Author: Julio Martinez-Clark

General information, not insurance, legal, or regulatory advice. Confirm current ethics-committee, regulatory, import and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. This page does not quote premiums, limits or carrier rates.

What the law says (verified 29 October 2026)

Hub guide: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country sets out each country’s rule with links to the primary text. The rule for this country, from the primary text:

• Guatemala: Acuerdo Ministerial 82-2019 §§10–11 require insurance covering all resulting damage before the trial starts. The Acuerdo covers drug and device trials alike (§§2 and 41), and a copy of the trial policy is part of the device-trial application (§43.8). The insurer must be established in Guatemala or working with a Guatemalan insurer, and payouts must equal what the sponsor would pay for the same damage in the trial’s country of origin (§11.3).

None of these rules sets a minimum dollar limit. Limits come from contracts and underwriting. Insurers price a specific protocol, so see what insurers need before they’ll quote.

If you searched Guatemala clinical trial coverage, buy trial insurance Guatemala device FIH, Guatemala trial liability, you were looking for someone who would write international clinical-trial coverage for an investigational device. bioaccess® is a first-in-human medical-device CRO. We are not an insurance carrier. We do not underwrite policies. We do not sell premiums. We do not quote a binder. OUS and Latin American device trials still need trial-specific liability — local admitted paper, a master with local certificates, or both. We run the trial under ISO 14155. We can introduce a specialty carrier. That introduction is not a signed partnership on this page, and it is not a quote.

Guatemala is one of the countries where bioaccess® runs studies. Confirm current ethics and coverage rules with qualified advisers. bioaccess® is not the carrier.

This page is separate from Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. That hub sets out each country’s legal requirement with primary-law citations. This page’s topic: Guatemala insurance exhibit. Same operator: the CRO runs the trial; a carrier writes the paper.

The CRO is not the carrier

Founders type “buy clinical trial insurance” and land on CROs, brokers, and hospital MSAs in the same result set. Those are three jobs:

• Carrier. Underwrites participant injury, medical expenses for trial-related events, defense, and site/investigator indemnification — if the form matches the protocol. A hallway conversation is not a binder.
• Broker. Places the form, translations, additional-insured endorsements, and territory wording. Licensed where the paper has to sit.
• CRO. Protocol, IB, ICF, ethics-committee and national authority submission, importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America, ISO 14155 monitoring, SAE clock, TMF, and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE. Eligibility of foreign data is not FDA clearance.

Mixing those jobs is how a startup buys a U.S. product-liability rider, emails a PDF to an ethics committee, and gets a resubmission. Product liability is not clinical-trial liability. A site’s institutional policy is not the sponsor’s trial form.

What Guatemala’s rule does and doesn’t set

See Clinical Trials in Guatemala. This page exists so “buy Guatemala trial coverage” does not treat the CRO as the underwriter. Acuerdo Ministerial 82-2019 sets the rule (insurance in place before the trial starts, for drug and device trials) but no minimum amount. Typical ethics asks still apply: territory, period, additional insureds, language.

What ethics committees and the national authority actually ask for

Use the live Guatemala country page.

Insurance documentation is usually in the ethics-committee and national authority submission, not a post-approval formality. Two exceptions: in Mexico the policy goes to COFEPRIS within 15 business days after authorization, and in Brazil CEP/CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body):

• Territory that names every country on the protocol.
• Site and principal investigator as additional insureds when the committee requires it.
• Policy period through last-patient last-visit plus the protocol follow-up window.
• Spanish (or Portuguese) certificate or notarized summary when the committee asks for it.
• Claims-notice language that can sit next to the SAE clock, not against it.

None of the national rules or ethics-committee documents we read sets a per-participant dollar minimum. Ask the carrier and the CRO together, before the packet goes in.

Local policy vs controlled master

A master that excludes Guatemala fails the packet. A Guatemala-only local policy that cannot add Panama later is a protocol constraint. bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now.

A “controlled master” that never issues a local certificate is a slide, not a submission. A local-only policy that cannot travel to a second Latin American country is a one-country trap. The operator chooses geography for the device; the paper has to follow the protocol, not the other way around.

What bioaccess® still owns after you have a quote

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. Guatemala is on the public countries hub. We pick the country the device needs.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics-committee and national authority submission with insurance documents in the same stack — not a parallel founder email.
3. Importer of record and device accountability. A binder does not import the investigational product.
4. Site activation: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. A site MSA that “includes insurance” is still not ISO 14155 monitoring.
5. Introducing a specialty carrier when the founder does not already have admitted paper. An introduction is not a partnership or a quote.

