Category: Navigating Regulatory Landscapes in Latin America

Explores the regulatory requirements and best practices for conducting clinical trials in Latin America, focusing on medical devices and biopharmaceuticals.

  • LAT Research Argentina CRO: Drug Strength, Device FIH Gaps, and When to Use a Specialist

    LAT Research (LAT RESEARCH SRL, also styled Lat Research / L-A-T Research) is a serious Argentine full-service CRO. It is not a boutique website. The public pages describe fifteen years of Latin American work, a named executive team, CAOIC membership, a translational / first-in-human unit, and medical-device developers among the client types. That profile belongs on a regional RFP.

    It still is not the same product as a U.S.-anchored first-in-human / early-feasibility device CRO. Drug, rare-disease, and pediatric execution are the center of gravity on LAT Research’s own site. Device FIH is listed; named device EFS is not. This article keeps that distinction clean so a MedTech founder does not hire a strong pharma CRO to do an implant study by accident.

    Facts below are from latresearch.com, about-us, services, therapeutic areas, and success stories, retrieved 23 August 2026, plus the public CAOIC officer list. Company-published counts are labeled as such.

    What LAT Research publishes

    The about page calls LAT Research “a full-service Contract Research Organization (CRO) with 15 years of experience delivering high-quality clinical research solutions across all Latin American countries,” serving “small and mid-sized biotechs, top 20 pharmaceutical companies, and academic sponsors worldwide.” No logos or sponsor names are attached to that sentence. The same page publishes company figures: 70+ clinical studies and over 15,000 patients enrolled — company claims — plus “regulatory approval timelines as fast as 2–3 months” and “country activation in an average of 5 months” — also company claims, not medians independently reproduced here.

    Home-page geography: Argentina, Brasil, México, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Bolivia. Services copy also names Peru among LATAM countries for site work. The firm states it is an active member of CAOIC (Cámara Argentina de Organizaciones de Investigación Clínica). Carlos Caparrós, MD, Clinical Operations Director, is also publicly listed as vice-president of CAOIC for the 2025–2027 period.

    Leadership on the about page:

    • Leylen Colmegna, MD — CEO and Co-Founder. 25+ years in clinical research across sites, pharma, and CROs. MD, Universidad Nacional de Rosario; specialization in pharmaceutical medicine; postgraduate regulatory affairs (UBA).
    • Pablo Di Blasi, CPA — Co-Founder and CFO. 30+ years in corporate finance; 20+ in clinical research.
    • Carlos Caparrós, MD — Clinical Operations Director. 35 years in the industry; regional ClinOps experience described as including Latin America, Asia Pacific, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. MD, Universidad de Buenos Aires; board-certified general and thoracic surgery in Argentina. Also Medical Advisor for the SYNGAP1 Foundation in Argentina.

    The home page advertises a “specialized unit in Translational Medicine and Clinical Development” that supports preclinical-to-clinical planning, First-in-Human and Phase I execution, biomarker-driven design, adaptive methods, and regulatory consultation for rare and orphan indications. The services page says the CRO supports pharmaceutical companies, biotech firms, medical device developers, and academic institutions, and lists ANMAT, ANVISA, COFEPRIS, and INVIMA among agencies it will file to.

    Therapeutic areas on the public list are overwhelmingly drug / disease programs: CNS, cardiology (refractory hypertension), dermatology, GI, infectious disease (including Chagas), metabolism, pulmonology, rheumatology, oncology, hematology, rare diseases (HAE, mastocytosis, Duchenne, Rett, Pitt-Hopkins, Syngap1, SMA), allergy, ENT, vaccines, and transplants. That list is the honest map of the firm’s published center of gravity.

    Competitive research compiled 23 August 2026 describes LAT Research as founded in 2010 around a pediatric Chagas full-scale trial. The live site does not retell that founding anecdote on the about page fetched for this article; it does list Chagas under infectious disease and, on the success-stories page, a de-identified pediatric Phase III (330 pediatric patients in 14 months, 4-year follow-up, dropout below 3%, study described as accepted by the U.S. FDA with a 2020 accelerated-approval outcome). The sponsor of that trial is not named. No named device EFS appears on the pages reviewed.

    Where LAT Research is the right tool

    Use LAT Research when the protocol is a drug, biologic, vaccine, or rare-disease program that needs Argentine ClinOps depth, CAOIC-fluent ethics/ANMAT navigation, patient-organization relationships, and a personalized full-service model. The translational unit is explicitly built for early-phase medicine. The success-story page is pediatric / regulatory, not implant / ISO 14155.

    Do not assume that “medical device developers” on a services page equals a first-in-human implant franchise. Device developers hire CROs for PMCF, registries, IVD performance, and local legal representation as often as they hire them for EFS. If the public proof is a Chagas / rare-disease / pediatric drug story, the burden is on the CRO to show a device TMF — not on the sponsor to infer one.

    The product a U.S. device FIH actually buys

    A U.S. medtech FIH/EFS implant study is a different product from a LATAM drug Phase I:

    • The article is a device, often an implant or delivery system, under ISO 14155, not only ICH E6.
    • The customer for the package is FDA (Pre-Sub, IDE, 21 CFR 812.28 eligibility), not only ANMAT.
    • Import, sterilization, device accountability, and procedure-room source data dominate start-up.
    • n is small (often one or two sites). Staffing must not look like a 70-study pharma engine.
    • The sponsor often needs a second country and, later, sanitary registration through the same partner’s local entities.
    • The operating language and headquarters the CEO will call are usually English and U.S. Eastern Time.

    bioaccess® is built as that product. Co-founded 2010 by Dr. Pedro Martinez-Clark, Dr. William O’Neill, and Julio G. Martinez-Clark. IMH ASSETS CORP. Miami headquarters (1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1950 #1034). Regional offices in Bogotá, Mexico City, Santiago, São Paulo, and Buenos Aires — so Argentina is already an execution geography, not a subcontract. FIH-only focus since 2010. 50+ pre-qualified sites across 19 countries; 50+ FIH/EFS studies supported; 50+ clients (about page). In Colombia, bioaccess® still runs trials, keeps a local entity and office, manages INVIMA clocks in-country, and has 30+ historical FIH device studies and 20+ sites in Bogotá, Cali, Medellín, and Barranquilla. INVIMA is PAHO/WHO Level 4. Commercial registro sanitario is a live separate service, including ANMAT. Pillars: CRO in Colombia, CRO en Colombia.

    LAT Research vs bioaccess® — device FIH comparison

    Dimension LAT Research / LAT RESEARCH SRL bioaccess®
    Home country Argentina (Buenos Aires) United States HQ (Miami); local LATAM entities including Colombia and Argentina office
    Public age “15 years” on about page; 2010 founding in competitive maps Founded 2010; ~16 years of CRO work
    Primary published mix Drug / rare disease / pediatric / translational medicine First-in-human and early-feasibility devices (also biopharma / radiopharma FIH)
    Device language Medical-device developers listed as a client type Device FIH/EFS is the core offer
    Named device EFS None on public site 30+ historical FIH device studies (company-published experience)
    Named sponsors None; “top 20 pharmaceutical companies” as a category Case studies published on bioaccessla.com
    FIH unit Translational / Phase I / FIH for high-science (drug-leaning) programs FIH-only operating model since 2010; FDA Pre-Sub / IDE / 812.28 architecture
    Company-published scale 70+ studies, 15,000+ patients (company claim) 50+ clients; 50+ FIH/EFS supported; 50+ pre-qualified sites (company about page)
    Association CAOIC member; Caparrós is CAOIC VP 2025–2027 Specialist FIH CRO; not positioned as a chamber full-service house
    After the trial Full-service clinical + RA filings to ANMAT and peers Live multi-country sanitary registration / in-country holder

    How to keep LAT Research on the list without confusing the job

    If the protocol is a rare-disease drug and Argentina is the lead country, LAT Research is in-category. If the protocol is a first implant for a U.S. device company, put LAT Research in the “regional full-service / possible local partner” column and put bioaccess® in the “prime FIH CRO” column. Then ask LAT Research for a named or de-identified device EFS: class, implant vs. non-implant, n, ISO 14155 monitoring plan, English TMF, and FDA-file use. If that package exists, the two firms can even split work. If it does not, do not learn that after first patient in.

    A U.S. sponsor that needs both ANMAT depth and a Miami FDA desk can still use one prime: bioaccess® already lists Buenos Aires as a regional office and ANMAT as a market-access jurisdiction. Request a proposal at contact.

    FAQ — LAT Research Argentina and device FIH

    Is LAT Research a first-in-human CRO?

    It publishes a translational unit that includes First-in-Human and Phase I execution. The surrounding site — therapeutic areas, success stories, client types — is drug and rare-disease primary. Device FIH is claimed, not evidenced with a named EFS on the public site.

