Category: First-in-Human

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

If you searched CRIO Fortaleza first-in-human, Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia clinical trial, CRIO CRO Brazil, or “go direct CRIO Fortaleza,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Crio – Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia in Fortaleza, Brazil, is a real named oncology-center string on ClinicalTrials.gov. This is the first Fortaleza page in this series. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

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

This page is the named Fortaleza oncology center. It is not Hospital Geral de Fortaleza (a different NCT string; overlap 0 on this canonical string) and it is not Liga Norte Riograndense (in Natal). Sharing a Northeast Brazil oncology search is not a license to collapse them. Casing alias CRIO – Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia stays on this page; we do not ship a second page.

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.

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

These counts are not added together. We will not invent a DEVICE n. First Fortaleza page.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “CRIO Fortaleza first-in-human” or “Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=20 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Hospital Geral de Fortaleza or Liga Norte. A named Fortaleza oncology center is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at CRIO is not a Hospital Geral de Fortaleza file and is not a Liga Norte file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials 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 center

Crio – Centro Regional Integrado de Oncologia is a serious named Fortaleza oncology center on the public registry. ALL n=20 is registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from Hospital Geral de Fortaleza or Liga Norte. 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 CRIO Fortaleza directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

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

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

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

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

Is this Hospital Geral de Fortaleza?

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

Why DEVICE n=0?

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

Did bioaccess® run NCT00567190?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Country: clinical trials in Brazil. Northeast sibling (do not merge): Liga Norte Riograndense.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

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

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

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

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

Alias counts are listed separately. The 20+5+6 counts are not added together.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Hospital Araújo Jorge first-in-human” or “Araujo Jorge Goiânia clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=20 (DEVICE n=1) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Barretos, Camargo, or ICESP. A named Goiânia cancer hospital is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation in Goiânia is not a Barretos file, not a Camargo file, and not an ICESP file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials 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 Araujo Jorge is a serious named Goiânia cancer hospital on the public registry. ALL n=20 and DEVICE n=1 are registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from Barretos, Camargo, or ICESP. 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. 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 Hospital Araújo Jorge Goiânia directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

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

No. Barretos has its own page. A.C. Camargo has its own page. ICESP has its own page. This page is Hospital Araujo Jorge, Goiânia only. First Goiânia page. Accent ALL n=5 and Associação ALL n=6 stay listed separately; we do not combine them.

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

No. Alias n is listed separately. A combined unique-study total is not published. Those strings stay on this page.

Is this Barretos or Camargo?

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

Why DEVICE n=1?

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

Did bioaccess® run NCT00385983?

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

Next step

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

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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 Nacional Arzobispo Loayza Lima as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Hospital Nacional Arzobispo Loayza first-in-human, Loayza Lima clinical trial, Arzobispo Loayza CRO Peru, or “go direct Hospital Nacional Arzobispo Loayza Lima,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Nacional Arzobispo Loayza in Lima, Peru, is a real named national-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 Lima hospital. It is not INEN (NCT overlap 1) and it is not Hospital Nacional Cayetano Heredia (overlap 2). Sharing Lima is not a license to collapse them. City-label alias Hospital Nacional Arzobispo Loayza in Lima Cercado stays on this page; we do not ship a second page. We do not invent a Peruvian legal entity on this page.

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 Nacional Arzobispo Loayza (Lima, Peru) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=20; DEVICE n=2. Example NCT IDs: NCT00653172, NCT00868959, NCT00876798.
• City-label alias Hospital Nacional Arzobispo Loayza (Lima Cercado, Peru): ALL n=3. Listed separately. Same page. No combined total of 20+3. No second page.

These counts are not added together. We do not invent a Peruvian legal entity.

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 “Arzobispo Loayza first-in-human” or “Hospital Nacional Arzobispo Loayza clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=20 (DEVICE n=2) without finding INS, DIGEMID, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on INEN or Cayetano Heredia. A named Lima 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 Loayza is not an INEN file and is not a Cayetano Heredia 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 Nacional Arzobispo Loayza is a serious named Lima national hospital on the public registry. ALL n=20 and DEVICE n=2 are registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from INEN or Cayetano. 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 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 Nacional Arzobispo Loayza Lima 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 INEN Lima or Hospital Nacional Cayetano Heredia?

