Category: First-in-Human

  • NZCR Group vs a Latin America First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed NZCR Group (NZCR + Optimal Clinical Trials) into a search box, you’re probably building a shortlist for a trial in New Zealand. This article uses only what NZCR publishes (nzcr.co.nz, NZCR facilities and services, optimalclinicaltrials.com) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It’s a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What NZCR publishes

    NZCR calls itself “New Zealand’s leading early-phase clinical research provider”. It says it has 35+ years of experience, has run 800+ trials with 17,000+ New Zealanders, and has 81 research beds. Its dosing units are in Auckland and Christchurch, with support sites in Hamilton and Wellington, and the units are Medsafe-certified under section 30 of the Medicines Act. Its sister company, Optimal Clinical Trials, focuses on late-phase work. Optimal describes the “NZCR Group” as “Australasia’s largest clinical trials group”. It claims “fast start-ups (4–6 weeks, no IND requirement)”, ISO 9001 certification, access to about 75% of New Zealand’s primary-care database, and a patient pool of 153,000+. It also says it is a government-approved R&D incentives provider and a “proven rescue site”. We found no named medical-device first-in-human study on the pages we reviewed.

    NZCR vs bioaccess®

    Dimension NZCR bioaccess®
    Core focus Drug Phase I units (NZCR) plus late-phase sites (Optimal) First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography New Zealand (Auckland, Christchurch, Hamilton, Wellington) Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record None named on the public pages we reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you are running a healthy-volunteer or patient Phase I drug study and want overnight beds in New Zealand, NZCR is a serious option. Optimal’s primary-care reach suits large late-phase recruitment.

    If the job is a first-in-human or early feasibility study for a medical device, and especially one that needs more patients than one small country can supply, bioaccess® was built for exactly that. It has run device studies in Latin America since 2010. When the study ends, the same company can register and hold the device across the region through its market access service. Ask any CRO on your list, including NZCR, for a named or de-identified device first-in-human study: device class, implant or not, number of patients, ISO 14155 monitoring plan, and how the data was used in an FDA file.

    New Zealand offers real country advantages:
    – device trials need HDEC ethics approval but no Medsafe approval;
    – one ethics review covers all sites;
    – HDEC aims to decide within 15 days (expedited review) or 35 days (full review).

    Those advantages belong to the country, not to NZCR. New Zealand also has about 5.36 million people, and commercial sponsors must provide ACC-equivalent injury compensation. We set out the country comparison in New Zealand vs Latin America for first-in-human device trials and bioaccess® vs New Zealand.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does NZCR run medical device first-in-human studies?

    NZCR’s public pages describe drug early-phase units and services. We found no named device first-in-human study there. Ask NZCR directly for device examples.

    Does a device trial in New Zealand need Medsafe approval?

    No. Under the Medicines Act 1981 there is no provision to require approval of device trials. Medsafe asks to be notified, and HDEC ethics approval is required (Medsafe guideline, §7).

    Can Latin American device data support an FDA submission?

    Yes. Foreign device data is eligible for FDA review under 21 CFR 812.28 when GCP, independent ethics review and informed consent are met, and FDA can validate the data. Eligibility isn’t clearance or approval.

    When is bioaccess® the better choice than NZCR?

    When the study is a device first-in-human or early feasibility study, needs a second country or more patients, or needs U.S.-adjacent time zones and a route to registration in Latin America.

    Ready to compare a proposal? Request a first-in-human study proposal.

    Competitor facts come from the NZCR public pages linked above, reviewed 28 October 2026 for bioaccess® competitive research. The claims are theirs. No sponsors, prices or contacts are invented.

  • New Zealand vs Latin America for First-in-Human Device Trials (2026)

    New Zealand is one of the quickest places in the world to start a first-in-human device study. Medsafe doesn’t approve device trials, one national ethics committee covers every site, and no FDA IDE is needed to begin. What New Zealand can’t change is its size: about 5.36 million people. If your protocol needs more patients, more diversity or a backup country, Latin America is where bioaccess® has run device first-in-human studies since 2010.

    Why sponsors choose New Zealand

    These are the real reasons, and each one has an official source.

