Author: Julio Martinez-Clark

  • Hospital Pérola Byington São Paulo: The NCT Campus String Is Not the ANVISA File

    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 Pérola Byington as a bioaccess® client.

    If you searched Perola Byington first-in-human, Hospital Pérola Byington clinical trial, Pérola Byington CRO São Paulo, or “go direct Hospital Pérola Byington,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Perola Byington in São Paulo, Brazil, is a real named women’s-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 hospital is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANVISA/CEP, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the hospital still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

    This page is the named São Paulo Pérola Byington hospital. It is not A.C. Camargo (CMS 95691), not ICESP (CMS 95642), not Sírio-Libanês (CMS 95676), and not Einstein (CMS 95621). Sharing São Paulo oncology search is not a license to collapse them.

    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; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

    Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 12 (CMS 95729–95738 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. Rank 8 is a press-named building (Innoblative SIRA RFA FIH, public LinkedIn May 2026), not an NCT frequency row.

    • Hospital Perola Byington (São Paulo, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=19; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT00545688, NCT00567190, NCT00781612.

    Cite canonical ALL n=19 and DEVICE n=0. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking.

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

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

    That is the leak: a founder searching “Pérola Byington first-in-human” finds ALL n=19 without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28. A named 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 hospital can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

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

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

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

    • ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier.
    • 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-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.

    Do not smear the hospital

    Hospital Pérola Byington is a serious named São Paulo hospital on the public registry. ALL n=19 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not invent a PI. 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

    A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

    Frequently asked questions

    Can I contract Hospital Pérola Byington directly for a device FIH?

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

    Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

    Is this the same page as A.C. Camargo, ICESP, or Sírio-Libanês?

    No. A.C. Camargo is CMS 95691. ICESP is CMS 95642. Sírio-Libanês is CMS 95676. This page is Pérola Byington only.

    Did bioaccess® run NCT00545688?

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

    Next step

    If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. São Paulo siblings (do not merge): A.C. Camargo, ICESP.

    Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

  • Hospital Geral de Fortaleza: The NCT Campus String Is Not the ANVISA File

    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 Geral de Fortaleza as a bioaccess® client.

    If you searched Hospital Geral de Fortaleza first-in-human, HGF Fortaleza clinical trial, Hospital Geral de Fortaleza CRO, or “go direct Hospital Geral de Fortaleza,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Geral de Fortaleza in Fortaleza, Brazil, is a real named 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 hospital is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANVISA/CEP, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the hospital still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

    This page is the named Fortaleza general hospital. It is not CRIO Fortaleza (CMS 95735; NCT overlap 0 on this canonical string). Sharing Fortaleza is not a license to collapse them.

    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; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

    Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 12 (CMS 95729–95738 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. Rank 8 is a press-named building (Innoblative SIRA RFA FIH, public LinkedIn May 2026), not an NCT frequency row.

    • Hospital Geral de Fortaleza (Fortaleza, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=19; DEVICE n=3. Example NCT IDs: NCT01174524, NCT02084446, NCT02098252.

    Cite canonical ALL n=19 and DEVICE n=3. Do not clone CRIO onto this slug.

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

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

    That is the leak: a founder searching “Hospital Geral de Fortaleza first-in-human” finds ALL n=19 (DEVICE n=3) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on CRIO. A named Fortaleza 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 hospital can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

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

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

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

    • ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at Hospital Geral de Fortaleza is not a CRIO 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-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.

    Do not smear the hospital

    Hospital Geral de Fortaleza is a serious named Fortaleza hospital on the public registry. ALL n=19 / DEVICE n=3 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not clone CRIO. Do not invent a PI. 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

    A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

    Frequently asked questions

    Can I contract Hospital Geral de Fortaleza directly for a device FIH?

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

    Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

    Is this the same page as CRIO Fortaleza?

    No. CRIO is CMS 95735 (overlap 0 on this canonical string). This page is Hospital Geral de Fortaleza only.

    Is this CRIO?

    No. That is CMS 95735. Same city is not the same NCT string.

    Did bioaccess® run NCT01174524?

    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): CRIO Fortaleza.

    Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

  • Centro Médico Laura Maffei Buenos Aires: The NCT Campus String Is Not the ANMAT File

    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 Centro Médico Laura Maffei Buenos Aires as a bioaccess® client.

    If you searched Laura Maffei first-in-human, Centro Medico Dra Laura Maffei clinical trial, Maffei Investigacion Clinica Aplicada CRO, or “go direct Centro Médico Laura Maffei Buenos Aires,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Centro Medico Dra. Laura Maffei — Investigacion Clinica Aplicada in Buenos Aires, Argentina, is a real named research-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, institutional ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if 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 Buenos Aires Maffei research center. It is not CIPREC (CMS 95641), not CINME (CMS 95669), not Clínica la Sagrada Familia ENERI (CMS 95625), and not Hospital Italiano Buenos Aires (CMS 95620). Sharing Buenos Aires is not a license to collapse them. We do not invent a PI from the center’s name.

    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; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

    Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 12 (CMS 95729–95738 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. Rank 8 is a press-named building (Innoblative SIRA RFA FIH, public LinkedIn May 2026), not an NCT frequency row.