No. INEN has its own page (overlap 1). Cayetano Heredia hospital has its own page (overlap 2). This page is Hospital Nacional Arzobispo Loayza only. Lima Cercado ALL n=3 stays listed separately; we do not combine them.

Should I add canonical ALL n=20 and Lima Cercado ALL n=3?

No. Alias n is listed separately. A combined unique-study total is not published. Lima Cercado is a city-label on this page.

Is this INEN or Cayetano Heredia?

No. INEN has its own page. Hospital Nacional Cayetano Heredia has its own page. Sharing Lima is not a merge.

Is DIGEMID the only agency?

No. Name both. INS (DIIS, formerly OGITT) authorizes trials. DIGEMID under MINSA regulates devices and investigational import. We will not invent DIGESA.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00653172?

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. Lima siblings (do not merge): INEN Lima, Hospital Nacional Cayetano Heredia.

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 Hospital Carlos Van Buren Valparaíso as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Hospital Carlos Van Buren first-in-human, Van Buren Valparaíso clinical trial, Hospital Carlos Van Buren CRO Chile, or “go direct Hospital Carlos Van Buren Valparaíso,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Carlos Van Buren in Valparaíso, Chile, is a real named public-hospital 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 hospital 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 hospital still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Valparaíso hospital. It is not Hospital Clínico Universidad Católica, not Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, not Universidad Andrés Bello, not FALP, and not Biomedica Research Group Santiago. Valparaíso is not Santiago. Sharing Chile 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 Carlos Van Buren (Valparaíso, Chile) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=20; DEVICE n=3. Example NCT IDs: NCT00022516, NCT00403208, NCT00553410.

We will not invent a combined alias count with Santiago university hospitals. We will not invent PAHO/WHO Level 4 standing for ISP.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Hospital Carlos Van Buren first-in-human” or “Van Buren Valparaíso clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=20 (DEVICE n=3) without finding ISP, Law 20.120, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Católica, UChile, UNAB, FALP, or Biomedica Santiago. A named Valparaíso 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:

• 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 in Valparaíso is not a Católica, UChile, UNAB, FALP, or Biomedica Santiago 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

Hospital Carlos Van Buren is a serious named Valparaíso public hospital on the public registry. ALL n=20 and DEVICE n=3 are registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent PAHO/WHO Level 4 for ISP. It is separate from Santiago campuses. 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 Hospital Carlos Van Buren Valparaíso 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 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 hospital. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Católica, UChile, FALP, or Biomedica Research Group Santiago?

No. Católica has its own page. UChile has its own page. FALP has its own page. Biomedica Santiago has its own page. This page is Hospital Carlos Van Buren, Valparaíso only.

Is this a Santiago university hospital?

No. Valparaíso versus Santiago is the filter. Católica, UChile, UNAB, FALP, and Biomedica Santiago stay on their own pages.

Does ISP have PAHO/WHO Level 4 standing?

We will not invent that claim on this page. Use the live Chile country page. Typical ISP review ~30 business days; commercial ISP registration 30–90 days is a different file.

Why DEVICE n=3?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count. It is still not ISP authorization.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00022516?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Country: clinical trials in Chile. Santiago sibling (do not merge): Biomedica Research Group 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 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 Ana Nery Salvador as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Hospital Ana Nery Salvador first-in-human, Ana Nery Bahia clinical trial, Hospital Ana Nery CRO Brazil, or “go direct Hospital Ana Nery Salvador,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Ana Nery in Salvador, Brazil, is a real named public-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 Salvador hospital. It is not Hospital Sao Rafael (NCT overlap 0) and it is not Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia (separate page; overlap 0). Sharing Salvador is not a license to collapse them. Hospital Ana Nery Santa Cruz do Sul is a different city in Rio Grande do Sul — not this page and not a second Salvador page.

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 Ana Nery (Salvador, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=20; DEVICE n=3. Example NCT IDs: NCT01722942, NCT01868243, NCT02230150.