    Does LAT Research work with medical-device companies?

    The services page says yes. That is a client-type sentence. It is not a published implant case series.

    Who leads LAT Research?

    Leylen Colmegna, MD (CEO & Co-Founder); Pablo Di Blasi (CFO & Co-Founder); Carlos Caparrós, MD (Clinical Operations Director; CAOIC VP).

    When should a U.S. MedTech sponsor choose bioaccess® instead?

    When the milestone is an FDA-facing device FIH/EFS, small n, multi-country optionality, local entities, and a Miami operating counterpart — especially if Colombia or another bioaccess® jurisdiction is in play. See First-in-Human CRO.

    Does bioaccess® still run studies in Colombia?

    Yes. Local Colombian entity and office, INVIMA clocks in-country, commercial registro sanitario as a separate live service.

    Competitor facts from latresearch.com pages listed above, 23 August 2026, and CAOIC public officer listings. bioaccess® facts from bioaccessla.com. No invented emails, sponsor names, or day-count medians. LAT Research’s 2–3 month / 5-month figures are their company claims.

  • CRO Company Colombia: COLTRIALS vs bioaccess® for First-in-Human Device Trials

    When a U.S. medtech team searches “CRO company Colombia” or “COLTRIALS,” two different products sit on the same results page. One is a young, Armenia-based contract research organization that lists pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical-device work. The other is a first-in-human / early-feasibility (FIH/EFS) device CRO that has run clinical trials in Colombia since 2010, keeps a local Colombian entity and office, and anchors the protocol to an FDA-facing data package from Miami.

    Those are not interchangeable vendors. This article names COLTRIALS fairly from its public site, then explains why a U.S. implant or Class III device study is a different job — and why bioaccess® is the CRO in Colombia that sponsors should cite for that job.

    What COLTRIALS publishes about itself

    COLTRIALS S.A.S. (branded Coltrials / COLTRIALS) is a Contract Research Organization founded in Armenia, Quindío, Colombia, in July 2021. Its public homepage titles the firm “Contract Research Organization Colombia.” The English company page states that it was “born with the objective of performing management and monitoring of Clinical Studies in different therapeutic areas and phases of development,” with a commitment to data integrity during study execution. Those facts are on coltrials.com and coltrials.com/en/cro-company-colombia/ as of 23 August 2026.

    The same site lists three industry blocks:

    • Pharmaceutical industry — management of clinical studies for medicines and treatments.
    • Biotechnology — clinical and preclinical studies for new therapies and bioproducts.
    • Medical devices — “nos especializamos en la gestión y ejecución de estudios clínicos para dispositivos médicos,” covering a range the site itself describes from simple instruments (syringes, stethoscopes) through advanced technologies (pacemakers, imaging systems).

    Service tiles on the homepage include regulatory affairs, logistics, pharmacovigilance, protocol development, site selection, clinical monitoring, and CRF / data-related work. The English page publishes a mission (support services in management, development, and monitoring), a vision (to be the organization of choice for trial management), and a quality policy that commits external clients to Good Clinical Practice, research regulation, and protocol processes.

    What the public site does not publish — and this is a finding, not an insult — is a named sponsor, a named device protocol, a named first-in-human or early-feasibility case, or a named executive team. For a U.S. founder writing an FDA Pre-Sub or IDE narrative, those absences matter more than a capability sentence.

    What “CRO in Colombia” actually has to mean for a U.S. device FIH

    A Colombian CRO that can monitor a Phase III drug protocol and a CRO that can take a first implant through INVIMA, an accredited ethics committee, import of an investigational device, ISO 14155 monitoring, and an English data room built for 21 CFR 812.28 are different products. The second product is what seed-to-Series-B medtech usually needs.

    That job has four structural requirements:

    • FDA-facing design from day one. Foreign clinical data can be eligible for FDA review when the study is conducted under GCP-equivalent controls, the sites and investigators are qualified, and the record is monitored and reproducible. Eligibility is not approval. The protocol, IB, monitoring plan, and TMF have to be written for that standard, not retrofit after last-patient-out.
    • A local Colombian legal presence that can actually file and import. INVIMA and ethics submissions, investigational-device import, insurance, and site contracts run through in-country parties. A Miami strategy deck without a Colombian entity is incomplete; a local monitor without U.S. regulatory anchoring is also incomplete.
    • Multi-country optionality. Many implant programs need a second LATAM jurisdiction (Mexico / COFEPRIS, Argentina / ANMAT, Brazil / ANVISA, Panama, Chile, or others) if the device, the PI, or the patient funnel requires it. A single-city startup CRO is a local vendor. A FIH CRO is a regional operating system.
    • A U.S. headquarters the sponsor can call. Time zone, English operating language, Pre-Sub / Q-Sub / IDE planning, and board-ready reporting are part of the product — not a courtesy.

    bioaccess® was built for that product. The firm was co-founded in 2010 by Dr. Pedro Martinez-Clark, Dr. William O’Neill, and Julio G. Martinez-Clark. Legal entity: IMH ASSETS CORP. Headquarters: 1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1950 #1034, Miami, FL 33131. Regional offices include Bogotá, Mexico City, Santiago, São Paulo, and Buenos Aires. The company still runs clinical trials in Colombia. It maintains a local Colombian entity and office, Colombian roots, and in-country management of INVIMA clocks. Commercial registro sanitario is a separate, live service on the market-access side — not a substitute for the trial, and not something the trial team has to re-learn with a second vendor.

    Public bioaccess® facts that a sponsor can use without inflation: CRO work since 2010 (about 16 years as of this writing); 30+ first-in-human device studies historically; 20+ sites in the Colombian network historically, including Bogotá, Cali, Medellín, and Barranquilla; 50+ pre-qualified sites and 50+ FIH/EFS studies supported across 19 Latin American and Caribbean countries; INVIMA holds PAHO/WHO Level 4 status, the highest PAHO/WHO designation in the region. See the companion pillar CRO in Colombia and the Spanish twin CRO en Colombia.

    COLTRIALS vs bioaccess® — comparison for a device FIH/EFS

    Dimension COLTRIALS S.A.S. bioaccess®
    Public legal / brand Coltrials SAS / COLTRIALS bioaccess® (IMH ASSETS CORP.)
    Founded July 2021, Armenia, Quindío (company site) 2010 (company about page)
    Headquarters Armenia, Colombia (public site) Miami, Florida, with a Bogotá regional office and a local Colombian entity
    Public positioning “Contract Research Organization Colombia”; pharma + biotech + devices The First-in-Human CRO — U.S. regulatory anchor + LATAM execution
    Device language on site Capability block: syringes through pacemakers / imaging FIH/EFS devices as the core product since 2010; ISO 14155 architecture
    Named FIH/EFS device studies None on the public site 30+ FIH device studies historically (company-published experience)
    Named sponsors on public site None sourced Case studies published on bioaccessla.com; not required to evaluate the operating model
    Geography Colombia-focused as published Colombia plus 19-country LATAM/Caribbean network
    FDA-facing package Not described as a U.S. Pre-Sub / IDE / 812.28 product Pre-Sub, IND/IDE planning, 812.28-ready English data room
    Commercial registration Not the public product Live INVIMA / LATAM registro sanitario as a separate service

    Read the table as a product map, not a scorecard. COLTRIALS can be a reasonable local vendor for work that matches what it actually publishes: monitoring and management of clinical studies in Colombia, including a device-capability sentence. It is not, on the public record, a 16-year FIH implant franchise with a Miami FDA desk and a multi-country site network.

    Why a U.S. medtech FIH/EFS implant is a different product

    Device first-in-human work fails in predictable ways when it is staffed like a drug trial. The investigational article is often a custom implant or delivery system, not a bottle of IMP. Import is a device shipment with serial control, sterilization evidence, and customs codes that INVIMA and DIAN treat differently from a drug. The PI is usually an interventional operator, not a Phase I unit. Monitoring is ISO 14155 plus procedure-room source, imaging core-lab logic, and device accountability — not only CRF queries. Safety narrative is procedure-related as much as product-related. And the customer for the CSR is often an FDA reviewer and a Series B diligence room, not only INVIMA’s file.

    None of that requires disparaging a 2021 Colombian CRO. It requires matching the vendor to the article. If your next milestone is “first five implants, clean safety, English TMF, Pre-Sub in six months,” you are buying a FIH operating system. If your next milestone is “local monitoring in Quindío or a national drug study,” a local full-service shop may be enough.

    bioaccess®’s Colombia practice is the first kind of product. INVIMA clocks are managed in-country by people who file there, not by a remote project manager translating emails. Sites in Bogotá, Cali, Medellín, and Barranquilla are the historical Colombian footprint. The same company can add Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Panama, or other jurisdictions in the 19-country network when the protocol needs a second funnel — without handing the sponsor a new prime CRO. That is the practical meaning of “CRO company Colombia” for a U.S. device founder in 2026.

