plan for a sequential process over-budget their startup clock by weeks they do not need to spend.

	Sequential submission	Parallel submission
How it works	Ethics committee first; regulator after approval.	Both receive the submission at the same time.
Timeline math	The two review clocks add together.	The startup clock is the longer of the two — not the sum.
Where it applies	Markets without a parallel pathway.	The fast corridor: Panama, Chile, El Salvador, Costa Rica.
Planning risk	Over-budgeted startup; unnecessary delay.	Requires both packages submission-ready at once.

Why does parallel submission change the timeline?

Sequential review adds the two clocks together. Parallel review runs them against each other — the startup clock becomes the longer of the two reviews, not the sum. In a fast market, that design choice is a meaningful part of how activation lands in weeks rather than months. It is also why the submission package has to be complete on day one: parallelism only works if neither reviewer is waiting on documents.

Which markets does this apply to?

The fast corridor: Panama, Chile, El Salvador, and Costa Rica. These are the markets where the parallel pathway is an established part of startup design. Outside the corridor, confirm the pathway market by market — do not assume parallelism travels. Pathway design starts with knowing which map you are on.

What does committee cadence have to do with the startup clock?

Committees meet on schedules, and those schedules are a line item in the startup clock — alongside translation, import permits, and contracting. Committee cadence, meeting frequency, and the national-versus-hospital pathway all shape how fast a parallel submission converts into an approval. We plan around the actual cadence of the actual committee reviewing the study — not a generic average, and not a number from a brochure.

How fast can activation actually be?

In Panama, we have seen activation in about 15 days. The ethics-submission ID number arrives in about three business days, and the regulator's follow-up requirements are typically minimal — in our experience, we barely get any requirements. Those are real outcomes from real programs, not a promised standard: the parallel pathway makes them possible, and execution makes them happen.

Designing the ethics pathway: a checklist

• Confirm whether the target market runs ethics and regulatory review in parallel or sequentially — before quoting the startup clock.
• Get both packages submission-ready at once; parallelism fails if either reviewer waits on documents.
• Confirm the actual committee's cadence during startup planning and build the clock from it.
• Resolve the national-versus-hospital pathway question where both exist.
• Use the universal submission package (protocol, IB, ICF, CRF, insurance, preclinical) to prevent rounds of committee questions — the most common preventable delay.
• Never select a committee for leniency; select the pathway for design.

Frequently asked questions

Should we submit to the ethics committee before the regulator?

In the fast-corridor markets, submit to both at once — that is the designed pathway. Planning for a sequential process over-budgets the startup clock.

Does parallel submission mean a less rigorous ethics review?

No. It is the same review, run concurrently. Parallelism changes timing, not standards.

Which is better: a hospital or a national ethics committee?

It depends on the market and the program. That is a pathway-design question, not a shopping question — confirm which pathways exist in the target market first.

How do we plan around committee meeting schedules?

Confirm the actual committee's cadence during startup planning and build the clock from it. This post states no per-country cadence as fact — cadence is verified program by program.

Is parallel submission available in Brazil or Mexico?

Confirm market by market. This post describes the fast corridor — Panama, Chile, El Salvador, and Costa Rica — where the parallel pathway is established.

What is the biggest preventable delay in ethics review?

An incomplete submission package cycling through rounds of committee questions. The universal six-document package is the prevention.

Design the pathway before you file

bioaccess® designs FIH startup pathways across Latin America — parallel submissions where the market supports them, committee cadence built into the clock, and a submission package that survives first review. Tell us your target markets; we will map the fastest honest route.

Talk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategyTalk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategy

References

• Parallel-submission practice described reflects bioaccess® programs in the fast-corridor markets (Panama, Chile, El Salvador, Costa Rica) and sponsor Q&A, 2021–2026 (all clients anonymized).
• Panama program outcomes cited (about 15-day activation; about three business days for the ethics-submission ID) are real program results, not guaranteed standards.
• No dedicated ethics-committee post previously existed on the bioaccess® blog.
• General: confirm the submission pathway and committee cadence for the specific market and committee before committing timelines.

PRACTICAL GUIDE | 2026

Importing Investigational Devices into Latin America: Formal Importation, Timelines, and the Hand-Carry Trap

Your devices cannot enter on a promise. They enter on paperwork.

By Julio G. Martinez-Clark

CEO, bioaccess®

Last verified: September 2026 | General information only—not legal or regulatory advice. Rules change frequently; confirm the strategy with qualified regulatory counsel.