    • Centro Medico Dra. Laura Maffei- Investigacion Clinica Aplicada (Buenos Aires, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=29; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT04255433, NCT04847557, NCT05508789.

    Cite canonical ALL n=29 and DEVICE n=0. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking.

    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 “Laura Maffei first-in-human” or “Maffei Investigacion Clinica Aplicada clinical trial” finds ALL n=29 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT, ethics, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28. A named research 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.
    • 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.

    Do not smear the center

    Centro Médico Laura Maffei is a serious named Buenos Aires research center on the public registry. ALL n=29 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not invent a DEVICE n. Do not invent a PI. 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

    A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

    Frequently asked questions

    Can I contract Centro Médico Laura Maffei Buenos Aires 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 intercepts the search; it does not claim the studies.

    Is this the same page as CIPREC, CINME, or Clínica la Sagrada Familia ENERI?

    No. CIPREC is CMS 95641. CINME is CMS 95669. Sagrada Familia ENERI is CMS 95625. This page is the Maffei Investigacion Clinica Aplicada string only.

    Why DEVICE n=0?

    That is the ranking-table DEVICE count. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=29 is still not ANMAT authorization.

    Did bioaccess® run NCT04255433?

    No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran it.

    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. Buenos Aires siblings (do not merge): CINME, Sagrada Familia ENERI.

    Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

  • Clinical Summary Report for FDA Submission: Structure, Content, and Common Mistakes

    Clinical Summary Report for FDA Submission: Structure, Content, and Common Mistakes

    A clinical summary report is one of the most consequential documents in your FDA submission package—and one of the most commonly mishandled. Whether you're preparing a 510(k), a PMA, or an IDE application, the clinical summary distills your entire body of clinical evidence into a structured narrative that reviewers use to assess safety, effectiveness, and regulatory adequacy. Get it right, and it accelerates your review. Get it wrong, and you're looking at deficiency letters that can add months to your timeline.

    This article covers the required structure, what each section actually needs to contain, and the mistakes that most often derail submissions.


    What a Clinical Summary Report Is and Why It Matters

    The clinical summary report is a standalone document that presents your clinical evidence in a format FDA reviewers can evaluate without cross-referencing every underlying study file. It is not a literature review, not a protocol, and not a data dump. It's a curated, interpretive document that connects your clinical data to your regulatory claim.

    For PMA submissions, 21 CFR 814.20 requires a summary of the clinical investigations. For 510(k)s, a clinical summary is required whenever clinical data are included. For IDEs, the clinical investigation plan and associated data must be structured so the agency can assess whether the study is adequate to generate the evidence needed for a future marketing submission.

    The clinical summary also figures into IDE applications and IND submissions when sponsors are running first-in-human or early-feasibility studies. In those cases, the summary must demonstrate that the proposed investigation is scientifically sound and that the sponsor has the infrastructure to execute it safely.


    Structure of a Clinical Summary Report

    FDA doesn't prescribe a single universal template, but guidance documents, reviewer expectations, and common practice have converged on a structure that holds up across device types. The sections below reflect that consensus.

    1. Device Description and Intended Use

    Open with a concise description of the device, its mechanism of action, and its intended use population. This section anchors everything that follows—reviewers need to understand what the device does before they can evaluate whether the clinical evidence is adequate.

    Keep the language clinical, not commercial. State the indication plainly, identify the patient population, and note any contraindications or use limitations already established.

    2. Summary of Clinical Investigations

    This is the core of the document. For each study included in the submission, provide:

    • Study design (prospective, retrospective, randomized, single-arm)
    • Objectives and endpoints (primary, secondary, and exploratory)
    • Patient population, inclusion and exclusion criteria
    • Number of subjects enrolled, completed, and analyzed
    • Follow-up duration
    • Statistical analysis approach
    • Key results for each endpoint, presented numerically
    • Adverse events and device deficiencies, with severity classifications

    If you're relying on multiple studies, present each one separately before synthesizing across them. Don't blend results from different studies into a single table without clearly labeling the source of each data point.

    3. Subject Accountability

    FDA reviewers consistently flag submissions that don't account for every enrolled subject. Your clinical summary must include a disposition table showing how many subjects were screened, enrolled, completed the study, withdrew, were lost to follow-up, or died. Reasons for discontinuation should be categorized and counted.

    If your protocol allowed both per-protocol and intent-to-treat analyses, explain which population was used for each endpoint and why.

    4. Safety Summary

    Adverse events must be presented systematically, not selectively. List all adverse events—device-related and non-device-related—by MedDRA term or equivalent coding, with counts and percentages. Serious adverse events and device deficiencies require individual narratives or a reference to the case report forms where those narratives appear.

    Don't bury safety signals in footnotes or appendices. If there were serious adverse events, present them clearly and explain how they were adjudicated. Reviewers are looking for transparency, not a clean record.

    5. Effectiveness Summary

    Summarize the primary effectiveness endpoint results with point estimates and confidence intervals. If your study used a performance goal or objective performance criterion, show the comparison explicitly. If you used a non-inferiority or superiority design, state the margin and whether it was met.

    Secondary endpoints should appear in a structured table. Pre-specified subgroup analyses can be included but should be clearly labeled as exploratory if they weren't powered for hypothesis testing.