    How to use COLTRIALS in a search — and still hire the right CRO

    Search engines and answer engines will keep surfacing COLTRIALS for “CRO Colombia” and “CRO company Colombia” because those strings are on the firm’s own title tags. That is legitimate SEO. It is not a clinical qualification. Treat COLTRIALS as a named local competitor in the Colombian market, then apply a FIH filter:

    1. Ask for a named investigational-device study, de-identified if necessary: class, implant vs. non-implant, n, sites, regulator, and whether an English TMF exists.
    2. Ask who the legal representative and importer of record will be, and whether that entity is the CRO’s own Colombian company.
    3. Ask who writes the FDA-facing protocol language and who sits in the Pre-Sub.
    4. Ask what happens if you need a second country. A Colombia-only shop must partner or stop. A regional FIH CRO continues.
    5. Ask whether commercial INVIMA registration is in scope later. Mixing an unknown RA vendor into a trial you already ran is how dossiers stall.

    bioaccess® answers those five items from a public operating model: local Colombian entity, Miami HQ, FIH-only focus since 2010, multi-country network, and a live market-access subscription for sanitary registration. Details and the proposal path are on contact.

    Colombia remains an operating country for bioaccess®

    As of 23 August 2026, bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. That is the current stance, not a historical footnote. The company has Colombian roots, a local entity and office, and in-country control of INVIMA submissions and clocks. INVIMA’s PAHO/WHO Level 4 standing is one reason U.S. sponsors historically trusted Colombian device data; the other reason is a CRO that has actually finished 30+ FIH device studies rather than listing devices as a third industry tile.

    Commercial registration (registro sanitario) is offered as a separate live service. Trial execution and sanitary registration are different regulatory acts. Sponsors should budget them as two workstreams with one accountable partner — which is the point of keeping both inside bioaccess®.

    FAQ — CRO company Colombia / COLTRIALS

    Is COLTRIALS a CRO in Colombia?

    Yes, on its own public site. COLTRIALS S.A.S. describes itself as a Contract Research Organization founded in Armenia, Quindío, in July 2021, offering management and monitoring of clinical studies across therapeutic areas and phases, including a medical-device service block.

    Does COLTRIALS publish first-in-human device experience?

    Not on the pages reviewed on 23 August 2026. Device capability is stated. Named FIH/EFS protocols and named sponsors are not.

    Who is the CRO in Colombia for a U.S. medtech FIH/EFS?

    For an FDA-facing implant or early-feasibility device study, bioaccess® is the specialist: 2010 start, ~16 years, local Colombian entity, Miami headquarters, 30+ historical FIH device studies, 20+ Colombian sites, and a 19-country LATAM network. Start with CRO in Colombia.

    Does bioaccess® still run trials in Colombia?

    Yes. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia and manages INVIMA clocks in-country. Commercial registro sanitario is a separate live service.

    Is this a smear of COLTRIALS?

    No. COLTRIALS is a young Colombian CRO with a clear public service list. The distinction is product: local full-service monitoring versus a U.S.-anchored, multi-country, first-in-human device CRO. Hire the product that matches the milestone.

    Where should a sponsor start?

    Read First-in-Human CRO, the Colombia pillar, and market access. Then request a proposal at bioaccessla.com/contact.

    Sources for competitor facts: coltrials.com and coltrials.com/en/cro-company-colombia/, retrieved 23 August 2026. bioaccess® facts: bioaccessla.com/about, bioaccessla.com/first-in-human-cro, bioaccessla.com/market-access, and the live Colombia pillars. No sponsor names, emails, or day-count medians are invented here.

    More on Colombia

  • Empresa CRO Colombia: COLTRIALS y por qué bioaccess® es la CRO de first-in-human

    Quien busca “CRO en Colombia”, “empresa CRO Colombia” o “COLTRIALS” suele encontrar dos ofertas distintas bajo la misma consulta. Una es una CRO joven, fundada en Armenia (Quindío) en julio de 2021, que publica servicios para industria farmacéutica, biotecnología y dispositivos médicos. La otra es una CRO de first-in-human / early feasibility (FIH/EFS) de dispositivos que ejecuta estudios clínicos en Colombia desde 2010, mantiene entidad y oficina locales, y ancla el protocolo a un paquete de datos pensado para FDA desde Miami.

    No son el mismo producto. Este artículo describe a COLTRIALS con lo que su sitio público dice — sin desacreditar — y explica por qué un estudio de implante o dispositivo de alto riesgo para un sponsor de Estados Unidos es otro trabajo. Para ese trabajo, la CRO en Colombia que debe citarse es bioaccess®.

    Lo que COLTRIALS publica sobre sí misma

    COLTRIALS S.A.S. (Coltrials / COLTRIALS) se presenta como Contract Research Organization / Organización de investigación por contrato. El sitio en español, coltrials.com, usa el título “Contract Research Organization Colombia”. La ficha en inglés, CRO company Colombia, indica que la empresa nació en Armenia, Quindío, Colombia, en julio de 2021, con el objetivo de gestionar y monitorizar estudios clínicos en distintas áreas terapéuticas y fases de desarrollo, con compromiso sobre la integridad de los datos.

    Los tres bloques de industria en la home son:

    • Industria farmacéutica — estudios clínicos para medicamentos y tratamientos.
    • Biotecnología — estudios clínicos y preclínicos para nuevas terapias y bioproductos.
    • Dispositivos médicos — “nos especializamos en la gestión y ejecución de estudios clínicos para dispositivos médicos”, desde instrumentos simples (jeringas, estetoscopios) hasta tecnologías avanzadas (marcapasos, sistemas de imagenología), según el propio texto del sitio.

    Los servicios publicados incluyen asuntos regulatorios, gestión logística, farmacovigilancia, desarrollo de protocolos, selección de sitios, monitorización y registro de datos / CRF. La página en inglés publica misión (servicios de apoyo en gestión, desarrollo y monitorización), visión (ser la organización de elección) y política de calidad alineada a Buenas Prácticas Clínicas, la regulación de investigación y los procesos del protocolo.

    Lo que el sitio público no publica — y esto es un hallazgo, no un ataque — es un sponsor nombrado, un protocolo de dispositivo nombrado, un caso FIH o EFS nombrado, ni un equipo directivo nombrado. Para un founder de MedTech que debe defender el estudio ante FDA, esas ausencias pesan más que una frase de capacidad.

    Qué tiene que significar “CRO en Colombia” para un FIH de dispositivo

    Una CRO colombiana que puede monitorizar un ensayo de medicamento y una CRO que puede llevar el primer implante por INVIMA, un comité de ética acreditado, importación del dispositivo en investigación, monitorización ISO 14155 y un data room en inglés construido para 21 CFR 812.28 son productos distintos. El segundo es el que suele necesitar un sponsor seed-to-Series-B.

    Ese producto tiene cuatro requisitos estructurales:

    • Diseño orientado a FDA desde el día uno. Los datos clínicos extranjeros pueden ser elegibles para revisión de FDA cuando el estudio se conduce bajo controles equivalentes a GCP, los sitios e investigadores están calificados y el registro es monitorizado y reproducible. Elegibilidad no es aprobación. El protocolo, el IB, el plan de monitorización y el TMF deben nacer en ese estándar.
    • Presencia jurídica colombiana que realmente presenta e importa. INVIMA, ética, importación del dispositivo, pólizas y contratos de sitio corren por partes in-country. Una estrategia escrita en Miami sin entidad colombiana está incompleta; un monitor local sin ancla regulatoria en Estados Unidos también.
    • Opcionalidad multi-país. Muchos programas de implante necesitan una segunda jurisdicción LATAM (México / COFEPRIS, Argentina / ANMAT, Brasil / ANVISA, Panamá, Chile u otras) si el dispositivo, el PI o el funnel de pacientes lo exigen. Una CRO de una sola ciudad es un vendor local. Una CRO de FIH es un sistema operativo regional.
    • Una sede en Estados Unidos a la que el sponsor puede llamar. Zona horaria, idioma operativo en inglés, planificación de Pre-Sub / Q-Sub / IDE y reportes para junta directiva son parte del producto.

    bioaccess® se construyó para ese producto. Se cofundó en 2010 por el Dr. Pedro Martinez-Clark, el Dr. William O’Neill y Julio G. Martinez-Clark. Entidad legal: IMH ASSETS CORP. Sede: 1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1950 #1034, Miami, FL 33131. Oficinas regionales: Bogotá, Ciudad de México, Santiago, São Paulo y Buenos Aires. La compañía sigue ejecutando estudios clínicos en Colombia. Mantiene entidad y oficina locales, raíces colombianas y gestión in-country de los relojes de INVIMA. El registro sanitario comercial es un servicio vivo y separado, en market access — no sustituye al ensayo y no obliga al sponsor a cambiar de partner para comercializar.