Publishing package

An investigational device is a medical device that is not yet registered or cleared for marketing in the country where the trial runs. It enters under a research authorization, not a commercial one. That distinction drives everything that follows: the import is tied to the clinical trial approval, limited to the quantities the trial needs, and documented device by device. Importing investigational devices into Latin America is therefore not a logistics task you hand to a freight forwarder at the last minute. It is a regulatory workstream that starts when the submission strategy starts.

This post builds on our earlier guide on the IOR vs Registration Holder: Latin America Medical Device Compliance Guide. That post answered who holds the registration. This one answers how the physical devices cross the border for a trial — the import permits, the timelines, and the hand-carry trap sponsors fall into when the startup clock is tight.

What does formal importation of an investigational device require?

The core package is consistent across the region, with local mechanics on top. Before any shipment moves, the clinical trial itself must be authorized by the national health authority and the ethics committee. The import authorization is then issued in connection with that trial approval — for the named devices, in the approved quantities, for the approved sites.

• A licensed importer of record (IOR). Someone legally responsible for the import must exist in the country. In several LATAM markets the IOR for trial product is the same local entity structure used for registration holding; in others it is a separate licensed importer. Confirm which applies before you ship.
• An import authorization tied to the trial. This is not a commercial import permit. It references the trial authorization and is typically limited to the device quantities in the protocol plus a defined margin for replacements.
• A device-level manifest. Model numbers, quantities, serial or lot numbers, and values for customs. The trial master file should be able to account for every unit that entered, was implanted or used, was returned, or remains in inventory.
• Investigational labeling. Devices must be identifiable as for clinical investigation only, consistent with the approved protocol and labeling submitted to the authority.
• A customs broker who has done this before. Trial-product imports clear under different codes and authorizations than commercial shipments. A broker who only moves commercial freight will slow you down.

How do import permits work country by country?

Mechanics vary. The table below gives the orientation sponsors need to plan — the agency that governs the import, and how the authorization connects to the trial. Procedures change; treat every row as a starting point to confirm with current local procedure, not as a filing instruction.

Market	Import authorization for trial devices	Planning note
Brazil — ANVISA	Two layers: ANVISA approval of the device clinical investigation (RDC 837/2023; the Comunicado Especial lists the investigational products and authorized quantities), plus a Licença de Importação (LI) in Siscomex with ANVISA release at the port of entry. The importer needs AFE (Autorização de Funcionamento). Note: the import rulebook (RDC 81/2008) is under revision — confirm the current instrument before citing it.	Build import lead time into the startup plan from day one; Brazilian import processing is its own critical path.
Colombia — INVIMA	A per-shipment import permit filed through VUCE (MinCIT) with INVIMA visto bueno, after INVIMA approves the protocol; nationalization at DIAN. Each shipment needs its own permit.	Device lists and quantities must match the approved protocol.
Mexico — COFEPRIS	Import permit for research use, connected to the COFEPRIS trial authorization.	Confirm the current COFEPRIS procedure at filing; the agency's processes have been changing (see our COFEPRIS coverage).
Panama — MINSA	Import authorization tied to the trial authorization from the Ministry of Health.	Panama's fast startup clock only holds if the import workstream runs in parallel with ethics and regulatory submissions.
Chile — ISP	Import authorization in connection with the ISP trial authorization.	Coordinate the import filing with the trial submission so devices arrive when the site is ready, not before or months after.
Argentina — ANMAT	Import authorization linked to the ANMAT trial approval.	Argentina's import documentation requirements are exacting; reconcile every document before filing.
Smaller / import-permit-only markets	Where no device registration system exists, a straightforward import permit may be the entire requirement (see our guide to markets where no registration is needed).	Simpler does not mean informal: the permit, the manifest, and the IOR still apply.

Why is hand-carry the trap?

When the startup clock is tight, someone always suggests it: a team member flies down with the devices in a suitcase and the trial starts Monday. Here is why that is the trap, even when it technically gets a unit across the border.

1. It breaks traceability. The trial master file must account for every investigational unit. A device that entered without an import authorization has no clean paper trail — and it breaks ISO 14155 device accountability (lot/UDI, shipping records, chain of custody), which matters if the data is later offered to FDA. An inspector will notice.
2. It risks seizure. Customs officers see undeclared medical devices, not clinical urgency. A seized shipment at the airport delays the trial far more than a planned import would have.
3. It cannot scale. Hand-carry might move one urgent replacement unit. It cannot move the full trial supply, backups, and the inevitable second shipment.
4. It teaches the wrong lesson. Every successful hand-carry convinces the team that formal importation is optional. It is not. Regulators and ethics committees expect the import authorization to exist.
5. It complicates re-export and returns. Unused and explanted devices often must leave the country under documented procedures. Units that entered informally cannot exit formally.