    6. Benefit-Risk Assessment

    This is where many sponsors underinvest. FDA expects you to weigh the clinical benefits against the risks and explain why the benefit-risk profile supports approval or clearance for the intended use population.

    Reference the specific patient population, the severity of the condition being treated, the availability of alternatives, and the nature of the risks observed. A device that carries meaningful procedural risk may still have a favorable benefit-risk profile if it addresses an unmet need in a population with limited options.

    7. Conclusions

    State clearly whether the clinical evidence supports the intended use. Reference the specific endpoints that were met, the safety profile observed, and any conditions or limitations that apply. This section should be one to two paragraphs—not a re-summary of everything that came before.


    Common Mistakes in Clinical Summary Reports

    Understanding the structure is necessary but not sufficient. These are the errors that generate the most deficiency letters and review delays.

    Vague or Missing Endpoint Definitions

    Sponsors sometimes define endpoints in the protocol with precision but then describe them loosely in the clinical summary. If your primary endpoint was a composite of device success, absence of major adverse events at 30 days, and functional improvement on a validated scale, say exactly that. Don't simplify it to "clinical success" without defining the term.

    Reviewers will compare your summary to your protocol. Inconsistencies create questions that require formal responses and extend your review cycle.

    Incomplete Adverse Event Reporting

    One of the most common deficiencies is an adverse event table that doesn't match the study report. This typically happens when the clinical study report is updated after the summary was drafted, or when different team members compile each document. The clinical summary and the underlying study report must be reconciled before submission.

    Also watch for adverse events coded inconsistently across documents. If an event is coded as "device malfunction" in the case report form and "equipment problem" in the summary, reviewers will flag it.

    Overreliance on Narrative Without Data

    Some clinical summaries read more like persuasive essays than data presentations. Phrases like "the device demonstrated excellent safety" without a corresponding adverse event rate aren't acceptable. Every claim in the summary must be traceable to a number in a table or a specific study finding.

    Failure to Address Protocol Deviations

    If your study had major protocol deviations, they need to be disclosed and assessed for their potential impact on data integrity. Sponsors sometimes omit this section entirely, which signals to reviewers that deviations either weren't tracked or aren't being disclosed.

    Misalignment Between Summary and Labeling

    The indications for use in your proposed labeling must match the population studied and the endpoints evaluated. If your study enrolled patients with moderate-to-severe disease but your labeling claims broad use across all severity levels, reviewers will catch the mismatch. The clinical summary is the document that connects your evidence to your label—any gap between them will surface here.

    Inadequate Benefit-Risk Discussion

    Sponsors often treat the benefit-risk section as a formality. A single paragraph stating that "benefits outweigh risks" without supporting analysis doesn't satisfy FDA expectations. The benefit-risk framework should address the condition's severity, the unmet need, the magnitude of the observed benefit, the nature and frequency of observed risks, and the patient population's risk tolerance.

    Poor Document Hygiene

    This sounds minor but creates real problems. Inconsistent subject numbering across tables, unlabeled confidence intervals, tables that reference appendices that aren't included, and unreconciled version-controlled documents all generate reviewer questions. Before you submit, run a cross-check between the clinical summary, the clinical study report, and any referenced appendices.


    How Clinical Trial Design Affects the Summary You Can Write

    The quality of your clinical summary is constrained by the quality of your underlying study. A well-designed trial with pre-specified endpoints, a clear statistical analysis plan, and rigorous data collection gives you a summary that's straightforward to write and easy to defend.

    Studies designed without FDA alignment—using endpoints not validated for the intended population, or enrolling subjects outside the intended use population—produce summaries full of caveats and limitations. Those caveats invite reviewer questions.

    This is why FDA alignment before your study starts matters as much as the execution itself. Pre-Submission meetings (Pre-Subs) let you confirm that your study design, endpoints, and statistical approach will generate data FDA will accept. Sponsors who skip that step often discover the gap at the summary-writing stage, when it's too late to fix.

    For sponsors running first-in-human or early-feasibility studies in Latin America, bioaccess® structures every program around FDA Pre-Sub alignment from day one. The FIH-12™ program covers FDA Pre-Sub and IDE/IND pathway alignment as its first workstream, so the clinical evidence package that comes out of the study is built to support a submission-ready clinical summary from the start.


    Writing the Summary When You Have Multiple Data Sources

    PMA submissions often draw on more than one study—a pivotal trial, a continued access study, a registry, published literature, and post-market data from international markets. Each source needs to be described separately and then synthesized.

    The synthesis section should explain how each data source contributes to the overall evidence base, how the populations and endpoints relate to each other, and how the combined evidence supports the benefit-risk conclusion. Stacking tables from different studies without connecting them isn't a synthesis.

    When you're drawing on data from studies conducted in Latin American markets, you need to address the relevance of that population to the U.S. intended use population. FDA accepts data from foreign studies under 21 CFR 812.28 when the data are collected under ISO 14155 and the study conditions are comparable to U.S. practice. If you're using international data, your clinical summary should include a brief section explaining why the foreign study population is representative of the U.S. population for the intended use.


    Formatting and Length

    FDA doesn't specify a page limit for clinical summaries, but reviewers read a lot of them. A well-organized, concise summary is easier to review than one that buries key findings across 80 pages of narrative. Use tables for data, text for interpretation, and headings that match the content.