The firm was founded in 2010. Published first-in-human device case studies show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting.

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™.

A Bogotá or Floridablanca ethics packet still wants financial responsibility for participant injury. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. We pick the country the device needs.

Frequently asked questions

Does bioaccess® sell clinical trial insurance?

No. We are the FIH CRO. We can introduce a carrier. We do not underwrite. We do not bind.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. This page covers the Guatemala insurance exhibit.

Can a U.S. product-liability policy cover a LATAM device FIH?

Only if the territory clause and the trial-liability form actually name the countries and the investigational activity. Many U.S. GL/PL policies exclude OUS research. Get it in writing from the carrier. A verbal “we’re global” is not an ethics exhibit.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was Guatemala clinical trial coverage, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Guatemala operator: Clinical Trials in Guatemala. Hub: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

General information, not insurance, legal, or regulatory advice. Confirm current ethics-committee, regulatory, import and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. This page does not quote premiums, limits or carrier rates.

What the law says (verified 29 October 2026)

Hub guide: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country sets out each country’s rule with links to the primary text. For comparison, the rules in the main markets are below.

This page doesn’t set out Paraguay’s own insurance rule. Confirm it with the reviewing ethics committee and a licensed local broker before relying on this page.

• Mexico: under the COFEPRIS simplification Acuerdo of 24 April 2025 (DOF 28 April 2025), art. 5, the study insurance (policy or certificate) or a current financial fund is no longer part of the initial COFEPRIS application. It must be filed within 15 business days after the protocol is authorized, or the authorization can be revoked. This changed only the COFEPRIS filing: ethics committees may still ask to see the policy before they approve. No-risk observational studies are exempt. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 §5.14 still requires the fund for compensation. See Mexico’s 15-business-day rule.
• Argentina: ANMAT Disposición 7516/2025 (in force 1 December 2025, replacing Disp. 6677/2010), Annex II §3.14, says a study may start only once the sponsor has contracted a “seguro constituido en el país” (insurance taken out in Argentina). The consent form must name the insurer and its address. This applies to clinical pharmacology studies of medicines. ANMAT’s device rule (Disp. 969/1997) has no insurance clause, but Buenos Aires City law requires insurance or another financial guarantee for research there (Ley 3301, art. 12), and Buenos Aires Province requires the health institution to show insurance before a higher-risk protocol is approved (Decreto 3389/2024, art. 8).
• Panama: Decreto Ejecutivo 21 of 23 April 2026, art. 67(2), requires the investigator to obtain from the sponsor “financial provisions” for compensating possible damage and to attach that agreement to the bioethics submission. We did not find an explicit insurance-policy mandate in the decree; a certificate of insurance is the usual way to document the provision, and committees may ask for one.
• Brazil: Lei 14.874/2024 (arts. 23 and 26 XV) makes the sponsor responsible for indemnifying participants and for their trial-related care. The statute itself does not require an insurance policy, and its regulating Decreto 12.651/2025 adds none that we found. CEPs and CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance (CONEP manual, 2015). Under Lei Complementar 126/2007, art. 19, insurance bought by Brazil-resident people or Brazil-domiciled companies for risks in Brazil must be placed in Brazil, with narrow exceptions in art. 20.
• Peru: DS 021-2017-SA, art. 28, requires a policy with coverage in Peru (a foreign insurer needs a legal representative in Peru), a financial fund for immediate care until the policy pays, the policy details in the consent form, and validity until the National Final Report, renewed while late damage is possible.
• Costa Rica: Ley 9234 art. 31 and Decreto 39061-S art. 14 require a civil liability policy enforceable in Costa Rica, from an insurer with a branch or service center in the country. Under the decree it runs at least two years after the final report is delivered to the ethics committee (art. 14(a)) and three years after each participant’s participation ends (art. 14(b)); Ley 9234 art. 31 sets a floor of two years after participation ends. Each participant receives proof of the policy (art. 32). See Costa Rica under Ley 9234.

None of these rules sets a minimum dollar limit. Limits come from contracts and underwriting. Insurers price a specific protocol, so see what insurers need before they’ll quote.

If you searched Paraguay clinical trial coverage, DINAVISA trial insurance, Paraguay device FIH liability, you were looking for someone who would write international clinical-trial coverage for an investigational device. bioaccess® is a first-in-human medical-device CRO. We are not an insurance carrier. We do not underwrite policies. We do not sell premiums. We do not quote a binder. OUS and Latin American device trials still need trial-specific liability — local admitted paper, a master with local certificates, or both. We run the trial under ISO 14155. We can introduce a specialty carrier. That introduction is not a signed partnership on this page, and it is not a quote.