The narrow exception proves the rule: in a genuine emergency — a replacement unit needed for an enrolled patient — a documented, declared hand-carry with prior local counsel guidance can serve as a bridge while the formal authorization catches up. That is a bridge. It is not a plan.

How do import timelines fold into the startup clock?

Importing investigational devices into Latin America fails most often as a sequencing error. Sponsors treat importation as step five — after trial approval — when it should run as a parallel workstream from the submission phase. The practical sequencing:

1. During submission prep: identify the IOR, confirm the import authorization procedure, and draft the device manifest from the protocol's device list.
2. At trial submission: open the import workstream — engage the customs broker, confirm labeling and valuation requirements, and prepare the authorization application so it can be filed the moment the trial is approved.
3. At trial approval: file the import authorization immediately; do not wait for site initiation to be complete.
4. Before first shipment: verify the authorization covers the exact models, quantities, and consignee. Reconcile the manifest against the approved protocol.
5. During the trial: track every unit in and out. Plan the replacement-device import before you need it.

What should the sponsor prepare before the first shipment?

• Final device list with models, quantities, serial/lot numbers, and customs values.
• Confirmed importer of record with a signed agreement.
• Trial authorization and ethics approval references for the import application.
• Investigational labeling matching the approved protocol.
• Customs broker briefed on trial-product (not commercial) import codes.
• Re-export/return procedures agreed for unused and explanted units.
• A replacement-unit plan: how many spares, and the lead time to import more. Import permits are typically per-shipment and validity varies by country — a permit can expire before you use it, so plan the second import before you need it.

The checklist: importing investigational devices without derailing first-patient-in

1. Name the IOR before submission. Do not discover at shipping time that no licensed entity can receive the devices.
2. File the import workstream in parallel. Import preparation starts with the trial submission, not after approval.
3. Match the manifest to the protocol. Models, quantities, and sites on the import authorization must mirror the approved trial documents.
4. Never plan around hand-carry. One emergency bridge, documented and declared, is the most it should ever be.
5. Account for every unit. Implanted, used, returned, in inventory, re-exported — the trial master file closes only when the device count closes.

Frequently asked questions

Can we hand-carry investigational devices into Latin America for a trial?

At most as a limited, documented bridge for an urgent unit — never as the import plan. Formal importation with an authorization tied to the trial approval is required, and hand-carried units break the traceability the trial master file demands.

Does the import permit depend on the clinical trial being approved first?

Yes. Import authorization for investigational devices is issued in connection with the trial approval. That is exactly why the import workstream must be prepared in parallel with the submission — so the application can be filed the day the trial is authorized.

Who acts as the importer of record for trial devices?

A locally licensed entity in each country. Depending on the market, this may be the same local structure used for registration holding or a separate licensed importer. See our IOR vs Registration Holder guide for the distinction.

How many devices can we import for the trial?

The authorization typically covers the quantities in the approved protocol plus a defined margin for replacements. Importing commercial-scale quantities under a trial authorization is not permitted.

What happens to unused devices when the trial ends?

They must be accounted for — returned to the sponsor or destroyed under documented procedures, often requiring re-export authorization. Plan the exit at the same time you plan the entry.

Do import-permit-only markets still need formal importation?

Yes. A simpler permit is still a permit. The device manifest, the licensed importer, and the paper trail apply even where no device registration system exists.

Move devices across borders without moving your timeline

bioaccess® runs the import workstream as part of every Latin America FIH program: importer-of-record setup, authorization filings tied to the trial approval, device-level manifests, and replacement-unit planning — so importing investigational devices into Latin America never becomes the reason first-patient-in slips.

Talk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategy

Regulatory references

• Brazil: ANVISA clinical trial and import licensing procedures; confirm current requirements at filing.
• Colombia: INVIMA research import authorization procedures; confirm current requirements at filing.
• Mexico: COFEPRIS research import permit procedures; confirm current requirements at filing.
• Panama: Ministry of Health (MINSA) trial and import authorization procedures; confirm current requirements at filing.
• Chile: Instituto de Salud Pública (ISP) trial and import authorization procedures; confirm current requirements at filing.
• Argentina: ANMAT trial import authorization procedures; confirm current requirements at filing.
• bioaccess® blog: IOR vs Registration Holder: Latin America Medical Device Compliance Guide (2026).
• bioaccess® blog: The Latin American Countries Where You Don't Need a Medical Device Registration (2026).

