Category: Advantages of Conducting Trials in Latin America

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

What the law says (verified 29 October 2026)

Hub guide: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country sets out each country’s rule with links to the primary text. Recent rule changes and the primary-law rules that matter most for this topic:

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

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

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

Drug-trial GL language is not a device FIH form. An investigational implant, catheter, or diagnostic that has never been in a human is a different risk sentence than a marketed pill. Carriers who write “clinical trials” still have to read the IB.

This page is separate from Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. That hub sets out each country’s legal requirement with primary-law citations. This page’s topic: device-specific trial liability (not drug GL). Same operator: the CRO runs the trial; a carrier writes the paper.

The CRO is not the carrier

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

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

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

Device FIH is not a protocol footnote on a drug policy

A first-in-human medical device study asks a participant to accept an investigational product that may stay in the body, may require a procedure, and may generate SAE clocks the FDA will later read under 21 CFR 812.28. The liability form has to follow that protocol: procedure-related injury, device malfunction language, explant or revision costs if the protocol requires them, and follow-up windows that are often longer than a three-visit drug trial. The carrier reads the IB. The CRO writes the IB.

OUS is a territory problem, not a slogan

“International” on a U.S. certificate often means “we have an overseas switchboard.” Ethics in Panama, Chile, Colombia, Brazil, or Mexico wants the country named. If the protocol later adds a second Latin American country, the endorsement has to move with it. bioaccess® picks geography for the device. The paper follows the protocol. A device startup that buys a U.S.-territory clinical-trial endorsement and then opens a Colombian site has bought the wrong object.

What ethics committees and the national device authority actually ask for

Use Clinical Trials in Panama. Panama’s Ministry of Health (MINSA), through the Dirección Nacional de Farmacia y Drogas, is the national file. Ethics review runs through institutional bioethics committees registered with the Comité Nacional de Bioética de la Investigación (CNBI). Published ethics typically 3–5 weeks; with bioaccess® coordination, protocol submission to first-patient enrollment averages 6–8 weeks on that hub. Per-patient costs there: $12,000–$22,000 in U.S. dollars. A hallway conversation at this hospital is not MINSA clearance. Use Clinical Trials in Chile. Instituto de Salud Pública (ISP) authorizes studies and investigational-device import. ISP trial authorization and commercial registration are different files — do not put them on one Gantt labeled “Chile.” An Ethical-Scientific Committee under Law 20.120 still has to sit.

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

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

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

Local policy vs controlled master

For a device FIH, local admitted paper is often what the ethics clerk files. A controlled master can sit behind it if the carrier will issue certificates in the right language with the PI and site named. Do not assume a master written for a 40-site drug program will print a one-site Panama device certificate next week. Ask. Get it in writing.

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

What bioaccess® still owns after you have a quote

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. If the indication later needs Colombia, Brazil, or Mexico, the operator already runs those files. The carrier has to name them. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics-committee and national device authority submission with insurance documents in the same stack — not a parallel founder email.
3. Importer of record and device accountability. A binder does not import the investigational product.
4. Site activation: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. A site MSA that “includes insurance” is still not ISO 14155 monitoring.
5. Introducing a specialty carrier when the founder does not already have admitted paper. An introduction is not a partnership or a quote.

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

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now. bioaccess® has a local entity and office in Colombia, with headquarters in Miami. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

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

Frequently asked questions

Does bioaccess® sell clinical trial insurance?

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

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. This page is device-specific trial liability (not drug GL).

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

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was international clinical trial liability medical device, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Related device-import page: importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

What the law says (verified 29 October 2026)

Hub guide: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country sets out each country’s rule with links to the primary text. Recent rule changes and the primary-law rules that matter most for this topic:

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

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

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

Specialty carriers market multinational trial liability. Brokers place it. Hospitals photocopy a certificate. bioaccess® still has to put a device through ethics, import, and ISO 14155. Buying coverage is not starting the study.