Paraguay is one of the countries where bioaccess® runs studies. That is enough to answer “buy Paraguay trial coverage.” bioaccess® is not the carrier.

This page is separate from Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. That hub sets out each country’s legal requirement with primary-law citations. This page’s topic: DINAVISA / Paraguayan ethics insurance exhibit. Same operator: the CRO runs the trial; a carrier writes the paper.

The CRO is not the carrier

Founders type “buy clinical trial insurance” and land on CROs, brokers, and hospital MSAs in the same result set. Those are three jobs:

• Carrier. Underwrites participant injury, medical expenses for trial-related events, defense, and site/investigator indemnification — if the form matches the protocol. A hallway conversation is not a binder.
• Broker. Places the form, translations, additional-insured endorsements, and territory wording. Licensed where the paper has to sit.
• CRO. Protocol, IB, ICF, ethics/DINAVISA packet, importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America, ISO 14155 monitoring, SAE clock, TMF, and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE. Eligibility of foreign data is not FDA clearance.

Mixing those jobs is how a startup buys a U.S. product-liability rider, emails a PDF to an ethics committee, and gets a resubmission. Product liability is not clinical-trial liability. A site’s institutional policy is not the sponsor’s trial form.

Public geography is not a rate card

See Clinical Trials in Paraguay. ANMAT and ANVISA insurance pages already exist. If Paraguay is on the protocol, the exhibit still needs territory, period, named insureds, and a language the committee can file.

Do not skip the operator because someone Googled Paraguay

bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now. INVIMA registro is a separate service. We pick the country the device needs.

What ethics and DINAVISA actually ask for

Use the live Paraguay country page. Ask the reviewing ethics body and a licensed broker.

Insurance documentation is usually in the ethics / DINAVISA packet, not a post-approval formality. Two exceptions: in Mexico the policy goes to COFEPRIS within 15 business days after authorization, and in Brazil CEP/CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body):

• Territory that names every country on the protocol.
• Site and principal investigator as additional insureds when the committee requires it.
• Policy period through last-patient last-visit plus the protocol follow-up window.
• Spanish (or Portuguese) certificate or notarized summary when the committee asks for it.
• Claims-notice language that can sit next to the SAE clock, not against it.

None of the national rules or ethics-committee documents we read sets a per-participant dollar minimum. Ask the carrier and the CRO together, before the packet goes in.

Local policy vs controlled master

If the carrier’s master excludes Paraguay, say so before you freeze the country list. Introduction is not a quote. No signed carrier partnership on this page.

A “controlled master” that never issues a local certificate is a slide, not a submission. A local-only policy that cannot travel to a second Latin American country is a one-country trap. The operator chooses geography for the device; the paper has to follow the protocol, not the other way around.

What bioaccess® still owns after you have a quote

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. Paraguay sits on the same public LATAM map as Panama and Chile. Insurance territory has to match the protocol.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics / DINAVISA packet with insurance documents in the same stack — not a parallel founder email.
3. Importer of record and device accountability. A binder does not import the investigational product.
4. Site activation: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. A site MSA that “includes insurance” is still not ISO 14155 monitoring.
5. Introducing a specialty carrier when the founder does not already have admitted paper. An introduction is not a partnership or a quote.

The firm was founded in 2010. Published first-in-human device case studies show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting.

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™.

A Bogotá or Floridablanca ethics packet still wants financial responsibility for participant injury. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. We pick the country the device needs.

Frequently asked questions

Does bioaccess® sell clinical trial insurance?

No. We are the FIH CRO. We can introduce a carrier. We do not underwrite. We do not bind.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. This page covers the DINAVISA / Paraguayan ethics insurance exhibit.

Can a U.S. product-liability policy cover a LATAM device FIH?

Only if the territory clause and the trial-liability form actually name the countries and the investigational activity. Many U.S. GL/PL policies exclude OUS research. Get it in writing from the carrier. A verbal “we’re global” is not an ethics exhibit.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was Paraguay DINAVISA clinical trial coverage, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Paraguay operator: Clinical Trials in Paraguay. Hub: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

General information, not insurance, legal, or regulatory advice. Confirm current ethics-committee, regulatory, import and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. This page does not quote premiums, limits or carrier rates.

What the law says (verified 29 October 2026)

Hub guide: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country sets out each country’s rule with links to the primary text. The rule for this country, from the primary text:

• Dominican Republic: the CONABIOS submission requirements list a participant insurance policy (“Póliza de seguro para participantes”).