PRACTICAL GUIDE | 2026

What Your CRO Needs to Quote Your First-in-Human Study: The Sponsor's Pre-Quote Checklist

A precise quote is built, not guessed.

By Julio G. Martinez-Clark

CEO, bioaccess®

Last verified: September 2026 | General information only—not legal or regulatory advice. Rules change frequently; confirm the strategy with qualified regulatory counsel.

Publishing package

'Just give me a ballpark.' Every CRO hears it. Here is the honest answer bioaccess® gives: a rough quote from the synopsis alone is fine — precision needs the full package. What your CRO needs to quote your first-in-human study is not a secret; it is three inputs, each unlocking a different level of accuracy.

This post is written to be sent to every prospect who asks for a fast quote. If you are that prospect, work through the checklist below and both sides will save weeks.

What are the three inputs — and what does each one unlock?

Input	What it is	What it unlocks
1. Protocol or synopsis	The study design: objectives, population, endpoints, treatment, follow-up.	A rough range. Enough to say whether the study is a $300k program or a $1M program — not enough to price it.
2. Schedule of events	Visit by visit: what happens at each contact, which assessments, which procedures, how many visits, over what duration.	The line-item structure. Site costs, monitoring visits, lab and imaging pass-throughs, and CRO effort all derive from this table.
3. Feasibility questionnaire answers	Patient type, planned activities, visit structure, patient count, site preferences, timelines — the operational facts the protocol implies but never states.	A precise quote. This is where assumptions die and real numbers appear.

Why is the schedule of events the input that matters most?

Because everything billable hangs off it. The schedule of events answers the questions a synopsis never does:

• How many site visits per patient — which sets site payments and monitoring visit counts.
• Which procedures happen where — which sets hospital fees, lab costs, and imaging pass-throughs.
• How long follow-up runs — which sets the CRO's management duration and data-management scope.
• What the staff must do at each visit — which sets coordinator and investigator effort.

Two synopses can describe similar-looking studies with radically different schedules of events — and radically different budgets. Quoting from the synopsis alone means guessing all of the above. An honest CRO will tell you it is guessing; a dishonest one will present the guess as a quote.

What does the feasibility questionnaire cover?

The customized feasibility questionnaire converts the protocol into operational facts. Expect questions on:

• Patient type. Indication, severity, inclusion/exclusion profile — who exactly must be found, and how hard they are to find.
• Activities. What the sites and the CRO must actually do: procedures, assessments, device handling, training, proctoring.
• Visit structure. Number, spacing, duration, and location of visits — site, hospital, or remote.
• Patient count. Target enrollment and any cohort or staging structure.
• Timelines and constraints. When you need first-patient-in, and what cannot move.

Answering this questionnaire is also the fastest way to qualify yourself as a serious prospect. Sponsors who answer it get precise quotes. Sponsors who will not answer it get ranges — and should be suspicious of any CRO that offers more.

What should a good FIH quote show you?

Once the inputs are in, judge the quote by its structure. A serious FIH quote has three buckets:

1. Site costs. Investigator and hospital payments per the schedule of events. These are pass-throughs negotiated at the clinical trial agreement — the CRO should show them transparently, not bury them.
2. CRO professional fees. Project management, monitoring, regulatory, data management. This is the bucket with flexibility — it is what the CRO controls.
3. Third-party pass-throughs. Labs, imaging, couriers, translations, EDC hosting. The CRO does not control these costs but should influence them through negotiation — and every one should be auditable against invoices.

Two more honesty tests: the quote should state its assumptions explicitly (patient count, visit numbers, timelines), and it should require an advance payment to start work — standard in the industry, because startup costs are real and immediate. A quote with no assumptions and no advance is not a quote; it is a marketing document.

The sponsor's pre-quote checklist

Before you ask any CRO for a number on your first-in-human study, assemble this package. It is the difference between a quote you can budget against and a conversation you will have twice.