We will not invent a combined alias count with Hospital Ana Nery Santa Cruz do Sul.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Hospital Ana Nery Salvador first-in-human” or “Ana Nery Bahia clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=20 (DEVICE n=3) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Sao Rafael or Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia. A named Salvador hospital is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at Hospital Ana Nery Salvador is not a Sao Rafael file and is not a Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia 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 Ana Nery Salvador is a serious named public hospital on the public registry. ALL n=20 and DEVICE n=3 are registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from Sao Rafael, Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia, or Santa Cruz do Sul. 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 Ana Nery Salvador 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 Sao Rafael or Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia?

No. Sao Rafael has its own page (overlap 0). Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia is a different organization (overlap 0). Santa Cruz do Sul is another city, not this row.

Is this Hospital Ana Nery in Santa Cruz do Sul?

No. That is a different city. This page is Hospital Ana Nery, Salvador only. We do not ship a second page for Santa Cruz do Sul.

Is this Hospital Sao Rafael?

No. That is Hospital São Rafael. NCT overlap with this canonical string is 0.

Why DEVICE n=3?

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

Did bioaccess® run NCT01722942?

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. Salvador siblings (do not merge): Hospital Sao Rafael, Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia.

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 Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia Salvador as a bioaccess® client.

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

This page is the named Salvador oncology center. It is not Hospital Sao Rafael. NCT overlap with Hospital Sao Rafael on this canonical string is 4. Sharing Salvador is not a license to collapse them. Accent alias Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia and short NOB – Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia stay on this page; we do not ship second pages.

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.

• Nucleo de Oncologia da Bahia (Salvador, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=21; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT00036647, NCT00080340, NCT00337103.
• Accent alias Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia: ALL n=9. Listed separately. Same page. No combined total of 21+9. No second page.
• Short alias NOB – Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia: ALL n=4. Listed separately. Same page. No combined total. No second page.

Alias counts are listed separately. These counts are not added together.

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 “Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia first-in-human” or “NOB Salvador clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=21 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Hospital Sao Rafael. A named Salvador oncology center is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia is not a Hospital Sao Rafael 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 center

Nucleo de Oncologia da Bahia is a serious named Salvador oncology center on the public registry. ALL n=21 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. 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 Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia Salvador directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Hospital Sao Rafael Salvador?

No. Hospital Sao Rafael has its own page (NCT overlap 4 on this canonical string). This page is Nucleo de Oncologia da Bahia, Salvador only. Accent ALL n=9 and NOB ALL n=4 stay listed separately; we do not combine them.

Should I add canonical ALL n=21, accent ALL n=9, and NOB ALL n=4?

No. Alias n is listed separately. A combined unique-study total is not published. Those strings stay on this page.

Is this Hospital Sao Rafael?

No. That is Hospital São Rafael. Same city is not the same NCT string. NCT overlap is 4. We link that page as a sibling.

Why DEVICE n=0?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=21 is still not ANVISA authorization. Combined ethics + ANVISA is typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs 30 business days; published per-patient $20,000–$35,000 on the Brazil country page.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00036647?

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. Salvador sibling (do not merge): Hospital Sao Rafael. Country: clinical trials in Brazil.

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 Instituto CAICI Rosario as a bioaccess® client.

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

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

This page is the named Rosario CAICI institute. It is not Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas Rosario (NCT overlap 0 on this canonical string), not Instituto de Oncología de Rosario (overlap 1), not Hospital Provincial del Centenario, and not INECO Neurociencias Oroño. Sharing Rosario is not a license to collapse them. Legal-suffix alias Instituto CAICI SRL and short alias CAICI stay on this page; we do not ship second pages.

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 CAICI (Rosario, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=21; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT00080340, NCT00089804, NCT00388726.
• Legal-suffix alias Instituto CAICI SRL: ALL n=9. Listed separately. Same page. No combined unique-study total of 21+9. No second page.
• Short alias CAICI: ALL n=6. Listed separately. Same page. No combined total. No second page.

Alias counts are listed separately. These counts are not added together. We will not invent a DEVICE n.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instituto CAICI is a serious named Rosario research institute on the public registry. ALL n=21 is registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from IIC Rosario, Oncología Rosario, Centenario, or INECO. 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 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 Instituto CAICI Rosario directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas Rosario or Instituto de Oncología de Rosario?

No. IIC Rosario has its own page (NCT overlap 0). Oncología Rosario has its own page (overlap 1). This page is Instituto CAICI, Rosario only. SRL ALL n=9 and short CAICI ALL n=6 stay listed separately; we do not combine them.