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

The CRO is not the carrier

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

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

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

Why “buy coverage” searches land on a CRO

Google and LinkedIn do not separate “carrier,” “broker,” and “CRO.” A founder who has just been told “you need insurance before first patient” searches the phrase the board used. International. Clinical trial. Coverage. Liability. The ads and the blogs that answer are mixed. This page exists so that search does not treat bioaccess® as a binder. We introduce paper when the protocol needs it. We run the trial either way.

What you are actually buying

You are buying a form that ethics will file and that a later FDA reviewer can live with in the 21 CFR 812.28 package. You are not buying a CRO day-rate. You are not buying a hospital MSA. You are not buying a U.S. product-liability endorsement that silently excludes Panama, Colombia, Brazil, or Mexico. If a carrier’s marketing mentions a large country count, treat it as their marketing, not as a bioaccess® partnership.

What ethics committees and the national authority actually ask for

Use the live country hubs: Panama MINSA/CNBI on Clinical Trials in Panama; Chile ISP on Clinical Trials in Chile; Brazil ANVISA/CEP on Clinical Trials in Brazil; Mexico COFEPRIS on Clinical Trials in Mexico; Colombia INVIMA on CRO in Colombia. Ethics committees in most of these countries want the certificate in the same packet as the protocol and ICF; Mexico (COFEPRIS filing after authorization) and Brazil (CEP/CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance) are the exceptions.

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

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

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

Local policy vs controlled master

A local admitted policy can satisfy one ethics committee and still fail a second country. A master policy written in New York or elsewhere abroad can satisfy a board slide and still fail a CNBI clerk who wants a local certificate in Spanish. (Brazil is different: CEP/CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance, though individual sites may.) Ask which of those two objects you are buying. Then ask who files it.

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

What bioaccess® still owns after you have a quote

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the Latin American platform. Insurance territory has to match that map, not a U.S.-only endorsement.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics-committee and national authority submission with insurance documents in the same stack — not a parallel founder email.
3. Importer of record and device accountability. A binder does not import the investigational product.
4. Site activation: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. A site MSA that “includes insurance” is still not ISO 14155 monitoring.
5. Introducing a specialty carrier when the founder does not already have admitted paper. An introduction is not a partnership or a quote.

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

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now. bioaccess® has a local entity and office in Colombia, with headquarters in Miami. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

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

Frequently asked questions

Does bioaccess® sell clinical trial insurance?

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

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. This page is who writes the paper.

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

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

Next step

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

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Clinica Privada Independencia first-in-human, Independencia Munro clinical trial, Independencia CRO, or “go direct Clínica Privada Independencia Munro,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Clinica Privada Independencia in Munro, Argentina, is a real named private-clinic string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANMAT file.

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

This page is the named Munro Clínica Privada Independencia campus. It is not Sanatorio Finochietto (separate page), not Hospital Militar Cosme Argerich, not Fundación Favaloro, and not Hospital Universitario Austral Pilar. Munro is Greater Buenos Aires, not CABA. Sharing a metro 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), this campus sits here after filters:

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

• Clinica Privada Independencia (Munro, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=6; DEVICE n=1. Example NCT IDs: NCT05084911, NCT07472517, NCT06097260. DEVICE example: NCT07544654.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Independencia Munro first-in-human” finds ALL n=6 (DEVICE n=1) without finding ANMAT. A named clinic is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How ANMAT actually works (the short version)

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

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

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

Not a critique of the hospital

Clínica Privada Independencia is a serious named Munro clinic on the public registry. ALL n=6 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n beyond 1. 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. In Panama and Colombia alike, ethics timing depends on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Clínica Privada Independencia Munro directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Finochietto or Austral Pilar?

No. Sanatorio Finochietto has its own page. Hospital Universitario Austral Pilar has its own page. This page is Independencia Munro only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT05084911?