1. Protocol or detailed synopsis. Final if you have it; near-final with flagged open points if you do not. Flag what is still changing — it affects the quote's shelf life.
2. Schedule of events. Visit-by-visit table: assessments, procedures, and timing for every patient contact from screening through last follow-up.
3. Patient count and cohort structure. Total enrollment target plus any dose-escalation or staged-cohort design.
4. Patient type definition. Indication, key inclusion/exclusion criteria, and any recruitment constraints you already know about.
5. Target timelines. When you need startup complete and first-patient-in — and which date is real versus aspirational.
6. Country preferences or constraints. Any markets already chosen or ruled out, and why.
7. Budget signals. A range you need to land in is not a weakness; it lets the CRO design to it or tell you honestly that it cannot be done.
8. Decision process and timeline. Who decides, and when. It focuses everyone's effort where it matters.

Frequently asked questions

Can you give me a ballpark quote from just the synopsis?

Yes — a rough range, honestly labeled as one. Precision needs the full package: protocol or synopsis, schedule of events, and feasibility questionnaire answers. Treat any 'precise' number built from a synopsis alone as fiction.

Why do you need the schedule of events to quote accurately?

Because every cost line derives from it: site payments, monitoring visits, hospital and lab pass-throughs, and CRO effort. Two similar synopses can hide very different schedules of events — and very different budgets.

What is the feasibility questionnaire for?

It converts the protocol into operational facts: patient type, activities, visit structure, patient count, and timelines. It is also where unrealistic assumptions surface before they become contract disputes.

How long does a precise quote take once we send everything?

That depends on the CRO and the study's complexity — but the clock starts when the full package arrives, not when the first email was sent. Sending a partial package and asking 'how much longer' restarts nothing; it just delays the start.

Should we get quotes from multiple CROs?

Yes — and give every CRO the same package. Quotes built from different inputs are not comparable, and the cheapest number built from the thinnest inputs is usually the most expensive study.

What if our protocol is still changing?

Say so upfront. A good CRO will quote against the current version, flag the assumptions, and tell you which changes would move the number. Quoting against a moving protocol without flagging it helps no one.

Send the package, get a number you can use

What your CRO needs to quote your first-in-human study is the full package: protocol or synopsis, schedule of events, and feasibility answers. Send bioaccess® yours and you will get a structured, three-bucket quote with explicit assumptions — a number you can take to your board.

Talk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategy

Regulatory references

• bioaccess® blog: First-in-Human Trial Budgets in Latin America: What the Money Actually Buys — and Where You Can Cut (2026).
• bioaccess® blog: First-in-Human Clinical Trial: What Happens in Each of the Nine Workstreams (2026).
• bioaccess® blog: How We Qualify FIH Sites and Investigators in Latin America (2026).
• ICH E6 Good Clinical Practice (GCP).

PRACTICAL GUIDE | 2026

Bilingual Physician Project Managers: How FIH Studies Are Actually Staffed in Latin America

In first-in-human, the person running your study should be a doctor.

By Julio G. Martinez-Clark

CEO, bioaccess®

Last verified: September 2026 | General information only—not legal or regulatory advice. Rules change frequently; confirm the strategy with qualified regulatory counsel.

Publishing package

Ask who will run your study day to day, and most CRO proposals answer with a title: 'project manager.' Ask what that person is trained in, and the answers get vaguer. In first-in-human research — the first time a device or drug is tested in people — that vagueness is a risk. Bilingual physician project managers are how FIH studies are actually staffed at bioaccess®: every study gets a project manager who is a physician, fully bilingual, supported by physician assistants, with weekly sponsor meetings built in. Nothing less than physicians.

This is not a brochure claim; it is an operating standard, and it is the reason this post is framed as five questions to ask any LATAM CRO about staffing. Use them on us too.

Why does physician-led management matter in first-in-human?

FIH studies are where the unknowns live. The protocol is being executed for the first time in humans, safety signals are ambiguous by definition, and the investigator needs a counterpart who can think clinically — not just track milestones. Three reasons a physician project manager changes the study:

1. Safety judgment in real time. When an unexpected event occurs, a physician PM triages it clinically before it becomes a reporting question: is this plausibly device-related, what does the investigator need to know right now, and what cannot wait until Monday. Process knowledge matters; clinical judgment matters more.
2. Peer credibility with investigators. Principal investigators are physicians. A physician PM speaks to them as a peer — about the procedure, the anatomy, the risk — which is a different conversation than a status update. That credibility is what keeps investigators engaged when enrollment gets hard.
3. Protocol interpretation under ambiguity. First-in-human protocols encounter situations the writers did not foresee. A physician PM interprets intent, not just text, and knows when a deviation needs an immediate safety conversation versus a documented note.

What does 'fully bilingual' actually buy you?

