cms.bioaccessla.com

Author: Julio Martinez-Clark

  • What FDA Reviewers Actually Open After a LATAM Device FIH: The ISO 14155 Inspectable File

    ISO 14155 is not a protocol checkbox. Under 21 CFR 812.28 the FDA asks whether a Latin American device investigation is validatable. That means an inspectable file — ethics, consent, device accountability, trial importer of record, monitoring — not a PDF of the protocol.

    The quietest way to waste a first-in-human study in Latin America is to treat ISO 14155 as a sentence on page two of the protocol. Ethics stamped it. INVIMA, ANVISA, COFEPRIS, ANMAT, or MINSA stamped the study. The investigator signed. Six months later a US reviewer asks for the file that proves the investigation was conducted, recorded, and monitored — and the sponsor hands over a translated protocol plus a slide deck.

    That is not what 21 CFR 812.28 is asking. The regulation lets the FDA accept outside-US device data to support an IDE, 510(k), De Novo, or PMA when the investigation was conducted under good clinical practice — including independent ethics-committee review and informed consent — and when the FDA can validate the data, including by on-site inspection if necessary. Eligibility of foreign clinical data is not FDA clearance of any device. See Does the FDA accept clinical data from Latin America? and the agency page, Acceptance of Data from Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices.

    ISO 14155 — Clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects — Good clinical practice — is the device-specific GCP standard. The FDA recognizes it as the consensus GCP for medical-device investigations; conformance is how a Latin American first-in-human (FIH) or early feasibility study (EFS) demonstrates the GCP prong of 812.28. Short definition: glossary.

    What a reviewer is actually looking for

    FDA reviewers do not “grade ISO 14155.” They ask three operational questions, which match the concerns already laid out in bioaccess®’s LATAM-to-FDA FIH guide and the knowledge-base answer Does the FDA accept Latin American clinical trial data?:

    • Was this investigation reviewed and approved by an independent ethics committee before first patient, with a consent process that can be reconstructed subject by subject?
    • Is the investigational article identical to — or adequately compared with — the device in the US submission, with a chain of custody that survives an inspection?
    • Can the FDA validate the data from records, or from an on-site inspection of the foreign site if the agency decides it needs one?

    If the answer to the third question is “the protocol is ISO 14155-aligned,” you do not have an inspectable file. You have a claim. The file is the set of contemporaneous artifacts that let a stranger reconstruct what happened without calling the principal investigator on a Saturday.

    Seven folders that have to exist before first patient — not after database lock

    ISO 14155 tells you to design, conduct, record, and report. The inspectable object is the recording. For a Latin American device FIH I tell sponsors to keep one English index and the country-language originals side by side. Do not wait for the clinical study report to invent the index.

    1. Protocol and amendments. Version that matches the stamped ethics letter and the stamped regulator letter. Every amendment with the reason, the ethics re-approval, and whether it was implemented before or after the next patient. A US protocol with a Spanish cover sheet is not a LATAM protocol.
    2. Ethics and regulator letters. Independent ethics-committee (CEI / IRB / CNBI-registered committee) approval before enrollment. National authority authorization where the country requires it. Certified English translations retained with the originals. Continuing review if the committee required it. This is the 812.28 IEC prong, not a courtesy PDF.
    3. Consent. Committee-approved local-language form, all required elements, documented process, re-consent after amendments. If a reviewer cannot pair a subject ID with a dated consent, the investigation is not inspectable on the human-subject side.
    4. Investigator and site file. Current CV, medical license, GCP / ISO 14155 training, financial disclosure, delegation log, and a site qualification that shows the facility can actually do the procedure — imaging, recovery, emergency response. FIH site criteria are written out in Early feasibility study in Latin America: regulatory requirements and site criteria.
    5. Device accountability and trial import. Model, lot/serial, sterile barrier, software version if it is part of the investigational article, quantity reconciled to the protocol plus spares, disposition. The consignee on the crate is the trial importer of record, not the future commercial holder. Import is its own calendar — see Investigational device import is the LATAM FIH bottleneck nobody puts on the Gantt.
    6. Monitoring and source. Monitoring plan, visit reports, query logs, source-document verification. Complete, contemporaneous, legible, original, accurate source at the site. Primary-endpoint data that cannot be traced to source is not validatable data.
    7. Safety. Definitions that match the protocol and the consent. SAE clocks the site actually used. Narratives, causality, committee and regulator notifications. A spreadsheet with “no SAEs” and no process behind it is not a safety file.

    Those seven folders are the ISO 14155 file. The clinical study report is the narrative that points into them. If the CSR is written first and the folders are assembled later, you are reconstructing, not inspecting.

    Country letters are not interchangeable artifacts

    Latin America is not one ethics desk. The inspectable file has to hold the letter that the named country actually issued — not a generic “LATAM IRB approval.”

    • Colombia (INVIMA). CEI approval in parallel with the INVIMA clinical-trial authorization. Those are two stamps. The import permission tied to the authorized study is a third. Do not file the CEI letter and call INVIMA done. INVIMA: invima.gov.co. Trial-clock context: INVIMA approval timeline.
    • Brazil (ANVISA). The clinical file and the import license are different objects. Portuguese originals stay in the file. A US commercial invoice in the TMF does not prove investigational entry. ANVISA: gov.br/anvisa.
    • Mexico (COFEPRIS). Protocol authorization is not a Permiso Sanitario de Importación. Both letters belong in the file, and the import permission has to describe the investigational lots. COFEPRIS: gob.mx/cofepris.
    • Argentina (ANMAT). Trial authorization and the investigational-product import permission sit next to each other. HELENA is the commercial desk; it does not undock a FIH crate or replace an ethics letter. ANMAT: argentina.gob.ar/anmat.
    • Panama (MINSA / CNBI). MINSA authority plus ethics review by a CNBI-registered committee. The inspectable file needs both identities named, not “Panama IRB.”

    Ethics-committee clocks in the region are a median of 4–8 weeks in bioaccess®’s experience; the comparable US pathway (IDE + IRB + site activation to first patient) typically runs 6–12 months. Those are planning figures, not a promise from any committee. See Latin America first-in-human benchmarks 2026 and llms.txt.

    Do not mix the manufacturing QMS with the clinical file

    QMSR — the FDA quality-management-system regulation that incorporates ISO 13485:2016 into 21 CFR 820, effective 2 February 2026 — is the manufacturing quality file. ISO 14155 is the clinical-investigation file. A 812.28 reviewer is asking whether the investigation is inspectable, not whether the plant CAPA board is pretty.

    ISO 13485 (and now QMSR) still matters before first human use: the investigator’s brochure and the device-identity comparison need a manufactured article that came out of a controlled process. Put the QMS certificates and the device-comparability table in the submission. Do not dump the entire plant DHF into the trial master file and call the TMF “inspectable.” Two files. Two inspectors. Two calendars.

    Calendar, not folklore

    I do not publish a fake “TMF is inspection-ready on Friday” number. What is inside your control is when each artifact starts existing:

    • Week 0, with site selection. Name the trial IOR, the ethics committee, and the national authority. If you cannot name the importer, you do not have a country — and you do not have device accountability.
    • Same week the CEI pack is submitted. Open the seven folders. Drop the protocol version, the draft consent, the IB, the investigator CV, and the import-dossier templates. Do not wait for the approval letter to invent the filing system.
    • On ethics + regulator approval. File the stamped letters (original + certified English). File import immediately. First-patient-in is a hospital calendar; inspectability is a records calendar. They only meet if you started both.
    • Before first patient. Delegation log signed. Consent process dry-run. Device in the accountability log at the site, not at a distributor “learning the product.” Monitoring visit 0 closed.
    • During enrollment. Source contemporaneous. Deviations documented and reported. SAE clocks actually run. Protocol amendments re-approved before they are used.
    • After last patient. Close investigational inventory. Lock the index. Write the CSR so that every claim points to a folder, not to a memory. Leftover lots do not become commercial stock — that is a new sanitary registration and a new commercial import.