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. Buenos Aires sibling (do not merge): Austral Pilar.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Hospital Lifecenter first-in-human, Lifecenter Belo Horizonte clinical trial, Lifecenter CRO, or “go direct Hospital Lifecenter Belo Horizonte,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Lifecenter in Belo Horizonte, 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 Belo Horizonte Hospital Lifecenter campus. It is not Hospital Luxemburgo, not Hospital Madre Teresa, and not UFVJM Diamantina. Sharing Minas Gerais 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), this campus sits here after filters:

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

• Hospital Lifecenter (Belo Horizonte, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=6; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT01836575, NCT01113372, NCT01897532.

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 “Lifecenter Belo Horizonte first-in-human” finds ALL n=6 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA. 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. A hallway conversation at Lifecenter is not a Luxemburgo file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

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

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

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

Not a critique of the hospital

Hospital Lifecenter is a serious named Belo Horizonte hospital on the public registry. ALL n=6 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

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

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

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

Colombia is still on the map

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. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Hospital Lifecenter Belo Horizonte directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Luxemburgo or Madre Teresa?

No. Hospital Luxemburgo has its own page. Hospital Madre Teresa has its own page. This page is Lifecenter only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT01836575?

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. Minas sibling (do not merge): Hospital Luxemburgo.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Instituto Jalisciense first-in-human, Jalisciense Investigacion Clinica Guadalajara clinical trial, Jalisciense CRO, or “go direct Instituto Jalisciense de Investigación Clínica,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Instituto Jalisciense de Investigacion Clinica S.A. de C.V. in Guadalajara, Mexico, is a real named research-institute 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 institute is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns COFEPRIS, 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 Guadalajara Instituto Jalisciense de Investigación Clínica campus. It is not Instituto Jalisciense de Investigación en Diabetes y Obesidad (a different string, counted separately), not Endocrinológica de Jalisco, not Universidad de Guadalajara (already published), and not Investigación Biomédica Zapopan. Sharing Jalisco 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), this campus sits here after filters:

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

• Instituto Jalisciense de Investigacion Clinica S.A. de C.V. (Guadalajara, Mexico) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=6; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT04889040, NCT01987492, NCT03478930.

Counts for the Diabetes y Obesidad string are kept separate.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Instituto Jalisciense first-in-human” finds ALL n=6 (DEVICE n=0) without finding COFEPRIS. 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:

• COFEPRIS. COFEPRIS governs device investigations in Mexico. Ethics committee review comes first, then COFEPRIS review; bioaccess® confirms the calendar per protocol. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A hallway conversation at this institute is not an Endocrinológica de Jalisco file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How COFEPRIS actually works (the short version)

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

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

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

Not a critique of the hospital

Instituto Jalisciense de Investigación Clínica is a serious named Guadalajara institute on the public registry. ALL n=6 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

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

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

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

Colombia is still on the map

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. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Instituto Jalisciense de Investigación Clínica 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 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 institute. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Endocrinológica de Jalisco or Zapopan?

No. Endocrinológica de Jalisco has its own page. Investigación Biomédica Zapopan has its own page. This page is Instituto Jalisciense de Investigación Clínica only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT04889040?

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. Jalisco sibling (do not merge): Endocrinológica de Jalisco.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Hospital de Messejana first-in-human, Carlos Alberto Studart Gomes Fortaleza clinical trial, Messejana CRO, or “go direct Hospital de Messejana Fortaleza,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital de Messejana Dr. Carlos Alberto Studart Gomes 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 Hospital de Messejana campus. It is not the Secretaria da Saúde / Hospital Doutor Carlos Alberto Studart Gomes alias (counted separately), not Hospital Maternidade São Vicente de Paulo Barbalha, and not Hospital Agamenon Magalhães Recife. Sharing the Northeast 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), this campus sits here after filters:

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

• Hospital de Messejana Dr. Carlos Alberto Studart Gomes (Fortaleza, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=6; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT03057977, NCT04360720, NCT04509674.

Counts for the Secretaria da Saúde alias are kept separate.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Messejana first-in-human” finds ALL n=6 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA. 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. A hallway conversation at Messejana is not a Barbalha file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

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

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

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

Not a critique of the hospital

Hospital de Messejana is a serious named Fortaleza hospital on the public registry. ALL n=6 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

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

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

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

Colombia is still on the map

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. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Hospital de Messejana 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 answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Hospital Maternidade São Vicente de Paulo Barbalha?