    For a single-study 510(k), a clinical summary might run 15 to 30 pages. For a PMA with multiple studies, 40 to 60 pages is common. What matters is that every section is present, every claim is supported, and the document can stand alone as a coherent presentation of your clinical evidence.


    FAQs

    What is a clinical summary report in an FDA submission?
    A clinical summary report is a structured document presenting the clinical evidence supporting a medical device's safety and effectiveness. It is required in PMA submissions under 21 CFR 814.20 and in 510(k) submissions when clinical data are included. It summarizes study designs, results, adverse events, and the benefit-risk assessment in a format FDA reviewers can evaluate independently.

    Is a clinical summary report required for a 510(k)?
    A clinical summary is required in a 510(k) when the submission includes clinical data. If your 510(k) relies on bench testing and predicate comparison alone, a clinical summary may not be required. However, if you include any clinical study data, you must provide a summary that meets FDA's content expectations.

    How long should a clinical summary report be?
    There is no prescribed length. A single-study 510(k) clinical summary typically runs 15 to 30 pages. A PMA with multiple studies may require 40 to 60 pages. The priority is completeness and clarity, not hitting a specific page count.

    What is the most common reason FDA issues deficiencies related to clinical summaries?
    Incomplete or inconsistent adverse event reporting is among the most frequent triggers. Other common causes include vague endpoint definitions, missing subject disposition data, inadequate benefit-risk discussion, and misalignment between the summary and the proposed labeling.

    Can data from Latin American clinical trials be used in a U.S. FDA submission?
    Yes. Data collected under ISO 14155 and structured per FDA 21 CFR 812.28 can be accepted for U.S. IDE and IND submissions. The clinical summary should include a section explaining the relevance of the foreign study population to the U.S. intended use population.

    What is the difference between a clinical summary and a clinical study report?
    A clinical study report is a comprehensive document presenting all data from a single study in full detail, following ICH E3 or equivalent structure. A clinical summary is a shorter, interpretive document that synthesizes findings across one or more studies to support a regulatory claim. The summary references the study report but doesn't replace it.

    How does a Pre-Submission meeting affect the clinical summary?
    A Pre-Sub meeting lets you confirm with FDA that your study design, endpoints, and statistical approach will generate data the agency will accept. When you have that alignment before the study starts, writing the clinical summary is straightforward—the evidence was structured to answer the right questions. Without it, sponsors often discover gaps at the summary stage that require additional data or study amendments.


    Build the Summary Into Your Study Design, Not After It

    A clinical summary report isn't a writing exercise you schedule after your study closes. It's the document your entire clinical program is building toward. The structure of your protocol, the choice of endpoints, the rigor of your data collection, and the quality of your adverse event adjudication all determine what you can honestly say in that summary.

    Sponsors who treat the summary as an afterthought spend months revising it in response to deficiency letters. Sponsors who design their studies with the summary in mind tend to move through review faster and with fewer surprises.

    If you're planning a first-in-human or early-feasibility study and want a clinical evidence package structured for FDA submission from day one, learn more at bioaccess®.

  • First-in-human without waiting years for FDA: the LATAM evidence calendar vs the U.S. IDE clock

    The question boards keep asking is not “how long is an FDA IDE review.” It is “how do we get first-in-human data without waiting years for FDA.” The 30-day IDE clock is rarely the year that eats the raise. The year is domestic site contracting, IRB sequencing, and the decision to treat first patient as a United States-only problem.

    A Latin America first-in-human (FIH) or early feasibility study (EFS) is not a shortcut around FDA. It is a second calendar that can put ISO 14155 evidence in the room while the U.S. path is still being built. Design it for 21 CFR § 812.28 from day one, or you bought speed you cannot spend later.

    What “without waiting for FDA” actually means

    It does not mean “skip FDA.” It means stop treating first-in-human as identical to “first U.S. IDE subject.” For a Class III implantable or a novel Class II device, the practical split looks like this:

    • Evidence calendar: first patient under a Latin America investigation authorization, with GCP, independent ethics, investigational labeling, and a trial master file you can hand an FDA reviewer.
    • U.S. marketing calendar: IDE, 510(k), De Novo, or PMA workstreams that can use those foreign data when § 812.28 is met — eligibility is not clearance.
    • Commercial calendar: country-by-country registro / holder / IOR files. A Panama FIH does not create an INVIMA, ANVISA, or COFEPRIS selling license. Keep that track off the investigation critical path until you mean it. The live market-access hub and the holder vs IOR comparison already separate those desks.

    If your Gantt has one bar labeled “regulatory,” you do not have a plan. You have a hope.

    Where U.S. startups already run the parallel calendar

    bioaccess® publishes Panama and El Salvador as lead FIH jurisdictions for device investigations that must later talk to FDA:

    • Panama. Class III FIH under MINSA and the Comité Nacional de Bioética de la Investigación (CNBI), on Ley 84 of 14 May 2019 and Decreto Ejecutivo No. 21 of 23 April 2026 (Gaceta Oficial No. 30510-C). The live Panama Class III FIH guide already names parallel high-risk review, a 20-business-day ordinary ethics cap, and SAE clocks of 24 hours / 15 days. Dollarized economy. English-capable sites. Investigation units only — not a registro SKU on the airway bill.
    • El Salvador. CNEIS ethics plus SRS clinical-investigation authorization on a published 30–60 day study-startup band. That band is not a DNM/SRS commercial registro. The sibling post on CNEIS/SRS trial vs DNM registro exists because sponsors keep merging the two clocks.