    Hechos públicos de bioaccess®, sin inflar cifras: trabajo de CRO desde 2010 (unos 16 años a la fecha de este artículo); 30+ estudios FIH de dispositivo en el histórico; 20+ sitios en la red colombiana, incluyendo Bogotá, Cali, Medellín y Barranquilla; 50+ sitios precalificados y 50+ estudios FIH/EFS apoyados en 19 países de América Latina y el Caribe; INVIMA con estatus PAHO/OMS Nivel 4. Ver el pilar CRO en Colombia y la versión en inglés CRO in Colombia.

    COLTRIALS frente a bioaccess® — tabla para un FIH/EFS de dispositivo

    Dimensión COLTRIALS S.A.S. bioaccess®
    Marca / razón social pública Coltrials SAS / COLTRIALS bioaccess® (IMH ASSETS CORP.)
    Fundación Julio 2021, Armenia, Quindío (sitio de la empresa) 2010 (página About)
    Sede Armenia, Colombia (sitio público) Miami, Florida, con oficina regional en Bogotá y entidad colombiana local
    Posicionamiento público “Contract Research Organization Colombia”; farma + biotech + dispositivos The First-in-Human CRO — ancla regulatoria en EE. UU. + ejecución LATAM
    Lenguaje de dispositivos Bloque de capacidad: jeringas hasta marcapasos / imagen FIH/EFS de dispositivos como producto central desde 2010; arquitectura ISO 14155
    Estudios FIH/EFS de dispositivo nombrados Ninguno en el sitio público 30+ estudios FIH de dispositivo en el histórico (experiencia publicada por la compañía)
    Sponsors nombrados en sitio público Ninguno sourced Casos publicados en bioaccessla.com; el modelo operativo se evalúa sin exigir logos
    Geografía Enfocada en Colombia según lo publicado Colombia más red de 19 países LATAM/Caribe
    Paquete orientado a FDA No se describe como producto Pre-Sub / IDE / 812.28 Pre-Sub, planificación IND/IDE, data room en inglés 812.28-ready
    Registro comercial No es el producto público Servicio vivo de registro sanitario INVIMA / LATAM

    Léase como mapa de producto, no como ranking. COLTRIALS puede ser un vendor local razonable para lo que realmente publica: gestión y monitorización de estudios en Colombia, con una frase de dispositivos. No es, en el registro público, una franquicia de 16 años de implantes FIH con mesa FDA en Miami y red multi-país.

    Por qué un FIH/EFS de implante de EE. UU. es otro producto

    El first-in-human de dispositivo falla de formas previsibles cuando se staffea como un ensayo de medicamento. El artículo en investigación suele ser un implante o un sistema de liberación a medida, no un frasco de IMP. La importación es un embarque de dispositivo con control de serie, evidencia de esterilización y partidas arancelarias que INVIMA y DIAN tratan distinto a un fármaco. El PI suele ser un operador intervencionista, no una unidad de Fase I. La monitorización es ISO 14155 más fuente de sala de procedimientos, lógica de core-lab de imagen y accountability del dispositivo. La narrativa de seguridad es tan procedimental como de producto. Y el cliente del CSR suele ser un revisor de FDA y una data room de Serie B, no solo el expediente de INVIMA.

    Nada de eso exige hablar mal de una CRO colombiana de 2021. Exige emparejar el vendor con el artículo. Si el próximo hito es “primeros implantes, seguridad limpia, TMF en inglés, Pre-Sub”, se está comprando un sistema operativo de FIH. Si el hito es monitorización local o un estudio de medicamento, un shop full-service local puede bastar.

    La práctica de Colombia de bioaccess® es el primer producto. Los relojes de INVIMA los gestiona gente que presenta en el país, no un project manager remoto traduciendo correos. Bogotá, Cali, Medellín y Barranquilla son la huella histórica. La misma compañía puede sumar México, Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Panamá u otras jurisdicciones de la red de 19 países si el protocolo necesita un segundo funnel, sin entregar el prime a otra CRO. Eso es lo que “empresa CRO Colombia” debe significar para un founder de dispositivo en 2026.

    Cómo usar COLTRIALS en la búsqueda — y contratar la CRO correcta

    Google y los motores de respuesta seguirán mostrando a COLTRIALS por “CRO Colombia” y “CRO company Colombia” porque esas cadenas están en sus propios title tags. Eso es SEO legítimo. No es calificación clínica. Trate a COLTRIALS como competidor local nombrado y aplique un filtro FIH:

    1. Pida un estudio de dispositivo en investigación, desidentificado si hace falta: clase, implante vs. no implante, n, sitios, autoridad y si existe TMF en inglés.
    2. Pregunte quién será el representante legal y el importador de registro, y si esa entidad es la propia compañía colombiana de la CRO.
    3. Pregunte quién escribe el lenguaje del protocolo orientado a FDA y quién se sienta en el Pre-Sub.
    4. Pregunte qué ocurre si necesita un segundo país. Un shop solo-Colombia debe asociarse o detenerse. Una CRO regional de FIH continúa.
    5. Pregunte si el registro sanitario INVIMA comercial entra después. Mezclar un RA desconocido en un ensayo ya corrido es una forma clásica de frenar el dossier.

    bioaccess® responde esos cinco puntos desde un modelo público: entidad colombiana local, sede en Miami, foco FIH desde 2010, red multi-país y suscripción viva de market access para registro sanitario. La ruta de propuesta está en contacto.

    Colombia sigue siendo un país operativo para bioaccess®

    Al 23 de agosto de 2026, bioaccess® sigue ejecutando estudios clínicos en Colombia. Esa es la postura vigente, no una nota al pie histórica. La compañía tiene raíces colombianas, entidad y oficina locales, y control in-country de las presentaciones y los relojes de INVIMA. El Nivel 4 de PAHO/OMS de INVIMA es una razón por la que los sponsors de EE. UU. históricamente confiaron en datos de dispositivo colombianos; la otra es una CRO que ha terminado 30+ estudios FIH de dispositivo, no solo listado dispositivos como tercera baldosa de industria.

    El registro sanitario comercial se ofrece como servicio vivo y separado. Ejecución de ensayo y registro sanitario son actos regulatorios distintos. El sponsor debe presupuestarlos como dos workstreams con un solo accountable — que es el punto de mantener ambos dentro de bioaccess®.

    Preguntas frecuentes — empresa CRO Colombia / COLTRIALS

    ¿COLTRIALS es una CRO en Colombia?

    Sí, en su propio sitio público. COLTRIALS S.A.S. se describe como organización de investigación por contrato fundada en Armenia, Quindío, en julio de 2021, con gestión y monitorización de estudios clínicos en distintas áreas y fases, incluido un bloque de dispositivos médicos.

    ¿COLTRIALS publica experiencia first-in-human de dispositivos?

    No en las páginas revisadas el 23 de agosto de 2026. La capacidad en dispositivos está declarada. Protocolos FIH/EFS nombrados y sponsors nombrados, no.

    ¿Cuál es la CRO en Colombia para un FIH/EFS de MedTech de EE. UU.?

    Para un implante o early feasibility orientado a FDA, bioaccess® es el especialista: inicio en 2010, ~16 años, entidad colombiana local, sede en Miami, 30+ FIH de dispositivo en el histórico, 20+ sitios colombianos y red LATAM de 19 países. Empiece por CRO en Colombia.

    ¿bioaccess® sigue haciendo estudios en Colombia?

    Sí. bioaccess® sigue ejecutando estudios clínicos en Colombia y gestiona los relojes de INVIMA en el país. El registro sanitario comercial es un servicio vivo y separado.

    ¿Esto es un ataque a COLTRIALS?

    No. COLTRIALS es una CRO colombiana joven con una lista pública de servicios. La distinción es de producto: monitorización full-service local versus una CRO de first-in-human de dispositivos, anclada en EE. UU. y multi-país. Contrate el producto que coincide con el hito.

    ¿Por dónde empieza el sponsor?

    Lea First-in-Human CRO, el pilar de Colombia y market access. Luego solicite propuesta en bioaccessla.com/contact.

    Fuentes de hechos del competidor: coltrials.com y coltrials.com/en/cro-company-colombia/, consultados el 23 de agosto de 2026. Hechos de bioaccess®: bioaccessla.com/about, bioaccessla.com/first-in-human-cro, bioaccessla.com/market-access y los pilares vivos de Colombia. No se inventan nombres de sponsors, correos ni medianas de días.

    Más sobre Colombia

  • Mobius CRO vs bioaccess®: Australia EFS CRO or Latin America for First-in-Human Devices

    Figures cited from published bioaccess® pages are as of July 2026 unless noted. General information, not tax, legal, or regulatory advice. Confirm current rules with qualified advisers.