Should I add canonical ALL n=21, SRL ALL n=9, and short ALL n=6?

No. Alias n is listed separately. A combined unique-study total is not published. Those strings stay on this page.

Is this IIC Rosario or Oncología Rosario?

No. IIC Rosario has its own page. Oncología Rosario has its own page. Sharing Rosario is not a merge key.

Why DEVICE n=0?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=21 is still not ANMAT authorization. Trial versus registro remain different petitions.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00080340?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Rosario siblings (do not merge): IIC Rosario, Instituto de Oncología de Rosario.

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 Clínica de Neoplasias Litoral Itajaí as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Clinica de Neoplasias Litoral Itajaí first-in-human, Neoplasias Litoral clinical trial, Litoral CRO Brazil, or “go direct Clínica de Neoplasias Litoral Itajaí,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Clinica de Neoplasias Litoral in Itajaí, Brazil, is a real named oncology-clinic string on ClinicalTrials.gov. This is the first Itajaí page in this series. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the clinic 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 clinic still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Itajaí oncology clinic. It is not Centro de Investigaciones Clínicas del Litoral in Santa Fe, Argentina. NCT overlap is 0. “Litoral” in the name is not a merge key. Brazil versus Argentina is the filter. It is not Liga Norte Riograndense, not Barretos, and not A.C. Camargo.

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 de Neoplasias Litoral (Itajaí, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=21; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT00545688, NCT00781612, NCT00849667.

We will not invent a combined alias count with Centro de Investigaciones Clínicas del Litoral Santa Fe. We will not invent a DEVICE n. First Itajaí page. NCT overlap with the Santa Fe Litoral string is 0.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Clínica de Neoplasias Litoral Itajaí first-in-human” or “Neoplasias Litoral clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=21 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Litoral Santa Fe, Liga Norte, Barretos, or Camargo. A named Itajaí oncology 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:

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation in Itajaí is not a Santa Fe Litoral file, not a Liga Norte file, not a Barretos file, and not a Camargo 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 clinic

Clinica de Neoplasias Litoral is a serious named Itajaí oncology clinic on the public registry. ALL n=21 is registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from Centro de Investigaciones Clínicas del Litoral Santa Fe, Liga Norte, Barretos, or Camargo. 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. 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 de Neoplasias Litoral Itajaí 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 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 clinic. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Centro de Investigaciones Clínicas del Litoral Santa Fe, Liga Norte, Barretos, or A.C. Camargo?

No. Litoral Santa Fe has its own page in Argentina (NCT overlap 0). Liga Norte has its own page. Barretos has its own page. A.C. Camargo has its own page. This page is Clinica de Neoplasias Litoral, Itajaí only. First Itajaí page.

Is this Centro de Investigaciones Clínicas del Litoral in Santa Fe?

No. That is Centro de Investigaciones Clínicas del Litoral. Argentina versus Brazil is the filter. “Litoral” in the name is not a merge key. NCT overlap is 0.

Is this Liga Norte, Barretos, or Camargo?

No. Those are already-live Brazilian oncology pages in other cities. This page is the Itajaí named clinic.

Why DEVICE n=0?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count for this string. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=21 is still not ANVISA authorization. Combined ethics + ANVISA is typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs 30 business days; published per-patient $20,000–$35,000 on the Brazil country page.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00545688?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Country: clinical trials in Brazil. Santa Fe sibling (do not merge): Centro de Investigaciones Clínicas del Litoral.

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 CEPHO Santo André as a bioaccess® client.

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

This page is the named CEPHO Santo André center. It is not Faculdade de Medicina do ABC and it is not Pesquisare Saúde (separate page). NCT overlap with both canonical strings is 0. Sharing Santo André is not a license to collapse them. Preposition alias CEPHO – Centro de Estudos e Pesquisas em Hematologia e Oncologia stays on this page; we do not ship a second page.

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.

• CEPHO – Centro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Hematologia e Oncologia (Santo André, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=21; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT03088813, NCT03523585, NCT03529110.
• Preposition alias CEPHO – Centro de Estudos e Pesquisas em Hematologia e Oncologia: ALL n=8. Listed separately. Same page. We do not invent a combined unique-study total of 21+8. We do not ship a second page for “em” versus “de.”