    • No regulatory approval for device trials. Medsafe says there is “no provision under the current legislation (the Medicines Act 1981) to require approval of clinical trials of medical devices”. It asks to be told by email, and that notice “does not constitute an approval” (Medsafe Clinical Trials Guideline, §7; Medsafe device trials page). Investigational devices brought in for a trial don’t need WAND notification.
    • One ethics review for all sites. A single Health and Disability Ethics Committee (HDEC) review covers every site. Each site still needs locality authorisation (Callaghan Innovation HealthTech Activator).
    • Published ethics clocks. HDEC aims to decide expedited applications within 15 calendar days and full reviews within 35 (HDEC).
    • No IDE to start. The government’s own guidance notes that New Zealand’s process “does not currently require U.S FDA Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) filing prior to the start of the study” (Callaghan).
    • English and GCP. Trials are expected to follow ICH E6(R3), and Medsafe points device sponsors to ISO 14155.
    • Tax incentives, with limits. New Zealand’s R&D Tax Incentive is a 15% credit for eligible R&D by NZ taxpayers, and overseas spend is capped (Inland Revenue). Australian companies can claim New Zealand trial costs under Australia’s R&D Tax Incentive, but only with an approved Overseas Finding (business.gov.au).

    What to plan for in New Zealand

    • Patient volume. Stats NZ estimates 5,357,300 residents (30 June 2026) (Stats NZ). For a rare anatomy or a narrow inclusion window, the pool of candidates is limited.
    • Real-world ethics timing. HDEC’s Secretariat warns that full applications can take another 2–4 weeks to get onto an agenda, that it caps each meeting at 8–10 applications, and that decision letters can take up to 4 weeks after the meeting. For expedited review, plan on the full 15-day clock (HDEC update).
    • Injury compensation is the sponsor’s job. New Zealand’s ACC scheme doesn’t cover trials run “principally for the benefit of the manufacturer” (Accident Compensation Act s32). Commercial sponsors must offer ACC-equivalent compensation, including earnings-related compensation, for the whole trial (NEAC Standard 17).
    • Site governance. Health New Zealand sites run their own research-office review, which includes a Māori responsiveness assessment and scientific peer review (Callaghan).
    • The rules are changing. A Ministry of Health briefing calls New Zealand’s lack of device pre-market approval an international outlier. The planned Medical Products Bill is expected to be introduced in 2027, with commencement expected around 2029–2030 (MoH briefing, June 2026; DHA, May 2026).

    What the registry data shows

    We pulled ClinicalTrials.gov on 28 October 2026. Of 216 closed interventional device studies with a New Zealand site, 11.1% were terminated or withdrawn, compared with 22.7% for the United States and 13.2% for Australia. Only 6 of the 216 named slow or low recruitment as the reason, and most of those ran in New Zealand only. Starting is rarely the problem in New Zealand; enrolling enough patients can be. (Method: CT.gov API v2, interventional, intervention type = device, ≥1 site in the country. Many ANZ studies register only on ANZCTR.)

    New Zealand vs Latin America at a glance

    New Zealand Latin America with bioaccess®
    Device trial regulator No Medsafe approval; email notification only Varies by country. Some add a regulator review (e.g., Argentina’s ANMAT under Disposition 969/1997, up to 90 business days)
    Ethics One national HDEC review; 15 or 35 calendar-day targets Site or national committees; timing set by each committee’s meeting schedule
    Patient pool 5.36M nationally Several countries’ catchments can run under one plan
    Time zone vs U.S. UTC+12 (+13 in NZ daylight time) Same or near U.S. time zones
    Injury cover Sponsor provides ACC-equivalent compensation Sponsor clinical-trial insurance per country rules
    FDA use of data Eligible under 21 CFR 812.28 if GCP, ethics and consent are met Same standard (21 CFR 812.28)
    After the trial Device market currently has no pre-market approval bioaccess® offers in-country registration and holder service (market access)

    Which fits your study

    • Choose New Zealand if you need a few implants fast, your investigators are already there, and your enrollment target fits a 5-million-person country.
    • Add Latin America if you need more patients, a second country to protect timelines, U.S.-adjacent time zones for your clinical team, or a route from first-in-human data to market access in the region.
    • Run both if speed of first implant and enrollment certainty both matter. Being eligible under 812.28 is not the same as clearance; FDA decides case by case.

    New Zealand CRO and site comparisons

    Frequently asked questions

    Does New Zealand require Medsafe approval for a medical device clinical trial?

    No. Under the Medicines Act 1981 there is no provision to require approval of device trials. Medsafe asks to be notified by email, and notification is not approval. HDEC ethics approval is still required.