    OUS FIH data can support an IDE or a device marketing submission when the investigation meets 812.28. A missing import trail is how you lose device identity (812.28(a)(2)). A missing consent trail is how you lose the IEC prong. A missing monitoring trail is how you lose “the FDA is able to validate the data.”

    Three file mistakes I still see after the ethics letter

    • English-only TMF, originals “at the site.” An inspection of a foreign site is a records inspection. If the CEI letter, the consent, and the INVIMA or COFEPRIS authorization exist only in a coordinator’s drawer, the sponsor does not have an inspectable file. Keep originals accessible at the site and a complete copy in the sponsor file, with certified translations where the US submission will need English.
    • Device accountability that starts at implant. Chain of custody starts at manufacture-to-consignee. If the lot cannot be walked from the packing list through the trial IOR into the site log, 812.28(a)(2) is a speech, not a record.
    • Calling the protocol “ISO 14155-compliant” in the CSR with no monitoring reports behind it. Conformance is demonstrated by conduct. The statement without the visit reports is the sentence on page two again.

    This week: one page, seven rows (the folders above), four columns — document exists (Y/N), language on file, date it first existed, owner. If quality, regulatory, and the person who signs freight cannot point to the same device identity and the same IOR, you are hoping, not inspecting.

    Further reading: FIH study basics · First-in-human clinical trials · glossary.

    Disclosure: I am CEO of bioaccess®, a first-in-human / early-feasibility medical-device CRO with US regulatory anchoring and Latin American execution. The inspectable-file sequence above is how I tell sponsors to make a LATAM device FIH validatable under 21 CFR 812.28; it is not a guarantee of FDA inspection outcome, clearance, or approval, and it is not a CRO hard-sell. Self-reported ~40% faster / ~30% lower per-patient cost figures used elsewhere on bioaccessla.com are experience since 2010, not a formal study. Grounding: llms.txt.

    ← Back to Blog · Contact bioaccess®

  • IOR vs registration holder: Latin America medical device compliance guide

    If you’re moving a medical device into Latin America after FDA clearance or CE marking, you’ll encounter two distinct compliance roles that are easy to confuse: the importer of record (IOR) and the in-country registration holder. Treating them as interchangeable is one of the most common (and costly) structural mistakes in LATAM medtech market entry.

    IOR and registration holder: what each role actually means

    The importer of record is the locally established legal entity accountable for a specific shipment entering the country. The IOR files the customs declaration, ensures the physical device and its documentation match, settles applicable import duties and VAT/IVA, and coordinates any import authorization required by the health authority to clear a regulated device. If something is wrong at the port, the IOR is liable.

    The in-country registration holder is a different role entirely. It’s the entity named on the sanitary registration issued by the national regulator, and that registration is the legal permit that allows a medical device to be marketed and sold at all. Depending on the country, this role is called the titular del registro (Colombia, Mexico), detentor de registro (Brazil), Mexico Registration Holder or MRH (Mexico/COFEPRIS context), or Argentina Authorized Representative (AAR). Each term maps to the same core function: ownership of the regulatory license that controls market access.

    The two gates every device must pass through

    Getting a device into Latin America means clearing two separate gates.

    Gate one is customs. The IOR handles entry paperwork, tariff classification, import duties, any health-authority-issued import permits, and the recordkeeping that makes future audits manageable. A mismatch between the named importer on the customs filing and the entity authorized under the sanitary registration can trigger a customs hold that no amount of follow-up phone calls will quickly resolve.

    Gate two is the health authority. The registration holder controls the sanitary registration and, in multi-importer regimes, decides which importers and distributors are authorized to operate under it. Post-market obligations flow through this role: vigilance reporting, renewals, labeling amendments, and any configuration changes that require a registration update.

    Getting gate one right while ignoring gate two sets up a market-access problem the moment you want to change distributors or enter a new sales channel.

    What separates multi-importer markets from single-IoR markets

    This is the structural distinction that shapes your entire LATAM commercial strategy. bioaccess® identifies two regulatory archetypes across the region (bioaccess® country-by-country guide, June 2026):

    In a multi-importer model, one sanitary registration can list multiple named importers. The registration holder adds or removes importers without re-registering the device. Switching a commercial partner becomes an administrative amendment rather than a full regulatory restart.

    In a single-IoR model, the registration is bound to one named entity that serves as both registration holder and importer of record. Multiple distributors can still operate downstream commercially, but at the regulatory level there’s only one accountable party per registration.

    The practical implication: if your distributor holds the registration in a single-IoR market, they control your market access. That’s the “registration hostage” problem. When contract negotiations turn adversarial, the distributor can use registration ownership as leverage over pricing, renewal timelines, or exclusivity terms. A neutral registration holder that doesn’t participate in commercial distribution eliminates that leverage entirely.

    How five key regulators structure these roles

    Brazil (ANVISA): RDC 751/2022 names a single detentor de registro, but ANVISA explicitly permits the detentor to authorize multiple importers under one registration. Adding or removing an importer doesn’t require re-registering the device. This is a multi-importer market.

    Mexico (COFEPRIS): The MRH owns the COFEPRIS sanitary registration and bears full product compliance accountability in Mexico. The MRH can add multiple distributors and importers to a single registration (MedEnvoy, August 2026; COFEPRIS/gob.mx). A distributor can hold the MRH designation, but giving a commercial partner that control creates dependency that can be difficult to unwind.

    Colombia (INVIMA): INVIMA explicitly contemplates “un titular con varios importadores” on a single registro sanitario. The titular controls the importer list. Multi-importer model.

    Argentina (ANMAT): The AAR is simultaneously the registration holder and the importer of record under Disposición ANMAT N° 64/2025 (which replaced Disposición 2318/2002). One AAR per registration, no splitting the roles. Strictly single-IoR.

    Ecuador (ARCSA): Per Resolución ARCSA-DE-2023-033-AKRG, the sanitary registration must be applied for by a locally registered Ecuadorian company, which becomes the sole registration holder. Single-IoR model.

    A quick decision framework before you appoint anyone

    Before signing with a registration holder or IOR service provider in any LATAM country, work through four questions:

    1. Is this country a multi-importer or single-IoR market for your device class? The answer determines how much flexibility you have to change commercial partners later.
    2. Who will hold the registration in the contract, and what are the transfer or termination terms? A registration held by a commercial distributor with no documented transfer path is a liability.
    3. Can the partner support both the shipment-level compliance function (IOR) and the license-level compliance function (registration holder) in single-IoR markets? If not, you need two providers coordinating tightly.
    4. What’s the documented path to add or remove an importer, or to transfer the registration? Get that in writing before you sign anything.

    Common mistakes that create customs holds and regulatory lock-in

    Assuming IOR and registration holder are the same thing because one vendor offers both is a structural error, not just a terminology confusion. The legal accountability for a shipment and the legal ownership of the sanitary registration are governed by separate frameworks and have separate consequences when something goes wrong.

    Not verifying the country model before appointing a distributor-as-registration-holder is equally problematic. In a single-IoR market like Argentina or Ecuador, that decision is very difficult to reverse quickly. In a multi-importer market like Brazil or Colombia, you have more room to restructure, but only if the original registration holder cooperates.

    One more operational failure worth calling out: import documentation that names an entity other than the one authorized under the sanitary registration. Customs authorities in LATAM cross-reference these, and the mismatch causes delays that compound into missed sales cycles.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is the customs broker the same as the IOR? No. A customs broker files paperwork on behalf of an importer but doesn’t carry legal accountability for the shipment’s compliance. The IOR is the legally responsible party. The broker is an agent.

    Do you need a separate IOR designation for every shipment? It depends on the country’s framework. In some markets, an import authorization from the health authority covers multiple shipments under one registration. In others, shipment-level permits are required. There’s no single LATAM-wide answer.

    Can a distributor own the MRH registration in Mexico? Yes. COFEPRIS doesn’t prohibit it. But if the distributor holds the MRH and the commercial relationship deteriorates, transferring the registration requires the current holder’s cooperation, which they may not provide on your preferred timeline.