These counts are not added together. We will not invent a DEVICE n.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “CEPHO Santo André first-in-human” or “Centro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Hematologia e Oncologia clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=21 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on FMABC or Pesquisare. A named hematology/oncology center is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CEPHO is a serious named Santo André hematology/oncology research center on the public registry. ALL n=21 is registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from FMABC or Pesquisare. 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. 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 CEPHO Santo André directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Faculdade de Medicina do ABC or Pesquisare Saúde Santo André?

No. FMABC has its own page (overlap 0). Pesquisare is a different organization (overlap 0). This page is CEPHO Santo André only. “Em” ALL n=8 stays listed separately; we do not combine them.

Should I add canonical ALL n=21 and “em” ALL n=8?

No. Alias n is listed separately. A combined unique-study total is not published. “Em” versus “de” is the same CEPHO campus on the same page.

Is this FMABC or Pesquisare?

No. Same city is not the same NCT string. Overlap with both canonical strings is 0.

Why DEVICE n=0?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count for this string. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=21 is still not ANVISA authorization. Combined ethics + ANVISA is typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs 30 business days; published per-patient $20,000–$35,000 on the Brazil country page.

Did bioaccess® run NCT03088813?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Santo André siblings (do not merge): Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Pesquisare Saúde.

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 Biomedica Research Group Santiago as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Biomedica Research Group Santiago first-in-human, BioMedica Research Group Chile clinical trial, Biomedica CRO Chile, or “go direct Biomedica Research Group Santiago,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Biomedica Research Group in Santiago, Chile, is a real named research-group string on ClinicalTrials.gov. Same class as Clinstile and FAICIC. 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 group 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 group still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Santiago research-group row. It is not Hospital Clínico Universidad Católica, not Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, not Universidad Andrés Bello, not FALP, and not Club de Leones Cruz del Sur. Sharing Santiago is not a license to collapse them. Punta Arenas is not this campus. Casing alias BioMedica Research Group stays on this page; we do not ship a second page.

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.

• Biomedica Research Group (Santiago, Chile) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=21; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT01224106, NCT01371708, NCT01371734.
• Casing alias BioMedica Research Group: ALL n=7. Listed separately. Same page. We do not invent a combined unique-study total of 21+7. We do not ship a second page for the capital M.

These counts are not added together. We will not invent a DEVICE n. We will not invent PAHO/WHO Level 4 standing for ISP.

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 group as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Biomedica Research Group Santiago first-in-human” or “BioMedica Chile clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=21 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ISP, Law 20.120, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Católica, UChile, UNAB, FALP, or Club de Leones. A named research group is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

A named group 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 group 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 group 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 this Santiago research-group row is not a Católica, UChile, UNAB, FALP, or Punta Arenas 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 group

Biomedica Research Group is a serious named Santiago research group on the public registry. ALL n=21 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent PAHO/WHO Level 4 for ISP. It is separate from Católica, UChile, UNAB, FALP, or Club de Leones. 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. 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 Biomedica Research Group Santiago directly for a device FIH?

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

Is this the same page as Católica, UChile, UNAB, FALP, or Club de Leones Cruz del Sur?

No. Católica has its own page. UChile has its own page. UNAB has its own page. FALP has its own page. Club de Leones has its own page (Punta Arenas). This page is Biomedica Research Group, Santiago only. BioMedica ALL n=7 stays listed separately; we do not combine them.

Should I add canonical ALL n=21 and BioMedica ALL n=7?

No. Alias n is listed separately. A combined unique-study total is not published. The capital M is the same Santiago campus on the same page.

Is this FALP or a Santiago university hospital?

No. FALP has its own page. Católica has its own page. UChile has its own page. UNAB has its own page. This page is Biomedica Research Group only.

Does ISP have PAHO/WHO Level 4 standing?

We will not invent that claim on this page. Use the live Chile country page for what is actually published. Typical ISP review ~30 business days; commercial ISP registration 30–90 days is a different file.

Why DEVICE n=0?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count for this string. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=21 is still not ISP authorization.

Did bioaccess® run NCT01224106?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Country: clinical trials in Chile. Santiago sibling (do not merge): FALP.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®