None of these rules sets a minimum dollar limit. Limits come from contracts and underwriting. Insurers price a specific protocol, so see what insurers need before they’ll quote.

If you searched Dominican Republic clinical trial coverage, DIGEMAPS trial insurance, DR FIH liability, you were looking for someone who would write international clinical-trial coverage for an investigational device. bioaccess® is a first-in-human medical-device CRO. We are not an insurance carrier. We do not underwrite policies. We do not sell premiums. We do not quote a binder. OUS and Latin American device trials still need trial-specific liability — local admitted paper, a master with local certificates, or both. We run the trial under ISO 14155. We can introduce a specialty carrier. That introduction is not a signed partnership on this page, and it is not a quote.

The Dominican Republic is one of the countries where bioaccess® runs studies. Compare pages exist so a DR-first protocol can add LATAM country 2; this page is coverage, not that compare.

This page is separate from Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. That hub sets out each country’s legal requirement with primary-law citations. This page’s topic: DIGEMAPS / Dominican ethics insurance exhibit. Same operator: the CRO runs the trial; a carrier writes the paper.

The CRO is not the carrier

Founders type “buy clinical trial insurance” and land on CROs, brokers, and hospital MSAs in the same result set. Those are three jobs:

• Carrier. Underwrites participant injury, medical expenses for trial-related events, defense, and site/investigator indemnification — if the form matches the protocol. A hallway conversation is not a binder.
• Broker. Places the form, translations, additional-insured endorsements, and territory wording. Licensed where the paper has to sit.
• CRO. Protocol, IB, ICF, ethics/DIGEMAPS packet, importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America, ISO 14155 monitoring, SAE clock, TMF, and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE. Eligibility of foreign data is not FDA clearance.

Mixing those jobs is how a startup buys a U.S. product-liability rider, emails a PDF to an ethics committee, and gets a resubmission. Product liability is not clinical-trial liability. A site’s institutional policy is not the sponsor’s trial form.

Use the live DR hub, not a new clock

See Clinical Trials in the Dominican Republic. Ethics still files a certificate. Spanish language is the usual ask. A hallway conversation in Santo Domingo is not that exhibit.

Investigational public copy is not a rate card

It is investigational. It is not a binder we resell.

What ethics and DIGEMAPS actually ask for

Use the live Dominican Republic country page.

Insurance documentation is usually in the ethics / DIGEMAPS packet, not a post-approval formality. Two exceptions: in Mexico the policy goes to COFEPRIS within 15 business days after authorization, and in Brazil CEP/CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body):

• Territory that names every country on the protocol.
• Site and principal investigator as additional insureds when the committee requires it.
• Policy period through last-patient last-visit plus the protocol follow-up window.
• Spanish (or Portuguese) certificate or notarized summary when the committee asks for it.
• Claims-notice language that can sit next to the SAE clock, not against it.

None of the national rules or ethics-committee documents we read sets a per-participant dollar minimum. Ask the carrier and the CRO together, before the packet goes in.

Local policy vs controlled master

A master that excludes the Dominican Republic fails ethics. A DR-only local policy that cannot add Panama later is a trap if the protocol expands. bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now.

A “controlled master” that never issues a local certificate is a slide, not a submission. A local-only policy that cannot travel to a second Latin American country is a one-country trap. The operator chooses geography for the device; the paper has to follow the protocol, not the other way around.

What bioaccess® still owns after you have a quote

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. The DR compare hub is a country-2 page after a DR first-in-human, not a second CRO-in-DR page. This page is coverage only.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics / DIGEMAPS packet with insurance documents in the same stack — not a parallel founder email.
3. Importer of record and device accountability. A binder does not import the investigational product.
4. Site activation: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. A site MSA that “includes insurance” is still not ISO 14155 monitoring.
5. Introducing a specialty carrier when the founder does not already have admitted paper. An introduction is not a partnership or a quote.

The firm was founded in 2010. Published first-in-human device case studies show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting.

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™.

A Bogotá or Floridablanca ethics packet still wants financial responsibility for participant injury. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. We pick the country the device needs.

Frequently asked questions

Does bioaccess® sell clinical trial insurance?

No. We are the FIH CRO. We can introduce a carrier. We do not underwrite. We do not bind.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. This page covers the DIGEMAPS / Dominican ethics insurance exhibit.

Can a U.S. product-liability policy cover a LATAM device FIH?

Only if the territory clause and the trial-liability form actually name the countries and the investigational activity. Many U.S. GL/PL policies exclude OUS research. Get it in writing from the carrier. A verbal “we’re global” is not an ethics exhibit.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was Dominican Republic clinical trial coverage, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. DR operator: Clinical Trials in the Dominican Republic. Hub: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

General information, not insurance, legal, or regulatory advice. Confirm current ethics-committee, regulatory, import and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. This page does not quote premiums, limits or carrier rates.