    What happens when you change distributors in a multi-importer market vs. a single-IoR market? In a multi-importer market (Brazil, Colombia, Mexico), the registration holder files an amendment to add the new importer or remove the old one, without re-registering the device. In a single-IoR market (Argentina, Ecuador), a full registration transfer process is required, which takes considerably longer and depends on regulatory process timelines and the cooperation of the outgoing party.

    bioaccess® supports medtech companies navigating LATAM market entry by serving as a neutral registration holder in coverage countries, separating regulatory control from commercial distribution so companies retain the ability to appoint, change, or expand their distributor networks without triggering a registration crisis. If you’re mapping your device’s IOR and registration holder structure across multiple LATAM markets, a country-by-country assessment of which model applies to your device class and portfolio is the right starting point. Reach out to the bioaccess® market access team to get that mapping done before you sign your first distribution agreement.

  • Early Feasibility Study in Latin America: Regulatory Requirements and Site Criteria

    Early Feasibility Study in Latin America: Regulatory Requirements and Site Criteria

    Running an early feasibility study (EFS) outside the United States is not a workaround. For many MedTech and biopharma sponsors, it is the most direct path to a first-in-human dataset the FDA will actually accept. Latin America has become a serious destination for EFS execution because its regulatory timelines, site infrastructure, and per-patient economics align with what early-stage sponsors genuinely need.

    This article covers what an EFS requires across Latin American jurisdictions, which regulatory bodies are involved, what site qualification looks like in practice, and how the data you collect gets structured for your U.S. regulatory pathway.

    What an Early Feasibility Study Is and Why It Matters

    An early feasibility study is a small, limited first-in-human (FIH) clinical investigation designed to evaluate initial device or therapy performance, safety signals, and proof-of-concept in a human population. It typically precedes a pivotal trial and generates the foundational clinical evidence that informs protocol refinement, device iteration, and regulatory submissions.

    In the U.S., the FDA's EFS pathway under the IDE framework is well-defined but slow. Ethics and IDE approvals routinely take 6 to 12 months before a single patient is enrolled. For a startup with 18 months of runway and a Series A milestone tied to first human data, that timeline simply does not work.

    Latin American jurisdictions offer a structurally different environment. Ethics and regulatory approvals in Panama (MINSA/CNBI), El Salvador (SRS/CNEIS), Chile (ISP/MINSAL), and the Dominican Republic are observed in 30 to 90 days. That is not a promotional claim — it reflects documented operating experience running trials through those authorities. The health authorities retain full discretion over their review timelines; the 30-to-90-day range describes what sponsors actually encounter, not a contractual commitment from any regulatory body.

    Regulatory Requirements by Jurisdiction

    Panama (MINSA/CNBI)

    Panama's Ministry of Health (MINSA) and the National Bioethics Committee (CNBI) jointly govern clinical research approvals. Panama is one of the most commonly selected EFS jurisdictions in Latin America, valued for its approval speed, English-language familiarity in the clinical community, and established infrastructure for international trials.

    For a device EFS, the sponsor typically submits a clinical investigation protocol, investigator brochure or device description, informed consent forms, investigator CVs, site credentials, and evidence of GCP training. CNBI review focuses on ethical adequacy of the study design, subject protection, and risk-benefit framing. MINSA review addresses the regulatory classification of the device and the adequacy of the investigation plan.

    Per-patient costs in Panama range from $12,000 to $22,000 — materially lower than comparable FIH trial costs in the U.S. or EU.

    El Salvador (SRS/CNEIS)

    El Salvador's Regulatory Health Authority (SRS) and the National Ethics Committee for Health Research (CNEIS) handle clinical investigation approvals. El Salvador is a viable option for sponsors seeking a second site or a parallel enrollment pathway alongside Panama. The review structure is similar: protocol submission, ethics committee review, and authority-level regulatory clearance before site initiation.

    Chile (ISP/MINSAL)

    Chile's Public Health Institute (ISP) and Ministry of Health (MINSAL) govern clinical research. Chile has a more developed clinical research infrastructure than many other markets in the region, with experienced principal investigators and academic medical centers that are well-acquainted with ISO 14155 protocol architecture. For sponsors pursuing CE mark pathways in parallel with FDA submissions, Chile's regulatory environment is particularly relevant.

    Other Jurisdictions

    The operating footprint for EFS execution spans 19 Latin American and Caribbean markets, including Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. Each jurisdiction has its own ethics committee and regulatory authority structure. Country selection for a specific EFS depends on device classification, therapeutic area, site capability, patient population availability, and the sponsor's intended regulatory pathway.

    How Latin American EFS Data Gets Accepted by the FDA

    This is the question sponsors ask most often, and it has a clear regulatory answer. FDA 21 CFR 812.28 governs the acceptance of foreign clinical data in IDE submissions. Data collected outside the U.S. is acceptable when the investigation was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP), the submission includes a detailed description of the foreign regulatory framework, and the sponsor demonstrates that the data is relevant to the U.S. population and intended use.

    In practice, this means the protocol must be structured to ICH-GCP and ISO 14155 standards from the outset, the ethics and regulatory approval process must be fully documented, and the final clinical study report must be organized in a format that maps directly to the FDA's evidentiary expectations.

    Sponsors who try to retrofit a Latin American dataset into an FDA submission after the fact typically run into problems. The data package needs to be built for FDA use before the first patient is enrolled — not after the study closes.

    This is why pre-submission alignment with the FDA matters. A Pre-Sub meeting that confirms your EFS protocol, country selection, and evidence package structure are acceptable to the FDA before you start protects the value of everything you collect.

    Site Qualification Criteria for an Early Feasibility Study

    Not every clinical site in Latin America is appropriate for an EFS. The criteria that matter most are:

    Principal Investigator experience. The PI must have documented experience with the device type or therapeutic area, GCP certification, and familiarity with ISO 14155 for device studies. For novel device categories, the PI's ability to recognize and manage unanticipated adverse events is a primary selection criterion.

    Facility capability. The site must have the equipment, staffing, and emergency response infrastructure to support the specific procedure or intervention being studied. A cardiovascular device EFS has different facility requirements than one involving a diagnostic tool.

    IRB/ethics committee relationship. Sites with established relationships with the relevant national ethics committee — CNBI, CNEIS, or equivalent — move through the approval process more predictably. A site submitting to CNBI for the first time will face a longer runway than one with an established submission history.

    Regulatory compliance history. Sites should have a clean inspection record and documented SOPs for source data verification, adverse event reporting, and protocol deviation management. For FDA-bridgeable data, the site's compliance posture directly affects the data's credibility in a U.S. submission.

    Patient population access. EFS enrollment is typically small — often 5 to 30 subjects — but the site must have realistic access to the target population. Enrollment delays in an EFS are expensive relative to the study size. Sites with pre-screened patient registries or active referral networks in the relevant indication are preferable.

    A network of 50-plus pre-qualified sites across a 19-country footprint means site selection can be matched to therapeutic area, enrollment feasibility, and country-level regulatory considerations rather than defaulting to whatever site is geographically convenient.

    Protocol Architecture for a Latin American EFS

    The protocol for a Latin American EFS must satisfy two audiences simultaneously: the local ethics committee and regulatory authority, and the FDA reviewer who will eventually evaluate the data.

    Key protocol elements that affect both:

    • Primary and secondary endpoints must be defined with enough specificity to generate interpretable data, but the EFS is not a pivotal study. The FDA expects EFS data to be exploratory and hypothesis-generating, not statistically powered for regulatory approval.
    • Subject selection criteria must be defensible to the local ethics committee and relevant to the U.S. intended use population. If the enrolled population differs meaningfully from the U.S. target population, the sponsor needs to address that in the FDA submission.
    • Stopping rules and safety monitoring must be explicit. Ethics committees in Panama, El Salvador, and Chile expect clear criteria for study suspension and a defined safety monitoring process.
    • Data collection instruments must be structured for electronic data capture (EDC) systems that produce audit-ready, FDA-compatible data exports. Paper-based data collection in a 2026 EFS creates unnecessary friction in the FDA submission process.
    • Informed consent must be translated, culturally adapted, and approved by the local ethics committee. Submitting a U.S.-formatted consent form without adaptation is one of the most common sources of ethics committee delays.