    How long does HDEC ethics approval take?

    HDEC aims to decide expedited applications within 15 calendar days and full reviews within 35. The clock can pause once for up to 90 days. Its November 2024 update adds agenda and letter delays for full reviews.

    Do I need an FDA IDE to run a first-in-human device study in New Zealand?

    Not to start in New Zealand. If the data will support a U.S. submission, it must meet 21 CFR 812.28 (GCP, ethics review, informed consent, and FDA’s ability to validate the data).

    Does ACC cover injuries in a sponsored device trial?

    No, not for trials run principally for the manufacturer’s benefit. The sponsor must provide ACC-equivalent compensation, usually through no-fault clinical trial insurance accepted by HDEC.

    Can a U.S. startup claim New Zealand’s 15% R&D Tax Incentive?

    The incentive is for eligible R&D by entities taxed in New Zealand, and overseas spend is capped. Check eligibility with Inland Revenue before you count it in your budget.

    Why would a sponsor add Latin America after New Zealand?

    Mainly patient volume and backup capacity. Same- or near-U.S. time zones and a path to regional registration also help. bioaccess® has run device first-in-human and early feasibility studies in Latin America since 2010.

    Request a first-in-human study proposal · bioaccess® vs New Zealand · bioaccess® vs Australia

    Sources accessed 28 October 2026. No sponsor, prices or timelines are invented. Competitor and country claims are attributed to their publishers.

  • Investigational device accountability in a first-in-human study: what FDA and ANVISA expect

    The question usually arrives a few weeks before the first shipment: who counts the devices, who signs for them, and what happens to the ones we don’t use? In a first-in-human device study the answer looks like logistics, but it is a regulatory record. When an inspector or an FDA reviewer looks back at an early study, the device accountability log is one of the first places they check, because it shows whether every unit that entered the country can be traced to a patient, a return or a documented disposal.

    I am Julio Martinez-Clark, CEO of bioaccess®. This page explains how I set up investigational device accountability for a first-in-human (FIH) or early feasibility device study run in Latin America, using FDA’s 21 CFR Part 812 as the reference most US-bound sponsors already work to and Brazil’s ANVISA RDC 837/2023 as the most explicit Latin American rule. It goes with our pages on import permits for medical devices in Latin America, the ISO 14155 inspectable file and foreign proctors and field engineers in an FIH study. This is operator guidance, not legal or regulatory advice; check the current text of each regulation before you finalize your plan.

    One-sentence answer

    Device accountability means the sponsor can show, for every investigational unit by lot or serial number, when it shipped, who received it, which participant it was used on or why it was not used, and whether it was returned, repaired or destroyed, with the site keeping a matching record; FDA spells this out in 21 CFR 812.140, and Brazil’s RDC 837/2023 adds that the sponsor may import only the quantity the study needs, may ship only to approved sites, and is responsible for the final disposition of unused product.

    What the rules actually require

    FDA, 21 CFR Part 812

    • Ship only to qualified investigators. Section 812.43(b) says a sponsor shall ship investigational devices only to qualified investigators participating in the investigation.
    • Investigator control. Section 812.100 makes the investigator responsible for the control of devices under investigation, and 812.110(c) says the investigator may let the device be used only with subjects under their supervision and may not supply it to anyone not authorized to receive it.
    • Site records. Under 812.140(a)(2) the investigator keeps records of receipt, use or disposition: the type and quantity of device, the dates of receipt, the batch number or code mark, the names of everyone who received, used or disposed of each device, and why and how many units were returned to the sponsor, repaired or otherwise disposed of. Section 812.140(a)(3)(iii) adds a record of each subject’s exposure to the device, including the date and time of each use.
    • Sponsor records. Under 812.140(b)(2) the sponsor keeps records of shipment (consignee name and address, type and quantity, date, batch number or code mark) and of disposition (batch or code marks of devices returned, repaired or disposed of, and the reasons for and method of disposal).
    • End of study. Section 812.110(e) says that at completion or termination, or at the sponsor’s request, the investigator returns any remaining supply to the sponsor or disposes of it as the sponsor directs.
    • Labeling. Section 812.5(a) requires the device or its immediate package to carry the statement “CAUTION—Investigational device. Limited by Federal (or United States) law to investigational use,” along with the manufacturer, packer or distributor and the quantity where appropriate.
    • Retention. Section 812.140(d) requires these records to be kept during the investigation and for 2 years after the later of the study’s termination or completion, or the date they are no longer needed to support a marketing submission.