What the law says (verified 29 October 2026)

Hub guide: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country sets out each country’s rule with links to the primary text. For comparison, the rules in the main markets are below.

This page doesn’t set out Ecuador’s own insurance rule. Confirm it with the reviewing ethics committee and a licensed local broker before relying on this page.

• Mexico: under the COFEPRIS simplification Acuerdo of 24 April 2025 (DOF 28 April 2025), art. 5, the study insurance (policy or certificate) or a current financial fund is no longer part of the initial COFEPRIS application. It must be filed within 15 business days after the protocol is authorized, or the authorization can be revoked. This changed only the COFEPRIS filing: ethics committees may still ask to see the policy before they approve. No-risk observational studies are exempt. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 §5.14 still requires the fund for compensation. See Mexico’s 15-business-day rule.
• Argentina: ANMAT Disposición 7516/2025 (in force 1 December 2025, replacing Disp. 6677/2010), Annex II §3.14, says a study may start only once the sponsor has contracted a “seguro constituido en el país” (insurance taken out in Argentina). The consent form must name the insurer and its address. This applies to clinical pharmacology studies of medicines. ANMAT’s device rule (Disp. 969/1997) has no insurance clause, but Buenos Aires City law requires insurance or another financial guarantee for research there (Ley 3301, art. 12), and Buenos Aires Province requires the health institution to show insurance before a higher-risk protocol is approved (Decreto 3389/2024, art. 8).
• Panama: Decreto Ejecutivo 21 of 23 April 2026, art. 67(2), requires the investigator to obtain from the sponsor “financial provisions” for compensating possible damage and to attach that agreement to the bioethics submission. We did not find an explicit insurance-policy mandate in the decree; a certificate of insurance is the usual way to document the provision, and committees may ask for one.
• Brazil: Lei 14.874/2024 (arts. 23 and 26 XV) makes the sponsor responsible for indemnifying participants and for their trial-related care. The statute itself does not require an insurance policy, and its regulating Decreto 12.651/2025 adds none that we found. CEPs and CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance (CONEP manual, 2015). Under Lei Complementar 126/2007, art. 19, insurance bought by Brazil-resident people or Brazil-domiciled companies for risks in Brazil must be placed in Brazil, with narrow exceptions in art. 20.
• Peru: DS 021-2017-SA, art. 28, requires a policy with coverage in Peru (a foreign insurer needs a legal representative in Peru), a financial fund for immediate care until the policy pays, the policy details in the consent form, and validity until the National Final Report, renewed while late damage is possible.
• Costa Rica: Ley 9234 art. 31 and Decreto 39061-S art. 14 require a civil liability policy enforceable in Costa Rica, from an insurer with a branch or service center in the country. Under the decree it runs at least two years after the final report is delivered to the ethics committee (art. 14(a)) and three years after each participant’s participation ends (art. 14(b)); Ley 9234 art. 31 sets a floor of two years after participation ends. Each participant receives proof of the policy (art. 32). See Costa Rica under Ley 9234.

None of these rules sets a minimum dollar limit. Limits come from contracts and underwriting. Insurers price a specific protocol, so see what insurers need before they’ll quote.

If you searched Ecuador ARCSA clinical trial coverage, buy trial insurance Ecuador device FIH, ARCSA liability, you were looking for someone who would write international clinical-trial coverage for an investigational device. bioaccess® is a first-in-human medical-device CRO. We are not an insurance carrier. We do not underwrite policies. We do not sell premiums. We do not quote a binder. OUS and Latin American device trials still need trial-specific liability — local admitted paper, a master with local certificates, or both. We run the trial under ISO 14155. We can introduce a specialty carrier. That introduction is not a signed partnership on this page, and it is not a quote.

Ecuador is one of the countries where bioaccess® runs studies. That is enough to answer the search. Confirm current ethics and coverage rules with qualified advisers. bioaccess® is not the carrier.

This page is separate from Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. That hub sets out each country’s legal requirement with primary-law citations. This page’s topic: ARCSA / Ecuadorian ethics insurance exhibit. Same operator: the CRO runs the trial; a carrier writes the paper.