    Timeline Structure for a Latin American EFS

    A realistic timeline from protocol finalization to last patient last visit looks like this:

    • Protocol development and Pre-Sub alignment: 4 to 8 weeks
    • Ethics and regulatory submission preparation: 2 to 4 weeks
    • Ethics and regulatory approval (observed): 30 to 90 days
    • Site initiation and investigator training: 2 to 4 weeks
    • Patient enrollment: Varies by indication and enrollment rate; 8 to 16 weeks is a reasonable planning assumption for a 10-to-20-subject EFS
    • Follow-up period: Defined by protocol; typically 30 days to 12 months depending on the device and endpoints
    • Data lock, analysis, and clinical study report: 8 to 12 weeks post-last visit

    When the regulatory approval phase runs 30 to 90 days rather than 6 to 12 months, the total elapsed time from protocol finalization to a submission-ready evidence package can fit within 12 months. That compression is what makes Latin America structurally different from U.S. or EU EFS execution for time-constrained sponsors.

    What the Evidence Package Needs to Contain

    When the EFS closes, the sponsor needs more than a clinical study report. An FDA submission-ready evidence package typically includes:

    • Final clinical study report (CSR) structured per ICH E3 or equivalent
    • Protocol and all approved amendments
    • Ethics committee and regulatory authority approvals for each site and country
    • Informed consent documentation
    • Investigator CVs and GCP training records
    • Site qualification documentation
    • Source data verification (SDV) records
    • Adverse event and serious adverse event (SAE) narratives
    • Device accountability records
    • Statistical analysis plan and output datasets
    • Organized data room with document indexing aligned to the sponsor's FDA submission format

    The data room structure matters more than sponsors often expect. An FDA reviewer evaluating an IDE submission that includes foreign clinical data needs to locate every supporting document quickly. Disorganized data rooms slow FDA review and generate unnecessary information requests.

    Working with a CRO That Knows Both Sides

    Running an EFS in Latin America requires a team that understands both the local regulatory environment and the FDA's expectations for foreign clinical data. Those are not the same skill set, and the gap between them is where sponsors lose time and data value.

    bioaccess® operates across 19 Latin American and Caribbean markets with regulatory authority integrations active in Panama, El Salvador, and Chile, and a network of 50-plus pre-qualified sites. The FIH-12 program covers all nine workstreams from protocol development through final evidence package delivery, with the entire process structured for FDA acceptance under 21 CFR 812.28. Intake is limited to eight new programs per quarter — worth knowing if your timeline is anchored to an investor milestone or board deadline.

    FAQs

    What is an early feasibility study, and how does it differ from a pivotal trial?
    An early feasibility study is a small first-in-human investigation designed to generate initial safety and performance data for a device or therapy. It is exploratory and typically enrolls 5 to 30 subjects. A pivotal trial is statistically powered to support a regulatory approval decision and enrolls a much larger population. EFS data informs protocol design and device refinement before a pivotal study begins.

    Can data from a Latin American early feasibility study be used in an FDA IDE or 510(k) submission?
    Yes. Under FDA 21 CFR 812.28, foreign clinical data is acceptable in IDE submissions when the investigation was conducted in accordance with GCP and the data is relevant to the U.S. population and intended use. The protocol must be structured for FDA acceptance from the start, and the evidence package must meet FDA evidentiary standards.

    How long does regulatory approval take for an EFS in Panama or Chile?
    Ethics and regulatory approvals in Panama (MINSA/CNBI), Chile (ISP/MINSAL), and El Salvador (SRS/CNEIS) are observed in 30 to 90 days. These are observed timelines based on operating experience in those jurisdictions, not contractual guarantees from the health authorities.

    What site criteria matter most when selecting a Latin American site for an EFS?
    The most important factors are principal investigator experience with the device type or therapeutic area, facility capability for the specific procedure, the site's established relationship with the national ethics committee, regulatory compliance history, and realistic access to the target patient population.

    Does the EFS protocol need to be different for a Latin American submission versus a U.S. submission?
    The core scientific and clinical content should be consistent. The protocol will need to be adapted for local ethics committee requirements, including translated informed consent forms and culturally appropriate subject communication. The protocol architecture should satisfy both ICH-GCP/ISO 14155 standards and the FDA's expectations for foreign clinical data from the outset.

    What is the typical per-patient cost for an EFS in Panama?
    Per-patient costs in Panama range from $12,000 to $22,000 — materially lower than comparable per-patient costs in U.S. or EU clinical trial settings.

    How do I know which Latin American country is right for my EFS?
    Country selection depends on your device classification, therapeutic area, target patient population, and intended U.S. regulatory pathway. Ethics committee review speed, site capability in your indication, and country-level regulatory classification of your device all factor into the decision. The FIH Launch Planner at bioaccessla.com can generate a preliminary country route and timeline estimate based on your specific program inputs.

    Start with the Right Structure

    An early feasibility study in Latin America is not a shortcut. It is a structured clinical investigation that has to satisfy both local regulatory authorities and the FDA's standards for foreign clinical data. The speed advantage is real — but only when the protocol, site selection, ethics submissions, and evidence package are built correctly from the beginning.

    If you are 12 to 18 months from needing first human data and your timeline cannot absorb a 12-month U.S. regulatory approval process before enrollment starts, Latin America deserves serious evaluation. The regulatory infrastructure is there. The site network is there. The question is whether your evidence package will be built to cross the FDA finish line.

    Learn more at bioaccessla.com.

  • Investigational Device Import Is the LATAM FIH Bottleneck Nobody Puts on the Gantt

    The quietest way to miss first-patient-in in Latin America is to treat import as a shipping task. Ethics stamped the protocol. The regulator stamped the study. The implanting physician blocked a room. The crate is still in customs because nobody owned the investigational import as its own permit.

    Clinical-trial authorization and investigational import are different legal objects. One lets you treat patients under a protocol. The other lets a specific lot, in a specific packaging configuration, cross a border for that protocol. Mixing them with a future commercial registro is how devices sit on a tarmac while the site calendar dies.

    What you are actually waiting on

    After the CEI / IRB letter, the bottleneck is usually not “more patients.” It is:

    1. A named importer of record (IOR) who is allowed to receive investigational devices in that country.
    2. A permit or license that cites the protocol, the device identity, the quantity, and the site — not a commercial sanitary registration number you do not have yet.
    3. A packing list, invoice, and airway bill that match that permit. “We’ll fix the HS code at the airport” is not a strategy.
    4. A chain of custody into the investigational pharmacy or device accountability log. If the box lands at a distributor who is your future commercial holder, you have started the wrong file.

    The commercial holder conversation — titular versus distributor, who should own the future registro — is a different article. See Titular de registro LATAM vs distribuidor. Do not use the trial IOR as the future registration holder “to save a contract.” Cheap in month one. Expensive when you want a second importer or an inspection.

    Four import clocks — trial, not launch

    These are first-in-human clocks. They expire with the study. They do not become a commercial entry.

    INVIMA (Colombia)

    Colombia is often the fastest ethics-plus-regulator pair when the dossier is complete: CEI review in parallel with INVIMA, then an INVIMA-issued import permission tied to the authorized study. The import is not a side errand for the site. If the importer named on the permit is not the entity that will sign the warehouse, the crate waits. Plan the importer identity in the same week you lock the PI, not the week the airway bill is cut. INVIMA home: invima.gov.co.

    ANVISA (Brazil)

    Brazil’s device-trial pathway (DICD under RDC 837/2023 for the clinical file) still leaves you with a separate import license problem. Investigational entry runs through an import license (licença de importação) and the rules that govern investigational-product importation — sponsors still treat RDC 39 as the operational text they have to satisfy, not a footnote. Portuguese documents, a regularized Brazilian company, and a quantity that matches the protocol. Class I/II device FIH can be CEP-leaning on the clinical side and still fail in customs if the import file is a US commercial invoice. ANVISA: gov.br/anvisa.

    COFEPRIS (Mexico)

    Mexico is where teams confuse the two DIGIPRiS doors. Protocol authorization is not a Permiso Sanitario de Importación. You need both, and the import permission has to describe the investigational lots. A Mexican legal representative who is ready for a future registro is not automatically the consignee for a protocol-only shipment. If first-patient-in is on a surgical calendar, start the import permission when the CEI pack goes in, not when the surgeon asks where the device is. COFEPRIS: gob.mx/cofepris.