    Paraguay (DINAVISA) appears on the same ISO 14155 + § 812.28 execution list on the holder page. Country choice is a dossier and site decision, not a slogan. Colombia remains a strong market-access and historical FIH geography for bioaccess®, but the public Colombia hub is not a blanket “start your next first-in-human here” recommendation for every new device — pick the jurisdiction whose ethics desk, import path, and site capacity match the protocol you actually wrote.

    What FDA will ask later (design it now)

    § 812.28 is the acceptance rule for clinical investigations conducted outside the United States. In short, FDA expects a well-designed, well-conducted investigation, independent ethics review and informed consent, and a device comparable to the version you will put in the U.S. file. FDA has stated that conformance with ISO 14155:2020 will generally satisfy the GCP piece of that rule — already footed on the Panama FIH guide and the after-first-patients sequencing post.

    Practical consequences before first patient:

    1. Same device story. The investigational article, accessories, and labeling must map to the U.S. design you intend to defend. A “Panama-only” SKU that diverges from the IDE article creates a comparability problem, not a speed win.
    2. Inspectable file. Monitoring reports, device accountability, deviation logs, ethics correspondence, and the Spanish informed-consent version history in one place. A clean investigation letter is not a trial master file.
    3. Importer named for investigation units. Do not put a cousin commercial registro number on FIH freight. That pattern burns weeks at customs and contaminates both tracks.
    4. Success criterion written as evidence, not as “FDA approved.” First patient and a closed ISO 14155 package are the FIH win. Clearance is a later petition.

    After first patients is a different question

    Once you have subjects, the sequencing problem flips from “how do we start” to “how do we spend the data.” The live after-first-patients article already says the job is not “FDA then LATAM.” Sequence the same dataset toward the U.S. marketing path and toward the commercial countries you actually intend to sell — they are different petitions. A Panama or El Salvador investigation does not travel as an ANVISA or COFEPRIS registro. Pick the commercial four (or a subset) and open those holder files when launch is real, not when the PI asks for leftover kits.

    One-page gate before you book sites

    Write owners and document IDs before initiation visits:

    1. Question on the board. “Human data for the raise / next FDA meeting” is an evidence ask. “Sell in Colombia in Q4” is a registro ask. Do not fund them from one workstream.
    2. Lead FIH jurisdiction. Panama MINSA/CNBI, El Salvador CNEIS/SRS, or another published desk — with the governing decree or platform named, not a country flag on a slide.
    3. § 812.28 owner. Who can produce the GCP package within 48 hours if FDA asks.
    4. Investigational importer and device list. Every unit that will sit in site accountability.
    5. Commercial holder (optional, separate). Only if a real launch country is in scope this year. Use the market-access track; do not hang it on the FIH critical path.

    Where teams burn the year anyway

    • Waiting for a U.S. site that is “almost ready.” Almost ready is not first patient. A parallel LATAM investigation can run while the U.S. contracting stack finishes.
    • One Gantt bar for FIH and registro. Trial authorization and sanitary registration share clock language in several LATAM markets. They do not share a dossier. El Salvador’s 30–60 day language is the clearest public example.
    • Foreign data with a thin TMF. Speed without ISO 14155 discipline buys a story investors like and reviewers will not.
    • Country tourism. Opening five ethics desks because a slide said “LATAM” dilutes the file. One strong investigation beats five thin ones.

    Practical next step

    This week, rewrite the board slide. Column one: FIH/EFS jurisdiction, ethics desk, investigation importer, § 812.28 owner. Column two: U.S. IDE or marketing path. Column three: commercial holder countries, if any. If column one is empty because “we are waiting on FDA,” you are waiting on the wrong clock. bioaccess® runs FIH/EFS execution across Latin America from Miami — with Panama and El Salvador as published lead investigation hubs — and keeps LATAM registration/IOR on a separate market-access track. Start from the Panama Class III FIH guide or the El Salvador clinical-trials hub for the evidence column, and keep the market-access hub out of the first-patient critical path until you mean to sell.

  • Instituto Médico Catamarca IMEC Rosario: The NCT Campus String Is Not the ANMAT File

    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 Instituto Médico Catamarca IMEC Rosario as a bioaccess® client.

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

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

    This page is the named Rosario IMEC institute. It is not Instituto CAICI (this batch; NCT overlap 0), not Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas Rosario (CMS 95723), not Instituto de Oncología de Rosario (CMS 95704), and not Instituto Médico Río Cuarto (CMS 95679). Sharing Rosario or sharing an “Instituto Médico” token is not a license to collapse them. Punctuation alias Instituto Médico Catamarca – IMEC stays on this slug; we do not ship a second slug.

    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; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

    Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 11 (CMS 95719–95728 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies.

    • Instituto Médico Catamarca IMEC (Rosario, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=20; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT04255433, NCT04660643, NCT05275400.
    • Punctuation alias Instituto Médico Catamarca – IMEC: ALL n=3. Listed separately. Same slug. No unique-study union of 20+3. No second slug.