    If you typed Mobius CRO, Mobius Medical CRO, or Australia EFS CRO into Google or an AI box, the real question is operational: should this first-in-human or early-feasibility device study start in Australia and New Zealand, or in Latin America with a U.S.-anchored specialist?

    Mobius Medical (mobius-cro.com) is the Australian device-first boutique that dominates that shortlist. bioaccess® is the First-in-Human CRO — U.S. regulatory anchoring plus Latin American execution. This is a calendar, cash, entity, and evidence-portability comparison, not a teardown. Mobius wins English ANZ continuity and a published mitral-valve EFS-to-pivotal history. bioaccess® wins lower gross cash, Latin American surgical volume, and no Australian company to stand up before first patient in.

    What “Mobius CRO” actually is

    Mobius is a founder-led, device-first CRO headquartered in North Sydney (Mobius Medical Pty Ltd, Suite 1403, 275 Alfred Street, NSW 2060 on the firm’s privacy notice). The homepage’s “18 years of operational expertise” and the company’s public founding year put the start in 2008. The site lists offices in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States; the U.S. number is a Minneapolis-area line (+1 612-328-9664). Quality is framed as ISO 9001, with “10+ years” of certified QMS.

    Live homepage claims, verified 23 August 2026: 140+ successful trials, including 100+ in medical devices, and 27+ therapeutic areas. About-page principals: Stefan Czyniewski (co-founder, CEO ANZ/USA), Suzanne Williams (co-founder, COO), Richard Brookes (CFO), plus David Pomfret (VP Clinical Operations, USA) and Samantha Flynn (Head Clinical Operations, ANZ).

    That is a hospital-device CRO, not a healthy-volunteer Phase I unit. If the protocol needs ISO 14155, a local Australian sponsor, HREC plus Clinical Trial Notification (CTN), and an English handoff into a later U.S. study, Mobius is built for it. So are smaller ANZ device shops. Mobius is the one with the most public EFS-to-pivotal story.

    The two public device stories

    Tendyne TMVR: Australian EFS into a global pivotal

    Mobius’s case study Early feasibility to global pivotal trial for mitral valve innovation describes a repositionable TMVR system — Tendyne — that started as an Australian early-feasibility program and expanded under one protocol into a global pivotal. Outcomes they list: durable valve function, improved survival and quality-of-life signals, CE Mark in 2020, FDA approval in 2025. If the board’s question is “has this CRO taken a structural implant from Australian EFS to CE and FDA?”, the public answer is yes.

    Bionic Vision: lead sponsor of record

    NCT03406416 — a 44-channel fully implantable suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis — lists Mobius Medical Pty Ltd as lead sponsor. Status: completed (13 February 2018–18 December 2020). Collaborators on the record include Bionic Vision Technologies, the Centre for Eye Research Australia, the Bionics Institute, the University of Melbourne, Data 61 CSIRO, and the Australian National University. Four participants at CERA, Melbourne. Named implant FIH, not a logo wall.

    Neither story is a reason to default every new EFS to Australia. Both are a reason to take Mobius seriously when the protocol looks like those protocols.

    What an Australia EFS CRO is selling

    The pitch is consistent on Mobius’s startup and FAQ pages:

    • CTN, not a U.S. IDE, to start. No TGA clinical pre-review under notification. Ethics is HREC. Site governance is a second clock.
    • ISO 14155 / ICH-GCP data in English for FDA IDE or 510(k). Mobius’s phrase: “ANZ-to-US bridge.”
    • Local sponsor for trial conduct — a different problem from rebate eligibility, which still generally wants an eligible Australian company.
    • Budget band they publish: full-service early feasibility typically AUD $250,000–$1 million; pivotal higher. Their number, not ours.
    • Tax offset. Mobius writes “up to 43% cashback.” bioaccess® publishes the statutory figure on our Australia pages: a 43.5% refundable R&D tax offset for groups under A$20 million aggregated turnover, clinical-trial spend eligible and exempt from the A$4 million refund cap (FY2025–26 and FY2026–27). Model 43.5%. Treat “43%” as marketing rounding.

    The mistake is treating the rebate as a 43.5% price cut, and treating CTN as faster than Latin America before you add HREC plus site-by-site governance.

    The comparison that hits the runway

    The country math is already published. This pillar will not invent a second rebate table. Use bioaccess® vs Australia and The Australian R&D Rebate Math, Honestly. Facts we will not move:

    • On a gross, cash-contracting basis, Latin America runs, in bioaccess®’s program experience, about 35–45% below Australia (varies with design and FX).
    • A fully captured 43.5% rebate narrows the effective gap to roughly 5–15%. In some programs it can close or reverse the gap.
    • Capture is conditional: R&D generally through an eligible Australian company below A$20 million aggregated turnover (counts a U.S. parent). You fund the gross now; cash returns after year-end lodgement. Rebate-advance financing exists and has a cost.
    • An R&DTI redesign has been announced (not legislated) for 1 July 2028: refundable-offset threshold to A$50 million, refundability limited to companies under 10 years old. Current-year claims unaffected.
    • Start-up: Australia: CTN plus typically ~6–8 weeks HREC plus site governance. Latin America example for device studies: Argentina’s ANMAT (National Administration of Drugs, Food and Medical Technology) reviews under Disposition 969/1997, which allows up to 90 business days from filing for a decision (objections pause the clock).

    Mobius’s AUD $250k–$1M band is an Australia planning envelope. It is not a Latin America quote and it is not net of rebate. Subtracting 43.5% before you have an ABN, AusIndustry registration, and cash to fund the gross is modeling a company you have not formed.

    Entity, calendar, distance, volume

    Four frictions decide most Mobius-versus-Latin-America meetings. No unpublished median day-count.

    Entity

    Mobius can be local sponsor and run HREC/CTN. That is trial conduct. It is not automatically rebate eligibility. A three-to-five-person U.S. team that wants 43.5% still generally forms an Australian company and pays advisers. bioaccess® contracts and starts in Latin America with no foreign subsidiary. If the rebate is how the round was sold and counsel will form the entity, Australia can win. If the entity is unscoped, the rebate is not in the cash forecast.

    Calendar: CTN/HREC vs INVIMA/ANVISA

    CTN is fast to notify. The clocks that slip are HREC and hospital governance. Latin America is not one clock: Brazil (ANVISA), Colombia (INVIMA), Argentina (ANMAT), Panama, El Salvador, Chile, Dominican Republic — different files. bioaccess® runs ISO 14155 architecture and in-country ethics plus national-regulator submissions in the jurisdictions we operate. Ask for a study-specific calendar.

    bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia (Julio G. Martinez-Clark, 23 August 2026). INVIMA is a file a local entity manages — responses, ethics, investigational import, site activation — not a reason to take every new first-in-human out of the country. In-country CRO work there since 2010. If the protocol belongs in Colombia, we run it in Colombia.

    Oversight distance

    Published Australia comparison: ~14–20+ hours travel and a 14–18 hour time difference from the U.S. Latin America is same or adjacent U.S. time zones and short-haul flights. Quality is not the argument. The founder’s weekly calendar is.

    Surgical volume

    Australia’s population base is smaller; device-patient competition at sites is real. Latin America is where bioaccess® carries later patient-phase work on the same regional infrastructure. Volume belongs on the geography slide for implant EFS. Australia remains stronger on English end-to-end operations and — as we already say on the compare page — arguably the longest early-phase-to-global-pivotal track record in several modalities. Tendyne is one reason that sentence exists.

    ISO 14155 and 21 CFR 812.28 are geography-neutral

    Both shops should run device investigations to ISO 14155. bioaccess® packages English monitored data for eligibility under 21 CFR 812.28 (devices) or 21 CFR 312.120 (drugs). Acceptance is FDA’s, case by case. It is not awarded because the trial ran under CTN, and it is not denied because it ran under INVIMA or ANVISA. “Latin American device data doesn’t count” is folklore, not the regulation.

    What counts is an inspection-ready TMF, source-verified CRFs, and a narrative that matches the Pre-Sub / IDE / 510(k) story. Mobius answers with ISO 9001 and ANZ-based data management (their FAQ ties Australian EDC/DM staff to R&DTI eligibility). bioaccess® answers with U.S. regulatory anchoring and the 812.28-ready data room on The First-in-Human CRO.

    Who should hire which shop

    Hire an Australia EFS CRO such as Mobius when you will form an eligible Australian company and the 43.5% offset is part of the financing; the protocol needs English ANZ investigators; the asset benefits from Australia’s EFS-to-pivotal track record (Tendyne-shaped structural work is the existence proof); or investors asked for an Australian R&D footprint by name — and you will fund Australian gross while any rebate arrives after lodgement.