No. Barbalha has its own page. This page is Hospital de Messejana Fortaleza only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT03057977?

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. Northeast sibling (do not merge): Barbalha.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current ISP, 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 Psicomed Estudios Médicos Antofagasta as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Psicomed Antofagasta first-in-human, Psicomed Estudios Medicos clinical trial, Psicomed CRO, or “go direct Psicomed Estudios Médicos Antofagasta,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Psicomed Estudios Medicos in Antofagasta, Chile, is a real named medical-studies string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ISP file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the center is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ISP, Ethical-Scientific Committee / Law 20.120, 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 Antofagasta Psicomed campus. It is not Clínica Dermacross Santiago, not Centro de Estudios Reumatológicos, not Centro Vanguardia Temuco, and not PUC Chile (not covered on this page). Sharing Chile is not a license to collapse them. Antofagasta is not Santiago.

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

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

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

• Psicomed Estudios Medicos (Antofagasta, Chile) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=6; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT03325556, NCT06194799, NCT05980949.

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 “Psicomed Antofagasta first-in-human” finds ALL n=6 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ISP. A named studies 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:

• ISP. Instituto de Salud Pública (ISP) authorizes studies and investigational-device import in Chile. Live Chile blogs already put a typical ISP review in a band of about 30 business days. Commercial ISP registration (30–90 days) is a different file. An Ethical-Scientific Committee under Law 20.120 still has to sit. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that stack. We will not invent PAHO/WHO Level 4 standing for ISP. A hallway conversation at Psicomed is not a Dermacross 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 ISP actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Chile. Instituto de Salud Pública (ISP) authorizes studies and investigational-device import. Live Chile blogs already put a typical ISP review in a band of about 30 business days. Commercial ISP registration in a 30–90 day band is a different file — do not put trial authorization and commercial registro on one Gantt labeled “Chile.” An Ethical-Scientific Committee under Law 20.120 still has to sit. We will not invent PAHO/WHO Level 4 standing for ISP on this page.

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

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

Not a critique of the hospital

Psicomed Estudios Médicos is a serious named Antofagasta studies center on the public registry. ALL n=6 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

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

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ISP / 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. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Psicomed Estudios Médicos Antofagasta 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 ISP applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Dermacross or PUC Chile?

No. Clínica Dermacross has its own page. PUC Chile is not covered on this page. This page is Psicomed Antofagasta only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT03325556?

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. Chile sibling (do not merge): Dermacross Santiago.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current INS, 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 Goyeneche Arequipa as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Hospital Goyeneche first-in-human, Goyeneche Arequipa clinical trial, Goyeneche CRO, or “go direct Hospital Goyeneche Arequipa,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Goyeneche in Arequipa, Peru, 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 INS file.

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

This page is the named Arequipa Hospital Goyeneche campus. It is not Centro Médico Monte Carmelo Arequipa (already published), not INEN Lima, not Hospital Nacional Adolfo Guevara Velasco Cusco, and not Rebagliati Lima. Sharing Peru is not a license to collapse them. Arequipa is not Lima.

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

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

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

• Hospital Goyeneche (Arequipa, Peru) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=6; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT06065748, NCT04093362, NCT03362177.

Counts for Hospital III Goyeneche Cercado are kept separate.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Goyeneche first-in-human” finds ALL n=6 (DEVICE n=0) without finding INS/DIGEMID. 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:

• INS. INS (DIIS, formerly OGITT) authorizes trials in Peru. DIGEMID under MINSA regulates devices and investigational import. Accredited ethics is required. A hallway conversation in Lima is not that stack. We will not invent DIGESA onto this page. We do not invent a Peruvian legal entity. A hallway conversation at Goyeneche is not a Monte Carmelo 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 INS actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Peru. INS (DIIS, formerly OGITT) authorizes trials. A published statutory target on that hub is 40 business days in the drug-trial framework, and 60 business days when a biologics / technical commission applies. A novel first-in-human device may take longer. We will not invent a new Peruvian clock on this page. DIGEMID under MINSA regulates devices and investigational import. Accredited ethics is required. The Peru hub already cites experience-based cost on the order of ~30% lower versus US — that is a country-page figure, not a campus quote we invent here. We do not invent a Peruvian legal entity on this page.