    Cite canonical ALL n=20 and DEVICE n=0. Cite alias ALL n=3 separately. Do not add them. We will not invent a DEVICE n.

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

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

    That is the leak: a founder searching “IMEC Rosario first-in-human” or “Instituto Médico Catamarca clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=20 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT, ethics, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on CAICI, IIC Rosario, Oncología Rosario, or Río Cuarto. A named institute is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

    • ANMAT. Argentina’s national medicines and devices authority (Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica) is the file a sponsor actually needs. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A published statutory target on the trial side is 90 business days and the clock pauses for RFIs. Trial authorization and commercial registro are separate petitions. A hallway conversation at IMEC Rosario is not a CAICI file, not an IIC Rosario file, not an Oncología Rosario file, and not a Río Cuarto 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.

    Do not smear the institute

    Instituto Médico Catamarca IMEC is a serious named Rosario medical institute on the public registry. ALL n=20 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not invent a DEVICE n. Do not merge it into CAICI, IIC Rosario, Oncología Rosario, or Río Cuarto. Do not invent a PI. 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

    A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

    Frequently asked questions

    Can I contract Instituto Médico Catamarca IMEC Rosario directly for a device FIH?

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

    Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

    Is this the same page as Instituto CAICI, IIC Rosario, or Instituto Médico Río Cuarto?

    No. CAICI is a different Rosario organization on its own slug in this batch (overlap 0). IIC Rosario is CMS 95723. Instituto Médico Río Cuarto is CMS 95679 in another city. This page is Instituto Médico Catamarca IMEC, Rosario only. Punctuation ALL n=3 stays listed separately; we do not union.

    Should I add canonical ALL n=20 and punctuation ALL n=3?

    No. Alias n is listed separately. A unique-study union is not published. The hyphen stays on this slug.

    Is this Instituto CAICI or IIC Rosario?

    No. CAICI is this batch, a different NCT string (overlap 0). IIC Rosario is CMS 95723. Sharing Rosario is not a merge.

    Is this Instituto Médico Río Cuarto?

    No. That is CMS 95679. “Instituto Médico” in the name is not a merge key.

    Why DEVICE n=0?

    That is the ranking-table DEVICE count. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=20 is still not ANMAT authorization. Trial versus registro remain different petitions.

    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. Rosario siblings (do not merge): Instituto CAICI, IIC Rosario.

    Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

  • Hospital Infantil Federico Gómez Mexico City: The NCT Campus String Is Not the COFEPRIS File

    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 Hospital Infantil Federico Gómez Mexico City as a bioaccess® client.

    If you searched Hospital Infantil de Mexico Federico Gomez first-in-human, HIMFG clinical trial, Federico Gómez CRO Mexico, or “go direct Hospital Infantil Federico Gómez Mexico City,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Infantil de Mexico Federico Gomez in Mexico City, Mexico, is a real named pediatric-hospital 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 hospital is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns COFEPRIS, institutional ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the hospital still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

    This page is the named Mexico City pediatric hospital. It is not Instituto Nacional de Cancerología (CMS 95655; NCT overlap 0), not INCMNSZ Salvador Zubirán (CMS 95623), and not Instituto Nacional de Cardiología Ignacio Chávez (CMS 95710). Sharing Mexico City is not a license to collapse them. Accent alias Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez stays on this slug; we do not ship a second slug.

    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; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

    Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 11 (CMS 95719–95728 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies.

    • Hospital Infantil de Mexico Federico Gomez (Mexico City, Mexico) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=20; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT00791700, NCT01056341, NCT02530346.
    • Accent alias Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez: ALL n=10. Listed separately. Same slug. No unique-study union of 20+10. No second slug.

    Cite canonical ALL n=20 and DEVICE n=0. Cite alias ALL n=10 separately. Do not add them. We will not invent a DEVICE n. Do not clone INCan, INCMNSZ, or Ignacio Chávez onto this slug.

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

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

    That is the leak: a founder searching “Hospital Infantil Federico Gómez first-in-human” or “HIMFG clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=20 (DEVICE n=0) without finding COFEPRIS, ethics, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on INCan, INCMNSZ, or Ignacio Chávez. A named pediatric 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 hospital can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

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

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

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

    • COFEPRIS. COFEPRIS governs device investigations in Mexico. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub; combined start-up is cited there as a 2.8-month median. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A hallway conversation at Hospital Infantil Federico Gómez is not an INCan file, not an INCMNSZ file, and not an Ignacio Chávez 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-mexico and CRO in Mexico. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub; combined start-up is cited there as a 2.8-month median. 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.

    Do not smear the hospital

    Hospital Infantil de Mexico Federico Gomez is a serious named Mexico City pediatric hospital on the public registry. ALL n=20 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not invent a DEVICE n. Do not merge it into INCan, INCMNSZ, or Ignacio Chávez. Do not invent a PI. 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

    A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

    Frequently asked questions

    Can I contract Hospital Infantil Federico Gómez Mexico City directly for a device FIH?

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

    Is this the same page as INCan, INCMNSZ, or Instituto Nacional de Cardiología Ignacio Chávez?