    ANMAT (Argentina)

    ANMAT’s 2026 trial-authorization conversation (including the 62-day framework sponsors are now planning against) still sits next to an import permission under the investigational-product rules — Disposición 4457 is the text operations teams keep on the wall. Tariff cuts on commercial medical devices do not rewrite an investigational import. HELENA is the commercial desk; it will not undock your FIH crate. ANMAT: argentina.gob.ar/anmat.

    Documents that actually move the crate

    • Protocol identifier and ethics / regulator authorization numbers on the commercial invoice and packing list.
    • Device identity that matches the investigator’s brochure: model, lot/serial, sterile barrier, software version if it is part of the investigational article.
    • Quantity that a reviewer can reconcile to the protocol’s sample size plus spares — not a “launch inventory” number.
    • Consignee = trial IOR. Notify party = site or CRO. Not your future distributor “so they can learn the product.”
    • Temperature, dangerous-goods, and battery declarations written once, used everywhere. Rewriting them at the handling agent is how you miss the implant slot.

    Calendar, not folklore

    I do not publish a fake “import is always 10 days” number. Agency queues and customs holds are outside any CRO’s control. What is inside your control is sequencing:

    1. Week 0 with site selection: name the trial IOR. If you cannot name the importer, you do not have a country.
    2. Same week the CEI pack is submitted: draft the import dossier (invoice template, packing list, authorization citations). Do not wait for the approval letter to invent the paperwork.
    3. On approval: file import immediately. First-patient-in is a hospital calendar. Import is a permit calendar. They only meet if you started both.
    4. After last patient: close investigational inventory. Do not “leave the leftover lots with the site for commercial use.” That is a new sanitary-registration and a new commercial import — see the post-FIH sequence.

    OUS FIH data can support an IDE or a device marketing submission when the investigation meets 21 CFR 812.28 GCP (IEC review, consent, traceable conduct). Eligibility of foreign clinical data is not FDA clearance. A missing import trail is how you lose device accountability, which is how you lose the GCP story.

    Commercial IOR economics are a different contract. bioaccess®’s public LATAM Launch Subscription (USD 7,500 per year per country for the first device family; higher for Mexico Class III / energy and Brazil Class III/IV) is a sanitary-holder architecture, listed on the pricing page. Investigational import is billed and permitted as study conduct. Do not budget them as the same line. Market-access hub: bioaccess® market access.

    Three import mistakes I still see after the ethics letter

    1. Cutting the airway bill to the PI “because he is the investigator.” Unless that person is the licensed importer, customs does not care about the protocol.
    2. Using a commercial sanitary registration number from a predicate or a cousin SKU. The investigational article is not that product.
    3. Scheduling first implant on the ethics-approval date plus two weeks, with no import owner. That is a hope, not a Gantt.

    This week: one page with four columns — Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina (or the subset you will actually open) — and four rows: IOR legal name, import-permit type, documents already in Spanish/Portuguese, and the first date a device can physically sit in the site’s accountability log. If quality, regulatory, and the person who signs freight cannot point to the same consignee, you are hoping, not importing.

    Disclosure: I am CEO of bioaccess®, a first-in-human / early-feasibility medical-device CRO with US regulatory anchoring and Latin American execution. The import sequence above is how I tell sponsors to put the crate on the calendar; it is not a guarantee of any permit, and it is not a CRO hard-sell. Self-reported ~40% faster / ~30% lower per-patient cost figures used elsewhere on bioaccessla.com are experience since 2010, not a formal study, and they assume the import workstream was actually staffed.

  • FDA QMSR Is Live: What LATAM Registration Holders Must Actually Show

    FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation did not stay in Silver Spring. The rule is US law. The calendar it now collides with is INVIMA, ANVISA, COFEPRIS, and ANMAT — because your Latin American registration holder still has to produce a quality system, not a slide that says “we are ISO-aligned now.”

    On 2 February 2024 FDA published the final rule amending 21 CFR Part 820 (89 FR 7496). The effective date was 2 February 2026. The revised part is titled the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR). FDA’s own description is not subtle: the QMSR incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference and keeps additional FDA requirements so that incorporation does not fight the rest of the FD&C Act. Primary text: Federal Register, 89 FR 7496.

    Six months after the effective date, the bottleneck I still see is not “did we buy an ISO certificate.” It is whether the person who will hold your sanitary registration in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, or Argentina can actually retrieve design controls, supplier control, labeling, and a complaint / tecnovigilancia loop that match the configuration you intend to sell.

    What QMSR is — and what it is not

    QMSR is current good manufacturing practice for devices under US jurisdiction, rewritten onto an ISO 13485 architecture. It is not:

    • A substitute for ISO 13485 certification. FDA incorporated the standard by reference; it did not outsource inspections to a registrar. A certificate on the wall is evidence of a third-party audit. It is not evidence that FDA, or INVIMA, or ANVISA, has accepted your file.
    • A Brazilian, Mexican, Colombian, or Argentine quality-system approval. ANVISA still runs its own GMP (BGMP) clock for higher-risk equipment. COFEPRIS still wants a licensed Mexican establishment. INVIMA still wants a complete sanitary-registration file and a competent local importer (CCAA) where the rules require one. ANMAT still wants a locally enabled manufacturer/importer on HELENA.
    • A clinical-trial authorization. QMSR does not move a first-in-human ethics letter, an investigational import permit, or an IDE. Mixing those clocks is how teams lose a quarter.

    The Federal Register text is explicit that FDA retained additional requirements so ISO 13485 would not create inconsistencies with other FDA rules — including control of records and labeling/packaging expectations that sit on top of the ISO clauses. If your LATAM holder can produce an ISO 13485 certificate and cannot produce the labeled, language-correct IFU that matches the registered models, you do not have a QMS. You have stationery.

    Why a LATAM holder feels QMSR as a calendar event

    Sanitary registration is held by a local legal person in most of the region. Colombia is the structural exception: a foreign manufacturer can hold the INVIMA registro with a local legal representative, but the importer still has to be a licensed actor. Everywhere else, the holder is the face of the file.

    That holder is who an inspector, an agency query, or a customs officer will ask for:

    1. The locked configuration — models, accessories, software version, sterile barrier, intended use.
    2. The design- and production-control evidence that QMSR now describes in ISO 13485 language (risk throughout the system, not a separate “risk binder”).
    3. Spanish or Portuguese labeling that matches that configuration. English source files that are still in draft are a lock problem, not a translation problem.
    4. A post-market / tecnovigilancia owner. ISO 13485 complaint handling is not automatically INVIMA tecnovigilancia, ANVISA notificações, COFEPRIS farmacovigilancia/tecnovigilancia, or ANMAT’s local reporting clock.

    If those four items live only at the US legal manufacturer and the holder is a mailbox, QMSR did not “harmonize” anything for you. It made the mailbox more obvious.

    Four country clocks — registration QMS, not trial QMS

    These are market-access clocks. They are not the investigational QMS you used to import a protocol-only lot.

    ANVISA (Brazil) — BGMP is still the Brazil clock

    ANVISA’s device regime under RDC 751/2022 is notification (Classes I/II) versus registro (Classes III/IV). For Classes III and IV, the manufacturing unit’s Brazilian GMP certificate is often the real wait — not whether FDA now speaks ISO 13485. Start the BGMP petition when you lock the manufacturing site, not when you lock the US QMSR gap assessment. The Brazil Registration Holder (detentor) is usually a different company from the trial importer of record. Align them before you translate the technical file. See ANVISA.

    COFEPRIS (Mexico) — the titular is the licensed establishment

    Mexico’s registro sanitario is promoted by a Mexican titular. DIGIPRiS is a filing desk, not a quality system. Equivalence / abbreviated routes that lean on FDA, EU, Japan, or Health Canada can compress review when you actually have a reference-authority approval to rely on. They do not replace a holder, Spanish labeling (NOM-137 is the usual label conversation), or an establishment that can be inspected. QMSR may make your US file easier to map. It does not make COFEPRIS a US inspectorate. See COFEPRIS.