    Brazil, ANVISA RDC 837/2023

    • Import only what the study needs. Article 37 makes the sponsor responsible for importing only the quantity necessary to run the clinical investigation, and Article 74 prohibits bringing in investigational products not listed in the published DICD approval or in quantities beyond the study’s needs.
    • Ship only to approved sites. Article 38 limits distribution to the institutions listed in the DICD form and approved by the ethics committees, and its sole paragraph makes the sponsor responsible for the final disposition of investigational products not used in the study.
    • Labeling and blinding. Article 36 requires the investigational device, and any placebo or sham, to be made under good manufacturing practices and coded and labeled so as to protect blinding where applicable and identify it as an investigational product.
    • Import file and outer packaging. Articles 70 to 72 route the import through a SISCOMEX sanitary-clearance petition that cites the DICD approval number, and require the outer or transport packaging to show that number, special storage conditions such as temperature, humidity and light, and the lot, identification code or serial number that allows traceability.
    • No commercial use. Article 75 prohibits selling these products or changing the purpose of the import.
    • Retention. Article 33 requires the sponsor to keep trial data for 5 years after the last approval of a registration or notification of the device in Brazil, or for at least 2 years after discontinuation or completion if no registration follows.

    Other Latin American regulators have their own import and reporting forms. In practice, a log built to satisfy 812.140 and RDC 837 at the same time is a sound baseline for Colombia, Panama, Mexico or Argentina, with local forms and language requirements added on top.

    Why this is harder in a first-in-human study

    • Units are expensive and few. Early builds are often hand-made, serialized and sized in several variants. Losing track of one unit is not a rounding error; it can mean a missing size on surgery day.
    • Not every unit is opened for a patient. Some get opened in the room and not implanted, some are used for bench demos or site training, some are damaged in transit. Each of those needs its own disposition code, or the count will never reconcile.
    • Explants and returned devices carry data. In an FIH study, a device removed from a participant or returned after a malfunction is often the most valuable engineering evidence you will get. It also has to be handled under the site’s biohazard rules and tracked like any other unit.
    • Revisions happen mid-study. If the design or specification changes, Brazil requires the change to be notified to ANVISA (RDC 837, Art. 73 §1), and your log has to keep the old and new versions apart.
    • Import quantity is fixed in advance. Because Brazil ties the import to the quantities in the approval, the supply plan has to account for spares, sizes and resupply before you file, not after the first case.

    How I set it up

    1. One unit, one line. The accountability log has a line per serial number (or per lot for disposables), not per box. Columns: serial or lot, model and size, version, date shipped, consignee, date received, received by, storage location, participant ID or non-use reason, date and time of use, user, disposition code, disposition date, and who signed.
    2. Disposition codes agreed before first shipment. Implanted or used; opened, not used; damaged in transit; used for training or demonstration (with prior sponsor written approval); explanted; returned for analysis; expired; destroyed at site under sponsor instruction. Each code says what evidence goes in the file.
    3. Training units are separate stock. Units for wet labs or proctor demos are labeled and logged as non-clinical so they can never be confused with clinical supply.
    4. Chain of custody across the border. The import file, the airway bill, the temperature or shock data if the device needs it, and the site’s receipt are filed together, so the count at customs matches the count at the site.
    5. Reconciliation at every monitoring visit. The monitor counts physical units against the log and the case report forms. A discrepancy is a documented deviation, not a correction in pen.
    6. A written return and destruction procedure. Before the first case, the sponsor decides which units come back and which are destroyed locally, who pays for the shipment back, and what certificate of destruction the site must provide. In Brazil this is the sponsor’s duty under Article 38.
    7. Close-out count. At site close-out, every unit is accounted for, the last returns are shipped or destroyed, and the final reconciliation is signed by the site and the sponsor and filed in both the trial master file and the investigator site file.

    Common mistakes

    • Shipping to the hospital’s general receiving dock instead of to the investigator named in the approval, and then losing a day finding the box.
    • Hand-carrying units in a proctor’s luggage. It breaks the import record and, in Brazil, conflicts with the requirement that imports run through the sanitary-clearance process tied to the DICD.
    • Logging “used” for a unit that was opened and discarded, which makes the device-exposure record wrong.
    • Letting the site throw away an explanted device because nobody wrote down that the sponsor wanted it back.
    • Importing extra units “just in case” beyond the approved quantity, and then having no lawful way to use or sell them.