    No. INCan is CMS 95655 (overlap 0). INCMNSZ is CMS 95623. Ignacio Chávez is CMS 95710. This page is Hospital Infantil de Mexico Federico Gomez only. Accent ALL n=10 stays listed separately; we do not union.

    Should I add canonical ALL n=20 and accent ALL n=10?

    No. Alias n is listed separately. A unique-study union is not published. The accents stay on this slug.

    Is this INCan or Ignacio Chávez?

    No. Those are already-live Mexico City institute intercepts. This page is the pediatric hospital string.

    Why DEVICE n=0?

    That is the ranking-table DEVICE count. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=20 is still not COFEPRIS authorization. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub.

    Did bioaccess® run NCT00791700?

    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 City siblings (do not merge): INCan, Ignacio Chávez.

    Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

  • Hospital das Clínicas Ribeirão Preto: The NCT Campus String Is Not the ANVISA File

    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 das Clínicas Ribeirão Preto as a bioaccess® client.

    If you searched Hospital das Clínicas Ribeirão Preto first-in-human, HCFMRP USP clinical trial, FMRP Hospital das Clínicas CRO, or “go direct Hospital das Clínicas Ribeirão Preto,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto da Universidade de São Paulo is a real named teaching-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 hospital is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANVISA/CEP, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the hospital still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

    This page is the named Ribeirão Preto teaching hospital. It is not Hospital das Clínicas FMUSP in São Paulo (CMS 95630) and it is not University of São Paulo in São Paulo (CMS 95616). Ribeirão Preto is not São Paulo city. Sharing a USP token is not a license to collapse them. Short alias Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto stays on this slug; we do not ship a second slug. University of Sao Paulo Ribeirão Preto is a university string — not this hospital slug and not a second slug.

    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; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

    Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 11 (CMS 95719–95728 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies.

    • Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto da Universidade de São Paulo (Ribeirão Preto, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=20; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT00315133, NCT00801450, NCT01190163.
    • Short alias Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto: ALL n=17. Listed separately. Same slug. No union of 20+17. No second slug.

    Cite canonical ALL n=20 and DEVICE n=0. Cite short ALL n=17 separately. Do not add them. Do not clone HCFMUSP or USP São Paulo onto this slug. University of Sao Paulo Ribeirão Preto stays off this hospital slug.

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

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

    That is the leak: a founder searching “Hospital das Clínicas Ribeirão Preto first-in-human” or “HCFMRP clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=20 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on HCFMUSP or USP São Paulo. A named Ribeirão Preto teaching 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 hospital can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

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

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

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

    • ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at HCFMRP is not an HCFMUSP São Paulo file and is not a USP São Paulo 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-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.

    Do not smear the hospital

    Hospital das Clínicas Ribeirão Preto is a serious named teaching hospital on the public registry. ALL n=20 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not invent a DEVICE n. Do not merge it into HCFMUSP or USP São Paulo. Do not invent a PI. 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

    A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

    Frequently asked questions

    Can I contract Hospital das Clínicas Ribeirão Preto directly for a device FIH?

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

    Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

    Is this the same page as Hospital das Clínicas FMUSP or University of São Paulo?

    No. HCFMUSP is CMS 95630 in São Paulo. University of São Paulo is CMS 95616 in São Paulo. This page is Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto only. Short ALL n=17 stays listed separately; we do not union. The Ribeirão Preto university string is not this hospital slug.

    Should I add canonical ALL n=20 and short ALL n=17?

    No. Alias n is listed separately. A unique-study union is not published. The short Faculdade string stays on this slug.

    Is this HCFMUSP or USP São Paulo?

    No. Those are São Paulo-city intercepts. Ribeirão Preto versus São Paulo is the filter.

    Why DEVICE n=0?

    That is the ranking-table DEVICE count. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=20 is still not ANVISA authorization. Combined ethics + ANVISA is typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs 30 business days; published per-patient $20,000–$35,000 on the Brazil country page.

    Did bioaccess® run NCT00315133?

    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. USP siblings (do not merge): Hospital das Clínicas FMUSP, University of São Paulo.

    Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

  • CRIO Fortaleza: The NCT Campus String Is Not the ANVISA File

    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 CRIO Fortaleza as a bioaccess® client.

    If you searched CRIO Fortaleza first-in-human, Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia clinical trial, CRIO CRO Brazil, or “go direct CRIO Fortaleza,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Crio – Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia in Fortaleza, Brazil, is a real named oncology-center string on ClinicalTrials.gov. This is the first Fortaleza slug in this intercept series. 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 center is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANVISA/CEP, 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 Fortaleza oncology center. It is not Hospital Geral de Fortaleza (a different NCT string; overlap 0 on this canonical string) and it is not Liga Norte Riograndense (CMS 95659 in Natal). Sharing a Northeast Brazil oncology search is not a license to collapse them. Casing alias CRIO – Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia stays on this slug; we do not ship a second slug.

    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; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

    Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 11 (CMS 95719–95728 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies.

    • Crio – Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia (Fortaleza, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=20; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT00567190, NCT01649856, NCT02425891.
    • Casing alias CRIO – Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia: ALL n=11. Listed separately. Same slug. No unique-study union of 20+11. No second slug for the capitals.

    Cite canonical ALL n=20 and DEVICE n=0. Cite alias ALL n=11 separately. Do not add them. We will not invent a DEVICE n. First Fortaleza slug.