Bilingual here means working-level fluency in both directions, not a translation app and good intentions. The physician PM reads the source protocol in English, works with sites in Spanish or Portuguese, and reports to the sponsor in English — with nothing lost between those steps. In practice that means:

• Site conversations happen in the investigator's language, at full clinical depth.
• Sponsor updates arrive in English, with nuance intact — not filtered through a translator's summary.
• Safety discussions do not wait for an interpreter to become available.
• Documents are reviewed by someone who understands both the language and the medicine.

Weekly sponsor meetings are the cadence that holds it together: a standing touchpoint where enrollment, safety, and roadblocks are reviewed with the people who can act on them. In FIH, a week is a long time to go without one.

What does the full FIH staffing model look like?

The physician PM does not work alone. The standard team around a Latin America FIH study:

Role	Profile	What they own
Project manager	Physician; fully bilingual (English/Spanish, Portuguese where applicable)	Day-to-day study leadership; safety triage; investigator relationship; sponsor communication; timeline and budget stewardship.
Physician assistants	Physicians supporting the PM	Site support, medical review tasks, backup coverage — clinical depth below the PM, not administrative support.
Clinical research associates / monitors	Trained CRAs	On-site and remote monitoring, source data verification, site compliance.
Regulatory specialists	Country-specific regulatory staff	Ethics and health-authority submissions, import workstreams, ongoing compliance per market.
Data management	EDC and data staff	Database build, data cleaning, query management to ICH-GCP standards.

ICH-GCP is the International Council for Harmonisation's Good Clinical Practice — the international quality standard every role above works to. The point of the table: clinical depth sits at the top of the team, not somewhere in an advisory footnote.

5 questions to ask any LATAM CRO about staffing

Use these verbatim in your next CRO evaluation. The answers — and the pauses before them — tell you how your study will actually be run.

1. Who exactly will be my day-to-day project manager, and what is their medical training? You want a name and a degree, not a role description. 'A senior PM will be assigned' is not an answer.
2. Is the PM a physician — and is that standard or a premium? If physician leadership costs extra, physician leadership is not the company's standard. Ask what the non-physician alternative looks like.
3. Is the PM fully bilingual, and in which direction does information flow? Test it: ask how a safety discussion with a Spanish-speaking investigator reaches the English-speaking sponsor, and how fast.
4. Who supports the PM, and what happens when they are unavailable? Physician assistants providing clinical backup is the answer you want. A single point of failure with no clinical backup is the answer you fear.
5. How often do we meet, and who from your side attends? Weekly sponsor meetings with the physician PM attending should be the baseline. Monthly status decks are not study management.

Frequently asked questions

Why do FIH studies need physician project managers specifically?

Because first-in-human is where clinical ambiguity is highest: unexpected events, protocol situations nobody foresaw, and safety signals that need clinical triage before they become reporting questions. A physician PM brings judgment a process manager cannot.

Is a bilingual physician PM standard at bioaccess or an upgrade?

Standard. Every FIH study gets a bilingual physician project manager plus physician assistants and weekly sponsor meetings. It is the baseline, not a premium tier.

What does 'fully bilingual' mean in practice?

Working fluency in both directions: the PM works with sites in Spanish or Portuguese and reports to sponsors in English, with clinical nuance intact — including in real-time safety discussions, where waiting for an interpreter is not an option.

What is the difference between physician assistants and administrative support?

Physician assistants are physicians who provide clinical depth beneath the PM: site support, medical review, backup coverage. They extend the clinical leadership of the team; they do not file paperwork.

How often should we expect to hear from the study team?

Weekly, at minimum, in a standing sponsor meeting with the physician PM — covering enrollment, safety, and roadblocks. In FIH, anything less frequent is a gap, not a cadence.

Does physician-led staffing cost more?

It is built into the CRO's professional fees as the operating standard — not priced as an add-on. When comparing CRO quotes, check whether clinical leadership is in the baseline or hiding in an optional line item.

Meet the physicians who would run your study

Bilingual physician project managers are how FIH studies are actually staffed at bioaccess® — every program, every country, as standard. Ask us the five questions above, then ask our competitors. The comparison will be instructive.

Talk with bioaccess® about your Latin America FIH strategy

Regulatory references

• ICH E6 Good Clinical Practice (GCP) — the standard all study staff operate under.
• bioaccess® blog: First-in-Human Clinical Trial: What Happens in Each of the Nine Workstreams (2026).
• bioaccess® blog: How We Qualify FIH Sites and Investigators in Latin America (2026).
• bioaccess® blog: What Happens After First-in-Human (2026).