The CRO is not the carrier

Founders type “buy clinical trial insurance” and land on CROs, brokers, and hospital MSAs in the same result set. Those are three jobs:

• Carrier. Underwrites participant injury, medical expenses for trial-related events, defense, and site/investigator indemnification — if the form matches the protocol. A hallway conversation is not a binder.
• Broker. Places the form, translations, additional-insured endorsements, and territory wording. Licensed where the paper has to sit.
• CRO. Protocol, IB, ICF, ethics/ARCSA packet, importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America, ISO 14155 monitoring, SAE clock, TMF, and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE. Eligibility of foreign data is not FDA clearance.

Mixing those jobs is how a startup buys a U.S. product-liability rider, emails a PDF to an ethics committee, and gets a resubmission. Product liability is not clinical-trial liability. A site’s institutional policy is not the sponsor’s trial form.

Use the live Ecuador hub, not a new clock

See Clinical Trials in Ecuador. This page does not repeat the LATAM insurance hub or site pages. ARCSA is the national medicines/devices file named on public bioaccess® copy. Ethics still wants financial responsibility for participant injury in the packet. A hallway conversation in Quito is not that exhibit.

Country 2 is not a second Ecuadorian Gantt labeled insurance

If Ecuador is already on the protocol, the liability exhibit has to name Ecuador. If the founder is adding Ecuador after Panama, that is an endorsement, not a new CRO SKU. See the sibling page on adding a second LATAM country.

What ethics and ARCSA actually ask for

Use the live Ecuador country page. Ask the reviewing body and a licensed broker what certificate they will stamp.

Insurance documentation is usually in the ethics / ARCSA packet, not a post-approval formality. Two exceptions: in Mexico the policy goes to COFEPRIS within 15 business days after authorization, and in Brazil CEP/CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body):

• Territory that names every country on the protocol.
• Site and principal investigator as additional insureds when the committee requires it.
• Policy period through last-patient last-visit plus the protocol follow-up window.
• Spanish (or Portuguese) certificate or notarized summary when the committee asks for it.
• Claims-notice language that can sit next to the SAE clock, not against it.

None of the national rules or ethics-committee documents we read sets a per-participant dollar minimum. Ask the carrier and the CRO together, before the packet goes in.

Local policy vs controlled master

A master that excludes Ecuador fails the packet. An Ecuador-only local policy that cannot later add Panama or Chile is a protocol constraint. bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now; holder/IOR there is a separate service. We pick the country the device needs.

A “controlled master” that never issues a local certificate is a slide, not a submission. A local-only policy that cannot travel to a second Latin American country is a one-country trap. The operator chooses geography for the device; the paper has to follow the protocol, not the other way around.

What bioaccess® still owns after you have a quote

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. Ecuador is on the public countries hub.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics / ARCSA packet with insurance documents in the same stack — not a parallel founder email.
3. Importer of record and device accountability. A binder does not import the investigational product.
4. Site activation: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. A site MSA that “includes insurance” is still not ISO 14155 monitoring.
5. Introducing a specialty carrier when the founder does not already have admitted paper. An introduction is not a partnership or a quote.

The firm was founded in 2010. Published first-in-human device case studies show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting.

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™.

A Bogotá or Floridablanca ethics packet still wants financial responsibility for participant injury. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. We pick the country the device needs.

Frequently asked questions

Does bioaccess® sell clinical trial insurance?

No. We are the FIH CRO. We can introduce a carrier. We do not underwrite. We do not bind.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. This page covers the ARCSA / Ecuadorian ethics insurance exhibit.

Can a U.S. product-liability policy cover a LATAM device FIH?

Only if the territory clause and the trial-liability form actually name the countries and the investigational activity. Many U.S. GL/PL policies exclude OUS research. Get it in writing from the carrier. A verbal “we’re global” is not an ethics exhibit.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was Ecuador ARCSA clinical trial coverage, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Ecuador operator: Clinical Trials in Ecuador. Hub guide: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country.

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 Pelotas as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Federal University of Pelotas first-in-human, UFPel clinical trial, Universidade Federal de Pelotas CRO, or “go direct Federal University of Pelotas,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Federal University of Pelotas in Pelotas, Brazil, is a real named university-hospital 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 campus 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 campus still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Pelotas UFPel campus. It is not UFPB João Pessoa (separate page), not UFU Uberlândia, not HCPA / UFRGS Porto Alegre (already published), and not UNICAMP (already published). Sharing “Federal University” is not a license to collapse them. Pelotas is not Porto Alegre. Pelotas is not João Pessoa.

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 Pelotas (Pelotas, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=11; DEVICE n=5. Example NCT IDs: NCT02327286, NCT02788630, NCT03087422.