    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 “CRIO Fortaleza first-in-human” or “Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=20 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Hospital Geral de Fortaleza or Liga Norte. A named Fortaleza oncology 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:

    • 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 CRIO is not a Hospital Geral de Fortaleza file and is not a Liga Norte 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-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.

    Do not smear the center

    Crio – Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia is a serious named Fortaleza oncology center on the public registry. ALL n=20 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not invent a DEVICE n. Do not merge it into Hospital Geral de Fortaleza or Liga Norte. Do not invent a PI. 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

    A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

    Frequently asked questions

    Can I contract CRIO Fortaleza 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 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 center. We will not invent that claim. This page intercepts the search; it does not claim the studies.

    Is this the same page as Hospital Geral de Fortaleza or Liga Norte Riograndense?

    No. Hospital Geral de Fortaleza is a different NCT string (overlap 0). Liga Norte is CMS 95659 in Natal. This page is CRIO, Fortaleza only. CRIO ALL n=11 stays listed separately; we do not union.

    Should I add canonical ALL n=20 and CRIO ALL n=11?

    No. Alias n is listed separately. A unique-study union is not published. The capitals are the same Fortaleza campus on the same slug.

    Is this Hospital Geral de Fortaleza?

    No. Same city is not the same NCT string. Overlap is 0.

    Why DEVICE n=0?

    That is the ranking-table DEVICE count. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=20 is still not ANVISA authorization. Combined ethics + ANVISA is typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs 30 business days; published per-patient $20,000–$35,000 on the Brazil country page.

    Did bioaccess® run NCT00567190?

    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. Country: clinical trials in Brazil. Northeast sibling (do not merge): Liga Norte Riograndense.

    Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

  • Hospital Araújo Jorge Goiânia: The NCT Campus String Is Not the ANVISA File

    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 Araújo Jorge Goiânia as a bioaccess® client.

    If you searched Hospital Araujo Jorge first-in-human, Araújo Jorge Goiânia clinical trial, Hospital de Câncer Araújo Jorge CRO, or “go direct Hospital Araújo Jorge Goiânia,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Araujo Jorge in Goiânia, Brazil, is a real named cancer-hospital string on ClinicalTrials.gov. This is the first Goiânia slug in this intercept series. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

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

    This page is the named Goiânia cancer hospital. It is not Barretos (CMS 95648), not A.C. Camargo (CMS 95691), and not ICESP (CMS 95642). Sharing a Brazilian oncology search is not a license to collapse them. Goiânia is not Barretos and is not São Paulo. Accent alias Hospital Araújo Jorge and legal-name Associacao de Combate ao Cancer em Goias – Hospital de Cancer Araujo Jorge stay on this slug; we do not ship second slugs.

    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; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

    Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 11 (CMS 95719–95728 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies.

    • Hospital Araujo Jorge (Goiânia, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=20; DEVICE n=1. Example NCT IDs: NCT00385983, NCT01844986, NCT01874353.
    • Accent alias Hospital Araújo Jorge: ALL n=5. Listed separately. Same slug. No union. No second slug.
    • Legal-name alias Associacao de Combate ao Cancer em Goias – Hospital de Cancer Araujo Jorge: ALL n=6. Listed separately. Same slug. No union. No second slug.

    Cite canonical ALL n=20 and DEVICE n=1. Cite alias n separately. Do not add 20+5+6. Do not clone Barretos, Camargo, or ICESP onto this slug.

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

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

    That is the leak: a founder searching “Hospital Araújo Jorge first-in-human” or “Araujo Jorge Goiânia clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=20 (DEVICE n=1) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Barretos, Camargo, or ICESP. A named Goiânia cancer 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 hospital can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

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

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

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

    • ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation in Goiânia is not a Barretos file, not a Camargo file, and not an ICESP 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-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.

    Do not smear the hospital

    Hospital Araujo Jorge is a serious named Goiânia cancer hospital on the public registry. ALL n=20 and DEVICE n=1 are registry volume, not a punchline. Do not merge it into Barretos, Camargo, or ICESP. Do not invent a PI. 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

    A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

    Frequently asked questions

    Can I contract Hospital Araújo Jorge Goiânia directly for a device FIH?

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

    Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

    Is this the same page as Barretos, A.C. Camargo, or ICESP?

    No. Barretos is CMS 95648. A.C. Camargo is CMS 95691. ICESP is CMS 95642. This page is Hospital Araujo Jorge, Goiânia only. First Goiânia slug. Accent ALL n=5 and Associação ALL n=6 stay listed separately; we do not union.

    Should I add canonical ALL n=20, accent ALL n=5, and Associação ALL n=6?

    No. Alias n is listed separately. A unique-study union is not published. Those strings stay on this slug.

    Is this Barretos or Camargo?

    No. Those are already-live Brazilian oncology intercepts in other cities. This page is the Goiânia named hospital.

    Why DEVICE n=1?

    That is the ranking-table DEVICE count. It is still not ANVISA authorization. Combined ethics + ANVISA is typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs 30 business days; published per-patient $20,000–$35,000 on the Brazil country page.

    Did bioaccess® run NCT00385983?

    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. Oncology siblings (do not merge): Barretos, A.C. Camargo.

    Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®