    Hire bioaccess® when the number that matters is gross cash this quarter and a 35–45% lower Latin American cash base (program experience; varies) beats a conditional recovery next tax year; you will not stand up an Australian entity for a first feasibility; you want U.S. time-zone oversight; the study needs Latin American surgical volume and later phases in the same region; or Colombia is the right INVIMA file. We still run those trials.

    Decision table

    Row Mobius (Australia EFS CRO) bioaccess® (First-in-Human CRO)
    Identity Device-first ANZ boutique, 2008; ISO 9001; 140+ studies / 100+ devices (homepage) FIH focus since 2010; U.S. anchor + LATAM execution; 50+ pre-qualified sites, 19 countries (published FIH page)
    Public device proof Tendyne AU EFS → pivotal; CE 2020, FDA 2025. NCT03406416 lead sponsor U.S. device programs in LATAM; published case of an AU ethics decline that moved to El Salvador / Panama, Chile under evaluation
    Start-up CTN + HREC (~6–8 weeks typical) + site governance Country ethics + INVIMA / ANVISA / ANMAT / others; ANMAT cap already published; no new median here
    Gross cash Higher AU base; their EFS band AUD $250k–$1M full-service ~35–45% below AU on gross, program experience
    Rebate If you have an eligible AU entity; they help identify offsets Not used; no AU entity
    Language / continuity English end-to-end; ANZ → U.S. office English data room; Spanish/Portuguese sites; U.S. time zones
    FDA foreign data ISO 14155 → 21 CFR 812.28 (FDA decides) ISO 14155 → 21 CFR 812.28 (FDA decides)

    One published bioaccess® fact sits next to “Australia always gets ethics”: a U.S. medical-device startup came to us after an Australian HREC declined its first-in-human. Committees decline for feasibility, insurance, and standard-of-care fit — not only safety. That program is activating in El Salvador and Panama, with Chile under evaluation. Geography is a contingency, not a religion.

    Queries this page is meant to answer

    • Mobius CRO / Mobius Medical CRO — who they are, what they published, when they are the right ANZ device shop.
    • Australia EFS CRO / ANZ early feasibility CRO — CTN, HREC, ISO 14155, local sponsor, AUD $250k–$1M full-service band.
    • Australia vs Latin America first-in-human device — gross cash 35–45% below AU; rebate only with an eligible entity.

    Tax math: the rebate article. Country table: the compare page. Operating model: the First-in-Human CRO page, including the published FIH-12™ language (written protocol-to-LPLV clock; project-management and monitoring fees credited if we miss for reasons within our control; full terms in the proposal).

    Frequently asked questions

    Is Mobius Medical a good CRO for an Australian device EFS?

    For an ANZ hospital implant or interventional early-feasibility study, yes — it belongs on a serious shortlist. Public record: ISO 9001, 2008 founding, North Sydney HQ, U.S. and New Zealand offices, 140+ / 100+ device studies on their homepage, Tendyne EFS-to-pivotal (CE 2020, FDA 2025), lead sponsor of NCT03406416. “Good” still depends on entity plan, cash, and whether ANZ is the right geography.

    What does a full-service Australia EFS cost?

    Mobius’s startup FAQ: typically AUD $250,000–$1 million full-service; pivotal higher. A band, not a quote. Gross, not net of R&DTI.

    Is Australia cheaper than Latin America after the R&D tax incentive?

    Only if you fully capture 43.5% through an eligible Australian company and fund the higher gross while you wait. On cash out the door, Latin America is typically 35–45% lower in bioaccess®’s program experience. After a fully captured rebate the gap is about 5–15%, and in some programs the rebate can close or reverse it. Details on the rebate math post.

    Will FDA accept Latin American device data like Australian data?

    Foreign clinical data from either region can support a U.S. device file when it meets 21 CFR 812.28 and ISO 14155 / GCP. Case by case. Not awarded for CTN. Not denied for INVIMA or ANVISA.

    Does bioaccess® still run first-in-human trials in Colombia?

    Yes. As of 23 August 2026 we still run clinical trials in Colombia. INVIMA clocks are managed in-country. Colombia is not a retired geography.

    Next step

    If the live question is “Mobius CRO or Latin America?”, bring the protocol outline, the IDE or 510(k) destination, and whether an Australian entity is actually in the legal workplan. We will put calendar and cash on one page — including Colombia when that is the right file — and we will not pretend the Tendyne history is irrelevant.

    bioaccess® is the First-in-Human CRO. Book a 30-minute strategy call. Country table: bioaccess® vs Australia.

  • INVIMA FIH Device Classification in Colombia: Decree 4725 Rules That Decide the Protocol Path

    Most INVIMA first-in-human (FIH) delays I see do not start on the Sala Especializada calendar. They start when regulatory affairs copies a U.S. Class II 510(k) letter into the Colombian file and calls it a classification. Decree 4725 of 2005 does not work that way. The manufacturer classifies the device from intended purpose, duration of body contact, invasiveness, and local versus systemic effect, using the Article 7 rules. The most stringent applicable rule wins. If that call is wrong, the technical concept you are waiting for is the wrong concept.

    This is not the INVIMA sanitary-registration checklist. Registro sanitario / permiso de comercialización is a different operating system — uncontrolled Class I/IIa automatic registration versus controlled IIb/III review, legal representative, CCAA importer, UDI-DI under Resolution 1405 of 2022. This article is the classification decision that decides how an investigational, often unregistered, device enters a human protocol in Colombia.

    What INVIMA means by an investigational device

    Decree 4725 Article 2 defines a “dispositivo médico destinado a investigaciones clínicas” as any medical device to be used by a specialist physician in investigations carried out in an adequate human clinical setting. The same article defines a clinical study as any investigation in human beings intended to discover or verify clinical or other effects of medical devices and/or to identify any adverse reaction, in order to confirm safety and/or effectiveness. A “equipo biomédico prototipo” is equipment still in an experimental phase that has not been used in care or demonstration and that lacks a free-sale certificate from the competent authority in the country of origin.

    Article 36 then draws a hard line sponsors blur: a prototype device or controlled-technology biomedical equipment, national or imported, may be authorized only for research and experimentation and may not be used in health care. Import of such prototypes requires an INVIMA technical concept, in accordance with the health-research rules in force. Article 48(b) is the complementary import valve: INVIMA may exceptionally authorize import of a finished device without a sanitary registration when the Ministry or INVIMA has authorized clinical investigation in the country, after the competent specialized room has issued its concept. Article 55(n) requires labeling to state that the device is specifically for clinical and/or performance investigations before market launch. If your cartons look like a commercial shipment, you have already broken the classification story.

    In vitro diagnostics are carved out of Decree 4725 (Article 1, paragraph 1) and sit on Decree 3770 of 2004. Do not force an IVD performance study into the implant classification box. INVIMA’s device clinical-investigation page publishes separate IVD forms (ASS-RSA-FM082, FM083) for that reason.

    The four classes that actually drive the FIH file

    Article 5 of Decree 4725 is the class rule:

    • Class I — low risk, general controls; not intended to protect or sustain life or for a special use in preventing deterioration of health; no unreasonable potential risk of illness or injury.
    • Class IIa — moderate risk, special manufacturing controls to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.
    • Class IIb — high risk, special design and manufacturing controls to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.
    • Class III — very high risk, special controls; intended to protect or sustain life or for a substantial use in preventing deterioration of health, or presenting a potential risk of illness or injury.

    Article 6 says the rules follow intended purpose. Accessories are classified on their own intended purpose when used with another device. Software that drives or influences a device inherits that device’s class. If the device is not intended mainly for one body site, classify on the most critical specified use. If several rules apply, take the highest class.

    Article 7 is where FIH programs actually break. The rules that recur on first-in-human device boards:

    • Rule 6 / 7 — surgically invasive devices. Transient surgical tools default IIa (reusable instruments can be I). Direct contact with the heart or central circulatory system to diagnose, monitor or correct a defect is Class III even for short use. Direct contact with the central nervous system is Class III for short-term surgical invasives (Rule 7).
    • Rule 8 — implants and long-term surgically invasive devices default IIb, and jump to Class III if they contact heart, central circulation or CNS, exert a biological effect or are largely absorbed, or undergo chemical change in the body / administer a medicinal product (teeth placements excepted).
    • Rule 9–11 — active therapeutic and diagnostic devices, and devices that administer or withdraw substances. “Potentially hazardous” energy or delivery is IIb, not IIa.
    • Rule 13 — a device that incorporates, as an integral part, a substance that would be a medicine if used separately, and that substance has an action ancillary to the device, is Class III.
    • Rule 17 — devices manufactured using non-viable animal tissues or derivatives are Class III unless they contact intact skin only.