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 campus as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “UFPel first-in-human” finds ALL n=11 (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 campus 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 campus 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 campus 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 in Pelotas is not a João Pessoa 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 Pelotas is a serious named campus on the public registry. ALL n=11 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n beyond 5. 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 Federal University of Pelotas directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The university campus 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 campus. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as UFPB João Pessoa or UFU Uberlândia?

No. UFPB has its own page. UFU Uberlândia has its own page. This page is UFPel only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT02327286?

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. Brazil sibling (do not merge): UFPB João Pessoa.

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 COFEPRIS, 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 CIMAB Torreón as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched CIMAB Torreon first-in-human, CIMAB SA de CV clinical trial, CIMAB CRO Mexico, or “go direct CIMAB Torreón,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. CIMAB S.A. de C.V. in Torreón, Mexico, is a real named research-site string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the COFEPRIS file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the site is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns COFEPRIS, 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 site still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Torreón CIMAB campus. It is not Arké SMO Veracruz, not Investigación y Biomedicina de Chihuahua, not Instituto Jalisciense, and not Scientia Chihuahua (already published). Sharing northern Mexico is not a license to collapse them. Torreón is not Veracruz. Torreón is not Chihuahua.

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.

• CIMAB SA de CV (Torreón, Mexico) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=11; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT03574597, NCT03616912, NCT04433585. Punctuation / numbered aliases listed separately (S.A. de C.V. ALL n=5; 4840076 ALL n=1) — not combined.

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 site as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “CIMAB Torreón first-in-human” finds ALL n=11 (DEVICE n=0) without finding COFEPRIS. A named research site is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

A named site 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 site 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 site is not built to own for an investigational device:

• COFEPRIS. COFEPRIS governs device investigations in Mexico. Ethics committee review comes first, then COFEPRIS review; bioaccess® confirms the calendar per protocol. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A hallway conversation at CIMAB is not an Arké SMO 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 COFEPRIS actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Mexico and CRO in Mexico. Ethics committee review comes first, then COFEPRIS review; bioaccess® confirms the calendar per protocol. Keep trial clocks separate from registro sanitario (~30 working days on that hub). Eligibility of foreign data under 21 CFR 812.28 is not a guarantee of clearance.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not COFEPRIS 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

CIMAB is a serious named Torreón research site on the public registry. ALL n=11 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. 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 COFEPRIS / 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 CIMAB Torreón directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The site can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your COFEPRIS 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 site. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Arké SMO Veracruz?

No. Arké SMO Veracruz has its own page. This page is CIMAB Torreón only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT03574597?

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. Mexico sibling (do not merge): Arké SMO Veracruz.

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 Hospital Universitário Walter Cantídio Fortaleza as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Hospital Universitario Walter Cantidio first-in-human, HUWC UFC Fortaleza clinical trial, Walter Cantidio CRO, or “go direct Hospital Universitário Walter Cantídio Fortaleza,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. HUWC / Hospital Universitário Walter Cantídio (Universidade Federal do Ceará) in Fortaleza, Brazil, is a real named university-hospital 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 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 university hospital still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Fortaleza Walter Cantídio / UFC campus. It is not Hospital de Messejana Fortaleza, not Hospital Santa Izabel Salvador, not UFPB João Pessoa (separate page), and not Clementino/UFRJ (not covered on this page). Sharing Fortaleza is not a license to collapse them. Messejana is not HUWC.

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.

• HUWC – UFC – Hospital Universitário Walter Cantídio – Universidade Federal do Ceará (Fortaleza, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=11; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT02760407, NCT02760433, NCT03120949.

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 hospital as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Walter Cantídio first-in-human” finds ALL n=11 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA. A named university hospital 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 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 university 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 university 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 HUWC is not a Messejana 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

Hospital Universitário Walter Cantídio is a serious named Fortaleza university hospital on the public registry. ALL n=11 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. 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 Hospital Universitário Walter Cantídio Fortaleza directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The university 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 university hospital. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Messejana Fortaleza?

No. Hospital de Messejana has its own page. This page is HUWC / Walter Cantídio only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT02760407?

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. Fortaleza sibling (do not merge): Messejana Fortaleza.

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 Clínica Mayo Tucumán as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Clinica Mayo Tucuman first-in-human, Clinica Mayo Cruz Blanca Tucuman clinical trial, Mayo Tucuman CRO, or “go direct Clínica Mayo Tucumán,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Clínica Mayo de Urgencias Médicas Cruz Blanca S.R.L. in San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina, is a real named clinic 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 clinic 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 clinic still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Tucumán Clínica Mayo campus. It is not Hospital Nacional Dos de Mayo Lima (already published — different country, different “Mayo”), not CIPADI Godoy Cruz (separate page), not Centro de Estudios Reumatológicos Tucumán (already published as a Tucumán rheumatology string), and not Sanatorio Allende Córdoba (already published). Sharing Tucumán is not a license to collapse them. Tucumán is not Lima.