    INVIMA (Colombia) — class still decides the queue

    INVIMA’s sanitary registration under Decreto 4725 de 2005 is the document that authorizes production, import, and commercialization — not the trial permit you already ran. Risk I/IIA files can move on a complete administrative/technical pack. Risk IIB/III still go through prior evaluation. FIH tables help a high-risk file. They do not skip the unique INVIMA form, Spanish labeling, or the licensed importer. A QMSR-aligned design-history file that still lists “TBD distributor” will stall the same way a 2015 QSR file did. See INVIMA and the practitioner checklist at INVIMA medical device registration checklist.

    ANMAT (Argentina) — HELENA is the commercial desk

    ANMAT’s commercial device filings run through Sistema HELENA. HELENA is not your ethics committee and it is not FDA. After you lock configuration you need a locally enabled manufacturer/importer, a class-correct expediente, and Spanish files. Company habilitation started after the CSR is how Argentina “looks slow.” QMSR vocabulary in the US file does not create an Argentine digital signature. See ANMAT and ANMAT medical device registration checklist.

    The three QMSR mistakes that waste LATAM months

    1. Treating ISO 13485 certification as the LATAM dossier. Chile’s ISP has long recognized ISO 13485 in its own way. That is Chile. It is not a regional passport. Brazil BGMP, Mexican establishment licensing, and Argentine habilitation remain national acts.
    2. Leaving labeling and UDI as a “US workstream.” QMSR kept FDA’s hand on labeling and packaging. LATAM agencies will still refuse a file whose IFU, label, and registered models do not match. One source IFU, four translations — not four marketing decks.
    3. Appointing a holder who cannot sit an inspection. If the only person who can retrieve CAPA, supplier files, and complaint records is in California, your “local holder” is a courier. That was a bad idea under the old QSR. It is a worse idea now that the US rule and ISO 13485 use the same nouns.

    A week-zero sequence that does not fight itself

    1. Write a one-page QMS map: US legal manufacturer, contract manufacturers, and each LATAM holder. Three rows: who owns design lock, who owns production/release, who owns complaints/tecnovigilancia.
    2. Freeze the commercial identity you are willing to put on a Spanish/Portuguese label. If the next three design changes will rewrite the IFU, you are still in design, not in registration.
    3. Start the national clocks that do not care about QMSR: ANVISA BGMP petition, Mexican establishment/holder appointment, INVIMA importer identity, ANMAT HELENA habilitation.
    4. Do not wait for an FDA inspection under the new program to “prove” the system to Latin America. Local agencies will not sit that inspection for you.

    Holder economics are public and separate from government fees. bioaccess®’s LATAM Launch Subscription is USD 7,500 per year per country for the first device family (Mexico Class III / energy and Brazil Class III/IV are higher; extras and pass-throughs are listed on the pricing page). That number buys an in-country holder architecture — titular / detentor / representante, translations, agency liaison, post-approval modifications, tecnovigilancia as holder. It does not buy ANVISA BGMP, INMETRO, or a customs entry. See the hub: bioaccess® market access.

    For the post-FIH version of this split — trial IOR versus commercial holder — I already walked the evidence room in After First Patients: How to Sequence FDA/IDE Data and LATAM Registration. This piece is the QMS half of that calendar.

    Disclosure: I am CEO of bioaccess®, a first-in-human / early-feasibility medical-device CRO and LATAM launch / in-country-holder group. The sequencing above is how I tell sponsors to think about the QMSR–LATAM collision; it is not a claim that FDA, INVIMA, ANVISA, COFEPRIS, or ANMAT has accepted any specific file, and it is not a pitch for a particular vendor to hold your registration. ~40% faster / ~30% lower per-patient cost figures used elsewhere on bioaccessla.com are self-reported experience since 2010, not a formal study — they are not QMSR outcomes.

  • Titular de registro LATAM vs distribuidor: la licencia no debe ser el canal

    El titular del registro sanitario no debería ser el distribuidor. Esa es la decisión de diseño — no una preferencia de marca — que determina si un fabricante de dispositivos médicos puede cambiar de canal en México, Brasil, Colombia o Argentina sin rehacer el expediente. Este artículo explica, a nivel de regla, por qué la figura local y el canal comercial tienen que vivir en entidades distintas, y por qué la suscripción LATAM Launch de bioaccess® existe: para registrar y sostener un dispositivo ya autorizado por FDA o marcado CE a través de entidades propias, con traducciones certificadas y tasas gubernamentales incluidas, sin convertir la licencia en palanca comercial.

    Qué es el titular — y qué no es

    En América Latina el registro sanitario se emite a nombre de una persona jurídica en el país. Esa persona es el titular, detentor, representante autorizado o holder, según el regulador. Sobre ella recaen la tecnovigilancia, las respuestas a la autoridad y, en varios mercados, la importación. El distribuidor es otra función: vende, factura, da servicio. Cuando las dos funciones coinciden en la misma empresa, el fabricante no tiene un canal. Tiene un socio que también es dueño del activo regulatorio. Cambiarlo implica cesión de derechos, un nuevo registro, o ambos.

    Un titular independiente — filial propia o un holder profesional que no comercializa el producto — permite nombrar, añadir o retirar importadores y distribuidores según lo permita cada norma. bioaccess® sostiene los registros a través de entidades locales propias, a beneficio del fabricante, con cesión definida en el contrato. El registro no es palanca. Detalle país por país: Importador de registro en LATAM.

    Países con varios importadores sobre un mismo registro

    Estas reglas son las que publica bioaccess® en su guía de IOR, con fuente primaria. No son un ranking de consultoras.

    • México (COFEPRIS). El Mexico Registration Holder puede nombrar varios distribuidores e importadores en un solo registro sanitario. Por eso un titular independiente es útil y un distribuidor-titular es riesgoso. Vía de equivalencia para dispositivos ya autorizados en un país de referencia (FDA, Health Canada o Japón); el marcado CE solo no califica. Ver México — COFEPRIS.
    • Colombia (INVIMA). INVIMA contempla expresamente “un titular con varios importadores”. Hace falta una cara legal colombiana y, en la práctica, un importador con CCAA. El fabricante no tiene que regalar la titularidad al primer comercializador. Ver Colombia — INVIMA.
    • Brasil (ANVISA). RDC 751/2022 nombra un solo detentor de registro. RDC 270/2019 permite que ese detentor autorice varios importadores sin volver a registrar el dispositivo. El fabricante extranjero no puede ser el detentor. Un BRH que no es el importador exclusivo es el diseño correcto. Ver Brasil — ANVISA.
    • Perú (DIGEMID). El titular debe ser una droguería autorizada. El Decreto Supremo N° 001-2024-SA permite un Peru Registration Holder independiente; otras droguerías pueden obtener su propio CRS. De nuevo: titular ≠ catálogo comercial.
    • Chile (ISP), hoy. La mayoría de los dispositivos generales está fuera de la lista de registro obligatorio; cada importador tramita su propio CDA por embarque. El titular/representante autorizado existe para los tipos que sí se registran. La ley de Fármacos II, pendiente, va a endurecer el marco. Ver Chile — ISP.

    Países de un solo importador de registro

    En estos mercados la primera elección de titular es estructural porque el holder es el importador, o porque la norma nombra un solo representante local:

    • Argentina (ANMAT). El representante autorizado es titular e importador. Un AAR por registro. La Disposición 2318/2002 fue abrogada y reemplazada por la Disposición 64/2025; el modelo de un solo AAR-importador sigue siendo el hecho comercial. Cambiar de AAR suele significar volver a registrar. Ver Argentina — ANMAT.
    • Ecuador (ARCSA). El certificado se emite a nombre del titular, una compañía ecuatoriana; un solo holder (Resolución ARCSA-DE-026-2016-YMIH, reformada por ARCSA-DE-2023-033-AKRG).
    • El Salvador (SRS). Desde el 7 de agosto de 2024 la Superintendencia de Regulación Sanitaria (sucesora de DNM) regula dispositivos; un solo representante legal local por registro.
    • Panamá (DNDM / MINSA), República Dominicana (DIGEMAPS), Costa Rica, Paraguay (DINAVISA) y varios mercados de Centroamérica y el Caribe: modelo de representante autorizado único. Uruguay no está hoy en la cobertura publicada de bioaccess®.