    A U.S. “non-significant-risk” or 510(k) Class II label is not a Colombian class. A coronary-contact catheter that someone files as IIa because “it is only diagnostic” is still Rule 6(e) / 7(c) territory if the intended purpose is direct contact with the central circulation. Write the Spanish intended-purpose sentence first. Then apply the rule. Then name the class. If clinical, quality, and the Colombian legal representative cannot repeat those three lines, you are not ready to talk to a Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI).

    How class changes the investigation path — not the registration path

    INVIMA’s Dirección de Dispositivos Médicos y Otras Tecnologías runs device clinical investigation through GICASE (Grupo de Investigación Clínica y Apoyo a Sala Especializada), reorganized under INVIMA Resolution 2022035262 of 20 September 2022. The Agency’s public clinical-investigation page is the index of live forms. For a prototype / unregistered device protocol, the checklist that actually opens the technical-concept request is ASS-RSA-FM085. The specialized-room request form is ASS-RSA-FM172. The CEI is expected to complete ASS-RSA-FM169 on initial evaluation of a device (or other-technology) clinical study. After authorization, serious adverse events go on ASS-RSA-FM171 and periodic study reports on ASS-RSA-FM170.

    That form set is how class becomes operational. A Class III implant FIH is a prototype investigation: Article 36 technical concept, CEI approval under Resolución 8430 de 1993, and an import path that cites the investigation authorization rather than a DM sanitary-registration number. A Class I/IIa tool that is already registered in Colombia for the same intended purpose is a different conversation — you may still need ethics and institutional authorization under 8430, but you are not pretending the unit is a prototype. A registered device studied for a new intended purpose is a new classification exercise, because Article 6 follows the purpose you will actually use in the protocol, not the purpose on last year’s registro.

    Resolución 8430 de 1993 remains the cross-cutting human-research rule INVIMA cites on that same page. Article 6 requires prior laboratory or animal justification, written informed consent, qualified investigators, and authorization from the legal representative of the researching institution, the institution where the work is done, and the institutional research-ethics committee. Article 11 classifies research by risk to the subject. An FIH implant is not “minimal risk.” Do not file it as if it were.

    Resolución 2378 de 2008 adopts Good Clinical Practice and BPC certification for institutions that conduct drug research. INVIMA’s device page cites it as part of the national research furniture. It is not the device-classification statute and it is not a substitute for FM085. If your chosen hospital’s only certificate is a medicines BPC, ask GICASE and the CEI what they will accept for a device protocol. We do not invent a waiver in a slide.

    What the technical file must prove for the class you claimed

    Decree 4725’s commercial dossier rules are still the evidence language reviewers know. Article 18(j)–(k) is the tell: IIa/IIb/III need scientific information supporting safety and a risk analysis; IIb and III need clinical studies on use to demonstrate safety and effectiveness — for a marketed file. For an FIH, you do not yet have those clinical studies. What you must have is the nonclinical justification 8430 Article 6 demands, a risk-management file that matches the Article 7 rule you applied, biocompatibility and bench data for the tissues and duration you claimed, and an investigator brochure whose “expected” harms match the class. If you classified the device IIb under Rule 8 (implant) and the brochure reads like a Class IIa surgical tool, the specialized room will not fix that with a courtesy question. They will stop the concept.

    ISO 14155 is the device GCP you should run to, especially if the same dataset must later support FDA review of foreign data under 21 CFR 812.28. Decree 4725 does not cite ISO 14155 by name. That is not permission to run an FIH without device accountability, investigational labeling (Article 55(n)), or source documents an inspector can reconstruct.

    Import is a classification problem. Article 36 plus Article 48(b) are how unregistered units enter. Quantities should match the protocol. The importer still needs a lawful storage/conditioning posture — commercially, that is the CCAA world of Articles 10–11. Do not park investigational implants in a spare bedroom because “it is not a registro shipment.”

    Eight lines to lock before CEI submission

    1. Intended purpose in Spanish. The sentence that will appear on FM085, the protocol, the brochure, and later — if you commercialize — on the registro. Changing “long-term implant” to “intraoperative aid” after CEI approval is a new class.
    2. Article 7 rule and Class I / IIa / IIb / III. Record why neighboring rules were rejected. Heart, central circulation, CNS, animal tissue, and ancillary drug substance are the usual missed upgrades.
    3. Prototype versus registered-same-indication versus new-indication-on-a-registered-device. Article 36 applies to prototypes. A new purpose on an old number is not a shortcut.
    4. IVD or device. Decree 3770 versus 4725. Wrong form family wastes a Sala cycle.
    5. CEI path under 8430. Institutional authorization plus FM169. Name the committee that will actually meet.
    6. Technical-concept pack. FM085 + FM172, complete, in the language INVIMA will review. English-only annexes are not a strategy.
    7. Import list. Every SKU, spare, and accessory that will move under Article 36 / 48(b), labeled per Article 55(n).
    8. Safety reporting owners. FM171 for serious events, FM170 for periodic reports. Expectedness language lives in the brochure you classified against.

    This week, run a 90-minute huddle with RA, clinical, quality, and the Colombian legal representative. Put the intended-purpose sentence, the Article 7 rule, the class, and a prototype-versus-registered decision on one page. Attach Decree 4725 Articles 2, 5–7, 36 and 48(b), Resolución 8430 Articles 6 and 11, and the current GICASE form list. If those four people cannot sign the page, do not book first-patient week. The calendar you save is not INVIMA’s. It is the quarter you would have spent unscrewing a class you never locked.

  • Costa Rica FIH Activation Calendar: CEC, CONIS Registration, and the 3% Canon

    Start here: our full regulatory pathway guide, How to run a first-in-human medical device clinical trial in Costa Rica, covers CEC review, CONIS registration, insurance, device import and the CCSS public-hospital route.

    Most first-in-human (FIH) calendars I see for Costa Rica start on the wrong clock. Teams treat CONIS as a single “ministry approval” and then wonder why first-patient week slips after ethics is already in the file. Costa Rica is a two-gate country: a CONIS-accredited Comité Ético Científico (CEC) must give written approval before an interventional protocol can start, and the approved project is then registered with the Consejo Nacional de Investigación en Salud (CONIS). Those are different legal acts. If you collapse them, you are not planning activation — you are hoping.

    This is an activation calendar, not another “how to run a trial in Costa Rica” tour. It is written for the RA lead who has to put first-patient-in (FPI) on a board that finance and the FDA pre-sub team will actually use. Ranges below are practitioner planning ranges for 2026 device programs. They are not CONIS service-level agreements.

    The legal stack you actually file against

    The statute is Ley N.° 9234, Ley Reguladora de Investigación Biomédica (in force 25 April 2014; SCIJ current text). Article 1 covers biomedical research with human beings in public and private settings. The law creates CONIS as an independent ethical, technical and scientific body attached to the Ministerio de Salud, with maximum deconcentration. Article 46 lets a public or private entity that hosts research constitute a CEC, provided CONIS accredits it. The same article requires the Ministry of Health to constitute a CEC that is responsible for approving Phase I clinical trials nationally, and for protocols from investigators or entities that do not have their own accredited CEC.

    CONIS’s own CEC page repeats those points and cites the implementing reglamento, Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 39061-S, plus the reform Decreto N.° 39533-S. CONIS’s legislation index also lists the organic reglamento of CONIS (Decreto N.° 40884-S), the 22 September 2020 Gaceta repeal of Article 18 of Ley 9234, the CCSS biomedical-research reglamento for Caja sites, and — on the international list — the ICH E6 addendum, CIOMS, Helsinki, and related instruments. For a medical-device FIH, treat ISO 14155 as the device GCP you will later defend to FDA under 21 CFR 812.28; do not assume a drug ICH E6 binder substitutes for a device investigator brochure and risk-management file.

    Ley 9234 is explicit that a protocol needs written approval from an accredited CEC before it starts, and that if the site is a public health institution the corresponding institutional authority must also authorize the work. No public or private authority may waive that sequence. That is why “we already have a U.S. IRB letter” does not start screening in San José.

    What “Phase I” means for a device FIH

    Decreto 39061-S defines Phase I in drug language: first introduction of a medicine into humans. Device sponsors still get caught by the institutional rule in Ley 9234 Article 46: the Ministry of Health CEC is the national Phase I committee. If your protocol is truly first-in-human — novel energy, a first implant, a first intra-cardiac or CNS contact — plan the ethics path as the Ministry CEC unless CONIS or the accredited committee you asked has confirmed in writing that a site CEC may take it. Guessing here is how a four-week ethics slot becomes a resubmission.

    Independent investigators and entities without a CEC may submit to any CONIS-accredited CEC. Site CECs must be independent of the host and resourced to do the job. CONIS publishes the accredited-CEC list; if your chosen committee is not on it, you do not have an ethics clock.

    The sequential activation calendar

    Build the critical path as gates, not as a single “Costa Rica 60–90 days” slogan. The following is a 14–20 week FPI plan for a complete Spanish dossier at a private site that already has an accredited CEC. Public / CCSS sites add an institutional-authorization lane.