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 Mayo de Urgencias Médicas Cruz Blanca S.R.L (San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=12; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT04255433, NCT05463744, NCT05540522. Unaccented / truncated aliases listed separately — not combined. A separate NCT string “Clinica Mayo de UMCB” (ALL n=11) is not this page.

Counts for UMCB are kept separate.

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 clinic as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Clínica Mayo Tucumán first-in-human” finds ALL n=12 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT. A named clinic is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

A named clinic 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 clinic 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 clinic 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 Clínica Mayo Tucumán is not a CIPADI 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

Clínica Mayo Tucumán is a serious named Tucumán clinic on the public registry. ALL n=12 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. 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 Clínica Mayo Tucumán directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The clinic 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 clinic. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as CIPADI or Dos de Mayo Lima?

No. CIPADI Godoy Cruz has its own page. Hospital Nacional Dos de Mayo Lima is already published and is Peru. This page is Clínica Mayo Tucumán only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT04255433?

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. Argentina sibling: CIPADI Godoy Cruz.

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 CIPADI Godoy Cruz as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched CIPADI Godoy Cruz first-in-human, Centro Integral Prevencion Atencion Diabetes Mendoza clinical trial, CIPADI CRO, or “go direct CIPADI Godoy Cruz,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. CIPADI – Centro Integral de Prevencion y Atencion en Diabetes in Godoy Cruz, Argentina, is a real named diabetes-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 center 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 center still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Godoy Cruz CIPADI campus. It is not Clínica Mayo Tucumán (separate page), not DOM Buenos Aires (separate page), not IME Buenos Aires, and not Instituto DAMIC Córdoba (already published). Sharing Argentina is not a license to collapse them. Godoy Cruz is not CABA. Godoy Cruz is not Tucumán.

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.

• CIPADI – Centro Integral de Prevencion y Atencion en Diabetes (Godoy Cruz, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=12; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT05275400, NCT05463744, NCT05556512.

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 center as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “CIPADI first-in-human” finds ALL n=12 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT. A named diabetes center is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

A named center 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 center 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 center 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 in Godoy Cruz is not a DOM Buenos Aires 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

CIPADI is a serious named Godoy Cruz diabetes center on the public registry. ALL n=12 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. 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 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 CIPADI Godoy Cruz directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The center 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 center. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as DOM Buenos Aires or Clínica Mayo Tucumán?

No. Those have their own pages. This page is CIPADI Godoy Cruz only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT05275400?

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. Argentina sibling: DOM 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 Centro de Reumatología y Ortopedia Barranquilla as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Centro de Reumatologia y Ortopedia Barranquilla first-in-human, CRO Barranquilla clinical trial, Reumatologia Ortopedia Barranquilla CRO, or “go direct Centro de Reumatología y Ortopedia Barranquilla,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Centro de Reumatologia y Ortopedia in Barranquilla, Colombia, is a real named clinic 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 clinic 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 clinic still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Barranquilla rheumatology-and-orthopedics campus. It is not Clínica de la Costa Barranquilla (already published), not Centro Investigación Médico Asistencial Barranquilla (already published), not Oncomedica Montería (already published), and not FOSCAL Floridablanca. Sharing the Caribbean coast is not a license to collapse them. Barranquilla is not Floridablanca.

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.

• Centro de Reumatologia y Ortopedia (Barranquilla, Colombia) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=12; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT00424476, NCT00665925, NCT00848354. SAS aliases listed separately (ALL n=5 and ALL n=1) — not combined.

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 clinic as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Reumatología Ortopedia Barranquilla first-in-human” finds ALL n=12 (DEVICE n=0) without finding INVIMA. A named clinic is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

A named clinic 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 clinic 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 clinic 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 this Barranquilla clinic is not a Clínica de la Costa 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 Barranquilla 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

Centro de Reumatología y Ortopedia is a serious named Barranquilla clinic on the public registry. ALL n=12 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now. 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 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 Centro de Reumatología y Ortopedia Barranquilla directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The clinic 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 clinic. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Clínica de la Costa Barranquilla?

No. Clínica de la Costa Barranquilla is already published. This page is Centro de Reumatología y Ortopedia only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00424476?

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

Does bioaccess® run first-in-human studies in Colombia?

Yes. bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now, through our own CRO in Colombia. This is a campus page.

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. Barranquilla sibling (do not merge): Clínica de la Costa.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®