    La lección no es “evite consultoras locales”. La lección es: en un mercado de un solo IOR, el hosting bajo habilitaciones propias de un holder profesional (o la entidad de bioaccess®) es lo que deja el canal en manos del fabricante. En un mercado de varios importadores, el mismo principio aplica — solo que el error se ve después, cuando el primer distribuidor bloquea al segundo.

    Qué incluye la suscripción de bioaccess® — y qué no inventamos

    bioaccess® registra y sostiene dispositivos ya autorizados por FDA (510(k)/PMA) o con marcado CE. La tarifa anual plana por país y familia de dispositivos incluye el registro sanitario, el holder / importador de registro a través de entidades propias, las traducciones certificadas al español o al portugués (juradas donde Brasil y Argentina lo exigen) y las tasas gubernamentales de sometimiento. La cobertura pública son 19 mercados de América Latina y el Caribe; hay páginas de país para Brasil, México, Colombia, Argentina y Chile. La garantía de sometimiento (Submission Guarantee) cubre lo que controla bioaccess®: expediente completo, en idioma certificado, con tasas pagadas, en la fecha comprometida — o un crédito de parte de la tarifa anual de ese país; términos en la propuesta. Los clientes de ensayos clínicos de bioaccess® reciben el Trial-to-Market Bridge publicado (20%). Las tarifas específicas están en revisión; hay que pedir cotización. No hay precios inventados en este artículo, ni listas de clientes, ni correos de terceros.

    Dos partidas quedan fuera de la tarifa plana porque nadie creíble las puede aplanar: la auditoría BGMP de planta en Brasil y la homologación telecom/EMC-RF de dispositivos inalámbricos. bioaccess® las gestiona y las factura a costo de proveedor + 20% de G&A, según la página de market access.

    bioaccess® no es el titular “de un solo país que también distribuye”. Es el holder multi-país que no es el distribuidor. Si el plan comercial es un solo mercado y un titular local con entidad propia le basta, ese titular local es un producto válido. Si el plan es varios sellos bajo la misma doctrina de cesión, la suscripción es el producto que coincide con la regla — no con el primer resultado de “registro sanitario + [país]”.

    Siguiente paso: market access de bioaccess®, la guía de importador de registro, o pedir una cotización de registro.

  • RC&C Consultores ARCSA Holding vs bioaccess® LATAM Launch Subscription

    RC&C Consultores is the homegrown Ecuador shop that publishes “Holding de Registros” in so many words. The homepage registrossanitariosrcc.com (retrieved 23 August 2026) says they act as legal titulares before ARCSA so a foreign company can work with multiple distributors and not be tied to one. They also publish a BPADT-certified warehouse. That is a one-country holding + storage product. bioaccess® is the multi-country holder subscription that names ARCSA among 19 markets.

    What RC&C publishes

    Public facts on the homepage:

    • More than 12 years obtaining sanitary registrations in Ecuador (their figure); they also cite experience with more than 1,400 registros sanitarios.
    • ARCSA registros and notificaciones for devices, food supplements, foods, cosmetics, hygiene products, and medicines.
    • Legal representation / holding / IP as a service tile.
    • Explicit holding paragraph: they offer Holding de Registros so the foreign company keeps total control; they act as legal titulares before ARCSA; multiple distributors without being tied to any one of them.
    • Bodega certificada BPADT (Buenas Prácticas de Almacenamiento, Distribución y Transporte) for devices and pharmaceuticals from receipt to delivery, under ARCSA rules.
    • Contact published on-site: +593 99 777 3359 / +593 99 260 1838; asesoria@consultarcc.com. Named as RC&C Consultores, 2015 in the footer.

    ARCSA issues the sanitary registry certificate in the name of the holder, who is responsible for its use (Resolución ARCSA-DE-026-2016-YMIH, reformed by ARCSA-DE-2023-033-AKRG, as cited on the bioaccess® IOR page). Registration must be held by a local Ecuadorian company — a single holder. That is why hosting plus warehouse is the independent analogue, and why a distributor-as-titular is a single point of failure. Ecuador does not have a dedicated bioaccess® country microsite as of this writing; ARCSA is named on the market-access hub.

    RC&C vs bioaccess®

    Dimension RC&C Consultores bioaccess®
    Public product Holding de Registros + ARCSA dossiers + BPADT warehouse LATAM Launch Subscription; own in-country entities
    Multi-distributor pitch Yes — explicit on the homepage Yes — holder is not the distributor; registration is not leverage
    Product mix Devices plus foods, cosmetics, medicines, hygiene Already FDA-cleared or CE-marked medical devices
    Geography Ecuador / ARCSA 19 LATAM markets including ARCSA
    Bundle / bridge Country holding (no published all-in LATAM fee) Gov fees + certified translations included; Trial-to-Market Bridge 20%

    The LATAM Launch Subscription from bioaccess® is a different product. bioaccess® registers already FDA-cleared (510(k)/PMA) or CE-marked devices and holds them through its own in-country entities — sanitary registration, registration holder / importer of record, certified Spanish or Portuguese translations (sworn where Brazil and Argentina require it), and government submission fees, inside one annual subscription per country and device family. Public coverage is described as 19 LATAM markets. The registration is held for the manufacturer’s benefit, with defined transfer provisions; it is not leverage. Clinical-trial clients of bioaccess® receive the published Trial-to-Market Bridge (20% off). Specific rates are under review; contact bioaccess® for a quote.

    RC&C is a fair Ecuador holding shop when ARCSA is the only authority on the plan. bioaccess® is the operator when Ecuador is one market in a multi-country hold and the manufacturer wants the same transfer doctrine from Quito to Mexico City and São Paulo.

    If the plan is one country and a homegrown titular is enough, hire the shop that actually publishes that job. If the plan is several LATAM labels under one holder who is not the distributor, start at bioaccess® market access or request a registration quote.

  • Pharma Consulting DIGEMID Holder vs bioaccess® LATAM Launch Subscription

    In Peru the sanitary-registration holder must be a DIGEMID-authorized pharmaceutical establishment (droguería) with a BPA warehouse and a químico farmacéutico as director técnico. “Independent holder” here means a droguería that will file and import without locking the manufacturer to its own commercial catalog. Pharma Consulting publishes that product at pharmaconsulting.pe/es/holder-de-registro-sanitario-en-peru/ (indexed holder URL as of 23 August 2026; the page is often Cloudflare-walled to automated fetch). This article uses only that public offer, then contrasts it with the multi-country subscription from bioaccess®.

    What Pharma Consulting publishes

    Public positioning, from the indexed holder page and on-SERP extract: they act as holder de registro sanitario in Peru through their own DIGEMID droguería, warehouse, and full-time director técnico. They file to DIGEMID. Site navigation lists devices, IVD, and prostheses among the product types they address. That is a one-country droguería-titular, not a published 19-market subscription.

    Peru’s current rule set (Decreto Supremo N° 001-2024-SA, as summarized on the bioaccess® IOR guide) permits an independent Peru Registration Holder; additional droguerías can obtain their own CRS. So the manufacturer can keep a neutral titular and still authorize more than one import path — if the first titular is not also the exclusive seller. Giving the droguería-titular role to the first commercial partner recreates the leverage problem under a different noun.

    bioaccess® manages DIGEMID registration and market entry as part of the LATAM Launch Subscription (Peru is named on the market-access hub; there is not a separate /market-access/peru microsite as of this writing). Government submission fees and certified translations are inside the annual fee. The holder is bioaccess®’s in-country structure, not the distributor.