    How bioaccess® runs this

    In the first-in-human and early feasibility studies we run in Latin America, the accountability log, the disposition codes and the return or destruction procedure are part of study start-up, built from the same import file the regulator approves. Our monitors reconcile the count at every visit, so at close-out the sponsor has one clean trail from the factory to each participant that it can hand to ANVISA, INVIMA, COFEPRIS, Panama’s MINSA or FDA. When a device later moves to registration, the same discipline carries into the holder role described on our market access page.

    FAQ

    Does the site or the sponsor own the accountability log?

    Both keep records. Under 21 CFR 812.140 the investigator keeps receipt, use and disposition records and the sponsor keeps shipment and disposition records; the two should match unit for unit.

    Can we destroy unused devices at the site?

    Yes, if the sponsor directs it. Section 812.110(e) lets the investigator return remaining supply or dispose of it as the sponsor directs, and the sponsor must record the reason and method of disposal. Get a written destruction record from the site.

    How long do we keep the records?

    For FDA, 2 years after the later of study completion or the date the records stop being needed for a marketing submission. For Brazil, 5 years after the last registration approval in Brazil, or at least 2 years after the study ends if no registration follows.

    Can we import a few extra units for training?

    Plan it before you file. In Brazil the approved import quantities define what may enter the country, so training units need to be in the request rather than added later.

    What label does an investigational device need?

    For FDA, the 812.5 caution statement and the manufacturer’s details. In Brazil, RDC 837 requires the device to be identified as an investigational product and the transport packaging to carry the DICD number, storage conditions and a lot or serial number. Local language requirements can apply too, so check them country by country.

    Sources: 21 CFR 812.5, 812.43(b), 812.100, 812.110(c) and (e), 812.140(a), (b) and (d); ANVISA RDC 837/2023, Arts. 33, 36, 37, 38, 70 to 75.

  • Soluciones Integrales para Investigación Clínica vs a First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Soluciones Integrales para Investigación Clínica into a search box, you are probably building a CRO or site shortlist for Paraguay. This article uses only what is public about Soluciones Integrales para Investigación Clínica (www.sitioresearch.org) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It is a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What Soluciones Integrales para Investigación Clínica publishes

    Soluciones Integrales para Investigación Clínica en Paraguay describes itself on its site as a pioneering organization specializing in clinical research in Paraguay, with knowledge of the country’s regulatory, medical and operational environment.

    Soluciones Integrales para Investigación Clínica vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Soluciones Integrales para Investigación Clínica bioaccess®
    Core focus Clinical research support, Paraguay First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography See provider site Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record No named device first-in-human study found on the public pages reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Live multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you need local clinical research support in Paraguay, Soluciones Integrales’ published services match.

    If the job is a first-in-human or early feasibility study for a medical device, bioaccess® is a specialist built for exactly that, running device studies in Latin America since 2010. When the study ends, the same company can register and hold the device across the region through its market access service. Ask any CRO or site on your list, including Soluciones Integrales para Investigación Clínica, for a named or de-identified device first-in-human study: device class, implant or not, number of patients, ISO 14155 monitoring plan and how the data was used in an FDA file.

    For the local regulatory path, see CRO in Paraguay. Other Latin American CROs are compared in the guide to first-in-human device CROs in Latin America and on the bioaccess® compare hub.

    Ready to compare a proposal? Request a first-in-human study proposal.

    Facts from the Soluciones Integrales para Investigación Clínica public pages and registries linked above, reviewed for bioaccess® competitive research (Oct 2026). Claims are theirs. No invented sponsors, prices or contacts.

  • Research & Data Processing (RDP) vs a First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Research & Data Processing (RDP) into a search box, you are probably building a CRO or site shortlist for Venezuela. This article uses only what is public about Research & Data Processing (RDP LinkedIn) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It is a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What Research & Data Processing publishes

    Research & Data Processing, C.A. (RDP) is a Caracas-based company providing clinical data management, CDISC-SDTM data tabulation and biostatistics for clinical trials. It has announced CDISC Gold Membership.