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

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

Not a critique of the hospital

Hospital Goyeneche is a serious named Arequipa hospital on the public registry. ALL n=6 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. This campus is separate from INEN. 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 INS / 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. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Hospital Goyeneche Arequipa 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 INS applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Monte Carmelo Arequipa or INEN?

No. Centro Médico Monte Carmelo Arequipa is already published. INEN Lima has its own page. This page is Hospital Goyeneche only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT06065748?

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. Arequipa sibling (do not merge): Monte Carmelo Arequipa.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Sanatorio Finochietto first-in-human, Finochietto Buenos Aires clinical trial, Finochietto CRO, or “go direct Sanatorio Finochietto Buenos Aires,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Sanatorio Finochietto in Buenos Aires, Argentina, is a real named sanatorio 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 sanatorio is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANMAT, accredited ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the sanatorio still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Buenos Aires Sanatorio Finochietto campus. It is not Hospital Militar Cosme Argerich, not Fundación Enfermedades Mentales, not Fundación Favaloro, and not Sanatorio de la Trinidad Mitre. Sharing Buenos Aires 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), this campus sits here after filters:

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

• Sanatorio Finochietto (Buenos Aires, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=6; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT05754957, NCT06118281, NCT07223593.

Counts for CABA city aliases are kept separate.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Finochietto first-in-human” finds ALL n=6 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT. A named sanatorio is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

A named sanatorio 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 sanatorio 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 sanatorio 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 Finochietto is not an Argerich file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How ANMAT actually works (the short version)

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

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

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

Not a critique of the hospital

Sanatorio Finochietto is a serious named Buenos Aires sanatorio on the public registry. ALL n=6 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

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

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

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

Colombia is still on the map

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. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Sanatorio Finochietto Buenos Aires directly for a device FIH?

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

Is this the same page as Argerich or Trinidad Mitre?

No. Hospital Militar Cosme Argerich has its own page. Sanatorio de la Trinidad Mitre has its own page. This page is Finochietto only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT05754957?

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. Buenos Aires sibling (do not merge): Cosme Argerich.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Grupo Colaborativo Rosario first-in-human, Fundacion Grupo Colaborativo Rosario clinical trial, Colaborativo CRO, or “go direct Grupo Colaborativo Rosario,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Instituto Médico Fundación Grupo Colaborativo Rosario Investigación y Prevención Medica in Rosario, Argentina, is a real named research-foundation 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 foundation is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANMAT, accredited ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the foundation still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Rosario Grupo Colaborativo campus. It is not Instituto Especialidades de la Salud Rosario, not Fundación Rosarina, not Instituto CAICI (already published), and not Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas Rosario (already published). Sharing Rosario 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), this campus sits here after filters:

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

• Instituto Médico Fundación Grupo Colaborativo Rosario Investigación y Prevención Medica (Rosario, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=12; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT07241390, NCT06045221, NCT06297603.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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 Grupo Colaborativo is not an IESR file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How ANMAT actually works (the short version)

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

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

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

Not a critique of the hospital

Grupo Colaborativo Rosario is a serious named Rosario research foundation on the public registry. ALL n=12 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

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

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

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

Colombia is still on the map

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. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Grupo Colaborativo Rosario directly for a device FIH?

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

Is this the same page as IESR or Fundación Rosarina?

No. Instituto Especialidades de la Salud Rosario has its own page. Fundación Rosarina has its own page. This page is Grupo Colaborativo only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT07241390?

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 sibling (do not merge): IESR Rosario.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®