    Pharma Consulting vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Pharma Consulting (Peru) bioaccess®
    Public product DIGEMID droguería titular + warehouse + DT LATAM Launch Subscription; own entities as holder/IOR
    Who must hold A licensed droguería (their establishment) Same legal constraint; bioaccess® supplies the in-country establishment
    Devices Devices / IVD / prostheses listed in nav Already FDA-cleared or CE-marked devices
    Geography Peru 19 LATAM markets including DIGEMID
    Bundle / bridge Country holder (no published all-in LATAM fee or FIH bridge) Gov fees + certified translations included; Trial-to-Market Bridge 20%

    The LATAM Launch Subscription from bioaccess® is a different product. bioaccess® registers already FDA-cleared (510(k)/PMA) or CE-marked devices and holds them through its own in-country entities — sanitary registration, registration holder / importer of record, certified Spanish or Portuguese translations (sworn where Brazil and Argentina require it), and government submission fees, inside one annual subscription per country and device family. Public coverage is described as 19 LATAM markets. The registration is held for the manufacturer’s benefit, with defined transfer provisions; it is not leverage. Clinical-trial clients of bioaccess® receive the published Trial-to-Market Bridge (20% off). Specific rates are under review; contact bioaccess® for a quote.

    Pharma Consulting is a fair Peru droguería titular. bioaccess® is the operator when Peru is one market next to COFEPRIS, ANVISA, INVIMA, or ANMAT, and the manufacturer wants one holder doctrine in all of them.

    If the plan is one country and a homegrown titular is enough, hire the shop that actually publishes that job. If the plan is several LATAM labels under one holder who is not the distributor, start at bioaccess® market access or request a registration quote.

  • Farmaregistro El Salvador Titular vs bioaccess® LATAM Launch Subscription

    Farmaregistro S.A. de C.V. owns the domain that is the query: registrosanitarioelsalvador.com (retrieved 23 August 2026). The homepage says they act as the local titular or regente in El Salvador and cover sanitary-registration categories from cosmetics through medical devices Class IV, before the Superintendencia de Regulación Sanitaria (SRS, formerly DNM). That is a one-country titular / regente. This article names that offer, then explains when bioaccess® is the multi-country holder instead.

    What Farmaregistro publishes

    Public claims on the homepage:

    • 30+ years of experience (their figure).
    • Agile SRS management and dossier preparation to reduce preventions.
    • “Actuamos como tu titular o regente local en El Salvador.”
    • 360° regulatory support from cosmetics through device Class IV; also pharmaceutical, food/beverage, and veterinary product tiles.
    • Certification and liaison before SRS (ex-DNM).
    • Direct contact with the responsible professional, without intermediaries (their wording).
    • Clients in Central America, Mexico, the United States, France, India, Germany, Switzerland, Peru, “among others” — countries only; this page does not invent or copy named manufacturers.
    • San Salvador address published: Residencial Cima 1 #12-S, Calle 1.

    Since 7 August 2024 the Superintendencia de Regulación Sanitaria regulates medical devices as successor to DNM. El Salvador is a single local legal representative per registration. That is why “we will be your titular or regente” is the product that matches the statute — and why giving that role to an exclusive distributor is hard to unwind. Experience-based clocks on the bioaccess® market-access page put DNM/SRS device approvals on the order of ~30–60 days. There is no separate bioaccess® /market-access/el-salvador country page as of this writing; El Salvador is named on the hub and the IOR guide.

    Farmaregistro vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Farmaregistro S.A. de C.V. bioaccess®
    Public product Titular / regente local + SRS dossiers, many product classes LATAM Launch Subscription for already-cleared devices
    Device reach they publish Through Class IV Device registration as part of 19-market coverage; DNM/SRS named on the hub
    Geography El Salvador (domain owns the country query) 19 markets; own entities; holder not leverage
    Bundle Country RA / titular Gov fees + certified translations in one annual fee; Trial-to-Market Bridge 20%

    The LATAM Launch Subscription from bioaccess® is a different product. bioaccess® registers already FDA-cleared (510(k)/PMA) or CE-marked devices and holds them through its own in-country entities — sanitary registration, registration holder / importer of record, certified Spanish or Portuguese translations (sworn where Brazil and Argentina require it), and government submission fees, inside one annual subscription per country and device family. Public coverage is described as 19 LATAM markets. The registration is held for the manufacturer’s benefit, with defined transfer provisions; it is not leverage. Clinical-trial clients of bioaccess® receive the published Trial-to-Market Bridge (20% off). Specific rates are under review; contact bioaccess® for a quote.

    Farmaregistro is a fair SRS titular when El Salvador is the only label. bioaccess® is the operator when the same family must also be held in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, or Argentina under one subscription, with the local face never becoming the commercial channel.

    If the plan is one country and a homegrown titular is enough, hire the shop that actually publishes that job. If the plan is several LATAM labels under one holder who is not the distributor, start at bioaccess® market access or request a registration quote.

  • Vexpro INVIMA Titular Holder vs bioaccess® LATAM Launch Subscription

    Vexpro Consultores (Bogotá) publishes a sentence most INVIMA consultancies do not: “Actuamos como titulares holder de sus registros sanitarios en Colombia.” That is a one-country holder product, not only a dossier shop. The homepage is vexproconsultores.com (public wording confirmed 23 August 2026). This article uses only that offer language. It does not copy manufacturer names from their site. Then it explains when the multi-country subscription from bioaccess® is the better holder.

    What Vexpro publishes (offer only)

    Public positioning: regulatory BPO for national and international companies; titularidad and legal representation before INVIMA; they act as titulares / holder of sanitary registrations in Colombia, including a cosmetics hosting role under Comunidad Andina NSO rules; a medical-device practice covering a range of device types (implants, electromechanical devices, consumables, software as a medical device) with sanitary-registration management and quality assurance. ConnectAmericas lists the legal name VEXPRO CONSULTORES LTDA and describes INVIMA registros plus quality-norm advisory across several product classes.

    INVIMA practice is messy in public commentary. Some shops say the foreign manufacturer can remain titular if a Colombian representante legal is named; others sell themselves as the titular holder. Vexpro sells the second sentence. Either way, an in-country entity — and often a CCAA-licensed importer — appears on the record. INVIMA explicitly contemplates “un titular con varios importadores” on one registro sanitario. That is why an independent holder (or an independent legal representative plus a licensed importer that is not the exclusive distributor) is the structure that keeps the channel replaceable. See Colombia — INVIMA.

    What Vexpro’s public holder line does not do: publish a 19-country own-entity subscription, include government fees and certified translations in one annual fee, or offer a trial-to-market bridge with a FIH CRO. They are a Colombia titular / BPO. Treat them as that.

    Vexpro vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Vexpro Consultores bioaccess®
    Public product “Titulares holder” + INVIMA BPO (devices among other classes) LATAM Launch Subscription for already-cleared devices
    Geography Colombia / INVIMA 19 LATAM markets; Bogotá regional office + local Colombian entity
    Importer split Not published as a multi-country IOR map INVIMA multi-importer rule documented on the IOR page; holder not leverage
    Bundle Country RA / holder (no published all-in LATAM fee) Gov fees + certified translations included
    Trial-to-market Not published Same operator can run the Colombia FIH and then hold the commercial registro; 20% Bridge

    The LATAM Launch Subscription from bioaccess® is a different product. bioaccess® registers already FDA-cleared (510(k)/PMA) or CE-marked devices and holds them through its own in-country entities — sanitary registration, registration holder / importer of record, certified Spanish or Portuguese translations (sworn where Brazil and Argentina require it), and government submission fees, inside one annual subscription per country and device family. Public coverage is described as 19 LATAM markets. The registration is held for the manufacturer’s benefit, with defined transfer provisions; it is not leverage. Clinical-trial clients of bioaccess® receive the published Trial-to-Market Bridge (20% off). Specific rates are under review; contact bioaccess® for a quote.

    bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia and treats commercial registro sanitario as a separate live service — not a substitute for the trial, and not something the trial team has to re-learn with a second vendor. Vexpro is a fair INVIMA titular for a Colombia-only commercial file. bioaccess® is the operator when Colombia is one market in a multi-country hold, or when the manufacturer already used bioaccess® as the FIH CRO.

    If the plan is one country and a homegrown titular is enough, hire the shop that actually publishes that job. If the plan is several LATAM labels under one holder who is not the distributor, start at bioaccess® market access or request a registration quote.