    Research & Data Processing vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Research & Data Processing bioaccess®
    Core focus Clinical data management and biostatistics First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography See provider site Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record No named device first-in-human study found on the public pages reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Live multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you need clinical data management or CDISC-SDTM conversion, RDP’s published services match.

    If the job is a first-in-human or early feasibility study for a medical device, bioaccess® is a specialist built for exactly that, running device studies in Latin America since 2010. When the study ends, the same company can register and hold the device across the region through its market access service. Ask any CRO or site on your list, including Research & Data Processing, for a named or de-identified device first-in-human study: device class, implant or not, number of patients, ISO 14155 monitoring plan and how the data was used in an FDA file.

    For the local regulatory path, see CRO in Venezuela. Other Latin American CROs are compared in the guide to first-in-human device CROs in Latin America and on the bioaccess® compare hub.

    Ready to compare a proposal? Request a first-in-human study proposal.

    Facts from the Research & Data Processing public pages and registries linked above, reviewed for bioaccess® competitive research (Oct 2026). Claims are theirs. No invented sponsors, prices or contacts.

  • Registrum Group vs a First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Registrum Group into a search box, you are probably building a CRO or site shortlist for Dominican Republic. This article uses only what is public about Registrum Group (registrumgroup.com) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It is a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What Registrum Group publishes

    Registrum Group describes itself as a Dominican site management organization that conducts clinical trials, selects investigators and sites, reviews protocols, plans recruitment and offers regulatory services and clinical research advice in the Dominican Republic.

    Registrum Group vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Registrum Group bioaccess®
    Core focus SMO and regulatory services, Dominican Republic First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography See provider site Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record No named device first-in-human study found on the public pages reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Live multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you need site management and regulatory support in the Dominican Republic, Registrum’s published services match.

    If the job is a first-in-human or early feasibility study for a medical device, bioaccess® is a specialist built for exactly that, running device studies in Latin America since 2010. When the study ends, the same company can register and hold the device across the region through its market access service. Ask any CRO or site on your list, including Registrum Group, for a named or de-identified device first-in-human study: device class, implant or not, number of patients, ISO 14155 monitoring plan and how the data was used in an FDA file.

    For the local regulatory path, see CRO in Dominican Republic. Other Latin American CROs are compared in the guide to first-in-human device CROs in Latin America and on the bioaccess® compare hub.

    Ready to compare a proposal? Request a first-in-human study proposal.

    Facts from the Registrum Group public pages and registries linked above, reviewed for bioaccess® competitive research (Oct 2026). Claims are theirs. No invented sponsors, prices or contacts.

  • Accuracy Research vs a First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Accuracy Research into a search box, you are probably building a CRO or site shortlist for Ecuador. This article uses only what is public about Accuracy Research (www.accuracyresearch.com) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It is a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What Accuracy Research publishes

    Accuracy Research presents itself as a CRO company in Latin America based in Quito, Ecuador. Its site covers clinical trials, decentralized trials, pharmacovigilance, regulatory affairs and quality topics.

    Accuracy Research vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Accuracy Research bioaccess®
    Core focus Drug CRO, Ecuador First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography See provider site Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record No named device first-in-human study found on the public pages reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Live multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you need an Ecuador-based CRO for drug or vaccine trials, Accuracy Research’s published services match.

    If the job is a first-in-human or early feasibility study for a medical device, bioaccess® is a specialist built for exactly that, running device studies in Latin America since 2010. When the study ends, the same company can register and hold the device across the region through its market access service. Ask any CRO or site on your list, including Accuracy Research, for a named or de-identified device first-in-human study: device class, implant or not, number of patients, ISO 14155 monitoring plan and how the data was used in an FDA file.

    For the local regulatory path, see CRO in Ecuador. Other Latin American CROs are compared in the guide to first-in-human device CROs in Latin America and on the bioaccess® compare hub.

    Ready to compare a proposal? Request a first-in-human study proposal.

    Facts from the Accuracy Research public pages and registries linked above, reviewed for bioaccess® competitive research (Oct 2026). Claims are theirs. No invented sponsors, prices or contacts.

  • STEER vs a First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed STEER into a search box, you are probably building a CRO or site shortlist for Ecuador. This article uses only what is public about STEER (ARCSA register of contract research organizations) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It is a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What STEER publishes

    STEER Centro de Administración y Asesoría en Investigación Clínica Cía. Ltda. is a Quito-based company listed in the national register of contract research organizations kept by Ecuador’s regulator ARCSA.

    STEER vs bioaccess®

    Dimension STEER bioaccess®
    Core focus Clinical research administration, Ecuador First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography See provider site Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record No named device first-in-human study found on the public pages reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Live multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you need an ARCSA-registered local organization for clinical research administration in Ecuador, STEER’s registration matches.

    If the job is a first-in-human or early feasibility study for a medical device, bioaccess® is a specialist built for exactly that, running device studies in Latin America since 2010. When the study ends, the same company can register and hold the device across the region through its market access service. Ask any CRO or site on your list, including STEER, for a named or de-identified device first-in-human study: device class, implant or not, number of patients, ISO 14155 monitoring plan and how the data was used in an FDA file.

    For the local regulatory path, see CRO in Ecuador. Other Latin American CROs are compared in the guide to first-in-human device CROs in Latin America and on the bioaccess® compare hub.

    Ready to compare a proposal? Request a first-in-human study proposal.

    Facts from the STEER public pages and registries linked above, reviewed for bioaccess® competitive research (Oct 2026). Claims are theirs. No invented sponsors, prices or contacts.

  • TRIAL (Therapeutic Research Institute and Lab) vs a First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed TRIAL (Therapeutic Research Institute and Lab) into a search box, you are probably building a CRO or site shortlist for Guatemala. This article uses only what is public about TRIAL (trialresearch.org) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It is a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What TRIAL publishes

    TRIAL describes itself as a CRO and site management organization (SMO) in Guatemala, offering regulatory services, investigational product management including storage and distribution, research site support and continuing education.

    TRIAL vs bioaccess®

    Dimension TRIAL bioaccess®
    Core focus CRO/SMO, regulatory and logistics, Guatemala First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography See provider site Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record No named device first-in-human study found on the public pages reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Live multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you need a Guatemala-based CRO/SMO for regulatory, logistics and site support, TRIAL’s published services match.

    If the job is a first-in-human or early feasibility study for a medical device, bioaccess® is a specialist built for exactly that, running device studies in Latin America since 2010. When the study ends, the same company can register and hold the device across the region through its market access service. Ask any CRO or site on your list, including TRIAL, for a named or de-identified device first-in-human study: device class, implant or not, number of patients, ISO 14155 monitoring plan and how the data was used in an FDA file.

    For the local regulatory path, see CRO in Guatemala. Other Latin American CROs are compared in the guide to first-in-human device CROs in Latin America and on the bioaccess® compare hub.

    Ready to compare a proposal? Request a first-in-human study proposal.

    Facts from the TRIAL public pages and registries linked above, reviewed for bioaccess® competitive research (Oct 2026). Claims are theirs. No invented sponsors, prices or contacts.

  • ICIC (Instituto Costarricense de Investigaciones Clínicas) vs a First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed ICIC (Instituto Costarricense de Investigaciones Clínicas) into a search box, you are probably building a CRO or site shortlist for Costa Rica. This article uses only what is public about ICIC (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04497610) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It is a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What ICIC publishes

    The Instituto Costarricense de Investigaciones Clínicas (ICIC) is a clinical research institution in San José, Costa Rica. It is the lead sponsor on ClinicalTrials.gov of a study of a breath-analyzer system for SARS-CoV-2 detection (NCT04497610).

    ICIC vs bioaccess®

    Dimension ICIC bioaccess®
    Core focus Clinical research institution, Costa Rica First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography See provider site Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record No named device first-in-human study found on the public pages reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Live multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you need a clinical research institution in Costa Rica, ICIC’s public record matches.

    If the job is a first-in-human or early feasibility study for a medical device, bioaccess® is a specialist built for exactly that, running device studies in Latin America since 2010. When the study ends, the same company can register and hold the device across the region through its market access service. Ask any CRO or site on your list, including ICIC, for a named or de-identified device first-in-human study: device class, implant or not, number of patients, ISO 14155 monitoring plan and how the data was used in an FDA file.

    For the local regulatory path, see CRO in Costa Rica. Other Latin American CROs are compared in the guide to first-in-human device CROs in Latin America and on the bioaccess® compare hub.

    Ready to compare a proposal? Request a first-in-human study proposal.

    Facts from the ICIC public pages and registries linked above, reviewed for bioaccess® competitive research (Oct 2026). Claims are theirs. No invented sponsors, prices or contacts.