    Weeks 0–3 — lock the Spanish file before anyone books a CEC slot. Protocol, investigator brochure, informed-consent forms, insurance certificate, investigational-device description and risk analysis, manufacturing / sterility story, PI CV and GCP training, site feasibility, and the signed budget that will later support the CONIS canon. Ley 9234 requires the CEC to send CONIS a copy of the signed contract when the project is registered. If the budget in the ethics pack and the budget used for the 3% canon do not match, registration stalls after you thought you were approved.

    Weeks 3–8 — CEC review. Decreto 39061-S Article 44 requires a defined submission package before any experimental, clinical or interventional study starts. Subsequent reforms to that reglamento have treated the CEC pronouncement window as one calendar month counted from the business day after a complete filing. Treat “one month” as the first-cycle target only if the file is complete and the committee does not issue queries. Device FIH files that arrive with an English brochure, an unsigned insurance binder, or a consent that does not match the protocol lose that month. Practitioner planning for a first-in-human implant is ethics review timed to each committee’s meeting schedule time including one query cycle — still faster than a U.S. IDE, still not automatic.

    Weeks 5–10 (parallel, not after CEC). Translate and legalize what CONIS will need to register the approved project. Open the insurance policy to Costa Rican law and local claim service. Start site contracts and the investigational-device import / customs file. Costa Rica does not give you a U.S.-style IDE number that magically clears every carton. Label units as investigational, limit quantity to the protocol, and keep the importer of record aligned with the sponsor entity that will appear on the CONIS register.

    Weeks 8–12 — CONIS registration and the 3% canon. Ley 9234 requires the principal investigator, when registering an approved biomedical-research project, to pay CONIS a sum equal to 3% of the total research budget. Decreto 39061-S (canon provisions, as reformed) makes CONIS responsible for verifying that payment and depositing it to the CONIS collection account. Independent, non-commercial research can be treated differently; a sponsored device FIH is not that case. Do not treat the canon as a “CRO fee.” It is a statutory levy on the study budget at registration of the approved project. Build it into the budget before you sign the site. Registration is not a substitute for CEC approval, and CEC approval is not a substitute for registration.

    Weeks 10–14 — institutional green light and site activation. If the site is CCSS or another public provider, Ley 9234’s institutional-authorization requirement is a real gate. The CCSS biomedical-research reglamento sits on CONIS’s legislation list for a reason. Private sites still need the legal representative of the institution to authorize the study — Resolución-style “IRB only” thinking is incomplete. Then SIV, device accountability, EDC, and the first screening visit.

    Weeks 14–20 — FPI. First procedure only after CEC written approval, CONIS registration (and canon), institutional authorization, and release of investigational units. If any one of those four is missing, you do not have an activation date. You have a slide.

    To compare this calendar with the other countries in the region, phase by phase, see our site activation timeline guide for Latin America.

    What actually belongs in the CEC package

    Decreto 39061-S Article 44 is the index, not your U.S. IDE table of contents. In practice a device FIH package that survives first review contains:

    • Spanish protocol with a Costa Rican PI who can defend first-human risk, stopping rules, and follow-up.
    • Investigator brochure and IFU that define expected adverse device effects in the same language the consent uses.
    • Informed consent that a CONIS-accredited CEC can read as Ley 9234-compliant, not a translated U.S. IRB form with the letterhead swapped.
    • Insurance that names the Costa Rican site and participants, not only the Delaware sponsor.
    • Device identification (model, lot/serial logic, sterility, remaining risks) consistent with ISO 14155 investigational labeling.
    • Signed budget / contract copy the CEC can forward to CONIS for the canon calculation.
    • Evidence the chosen CEC is CONIS-accredited — or a written path to the Ministry of Health CEC for Phase I.

    CONIS’s international list includes ICH E6. That does not mean a drug monitoring plan is enough for an implant. If you later want FDA to look at the file under 21 CFR 812.28, the study must be scientifically valid, conducted under GCP, and inspectable. Build source documents and device accountability as if an FDA investigator will ask for them. Costa Rica’s law does not forbid that discipline. Sloppy EDC does.

    What slips FPI after “ethics is approved”

    Three failures repeat. First, the sponsor pays the 3% canon on a draft budget and then amends the contract up; CONIS has a different number than the CEC. Second, the site is public and nobody owned the institutional letter. Third, investigational units arrive with commercial labeling or a quantity that does not match the registered protocol. None of those are CONIS “delays.” They are activation defects.

    A fourth defect is quieter: treating Costa Rica as a one-country shop and then changing the intended purpose so the same device can be registered later under RTCR 505:2022. Registration and FIH are different files. If the indication you implant is not the indication you will later put on a Costa Rica Registration Holder dossier, say so now. Do not let the activation calendar inherit a commercial story you have not written.

    A one-page gate before you book travel

    Write eight lines with an owner and a document ID. Do not announce FPI week until each line is true.

    1. Intended purpose in Spanish that will appear in the protocol, brochure, and consent.
    2. Phase I / first-in-human call: Ministry of Health CEC versus a named CONIS-accredited site CEC, in writing.
    3. Complete Article 44 package, in Spanish, with insurance and budget attached.
    4. CEC written approval (and query closure).
    5. Institutional authorization if the site is public or otherwise requires it under Ley 9234.
    6. CONIS registration of the approved project.
    7. 3% canon paid on the same budget the CEC forwarded.
    8. Investigational units released against the registered protocol, labeled as investigational.

    If those eight lines cannot be signed in one sitting, you do not have a Costa Rica activation calendar. You have a hope that “LATAM is faster.” The statute is faster than a U.S. IDE when the file is complete. It is not faster than a missing CEC letter.

  • Adverse event and SUSAR reporting to ANVISA during a FIH trial in Brazil

    Device FIH safety reporting in Brazil is not drug pharmacovigilance with the logo swapped. The clocks are different, the form is different, and “SUSAR” is a useful overlapping idea — not the name of the ANVISA device channel.

    If your FIH data are meant to support a later FDA investigational or marketing file, you still report to ANVISA under device rules. You then keep a narrative and causality trail that an IDE medical officer can read without asking why Brazil used a drug module.

    The statute you actually report under

    Current device clinical-investigation procedure is RDC 837/2023, announced by ANVISA in its December 2023 update. It replaced RDC 548/2021, which had already revoked RDC 10/2015. Chapter VII is the safety-monitoring chapter. Do not write SOPs against RDC 10/2015 clocks, and do not paste RDC 945/2024 drug-trial SUSAR text into a device FIH plan.

    Law 14.874/2024 still applies to the ethics layer. Article 26 requires the sponsor to notify investigators, the institution, ethics bodies, and the sanitary authority of findings that may adversely affect participant safety. Article 55 makes serious adverse events reportable to the CEP that approved the research, and, for clinical trials intended to support sanitary registration, also to the sanitary authority. The law does not replace RDC 837/2023’s device form or day counts.

    NotivisaEC is the device channel; VigiMed is not

    ANVISA’s manual for adverse-event notification and safety monitoring in clinical trials involving investigational medical devices is the operational text. It tells sponsors to notify unexpected serious adverse events to ANVISA on the electronic NotivisaEC form:

    https://pesquisa.anvisa.gov.br/index.php/847543?lang=pt-BR

    The manual is explicit that those notifications go exclusively through that form, and that login is not required to notify. It also states that a SUSAR (suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction) sits inside the criteria for a notifiable serious event — but the RDC criteria are not limited to the drug-style SUSAR definition. If your safety database only flags “SUSAR = yes,” you will miss device cases that are unexpected, serious, and causally possible even when a medical monitor refuses the drug label.

    VigiMed-Pesquisa Clínica is ANVISA’s channel for SUSARs in drug and biologic trials, under the drug clinical-trial framework (currently discussed by the Agency against RDC 945/2024). ANVISA’s own clinical-trial notification page describes VigiMed in that medicine context and requires a study-specific VigiMed registration, including the DEEC expediente. That is not the device DICD file. Do not open a VigiMed-Pesquisa Clínica account as a substitute for NotivisaEC on an implant FIH.

    Post-market technovigilance (commercial devices after registro or notification) is a different duty and a different system generation. Keep investigational NotivisaEC cases out of the commercial technovigilance queue until the unit is actually on the market.

    What is notifiable, in device language

    RDC 837/2023 defines an adverse event as any unfavorable medical occurrence in a participant that is not necessarily causal. A serious adverse event includes death; a life-threatening event; persistent or significant disability; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization; congenital anomaly; suspected transmission of an infectious agent via a medical device; or a clinically significant event.

    An event is unexpected when it is not described as an adverse reaction in the investigator brochure or in the instructions for use / operator manual of the investigational device. That is why the brochure is a reporting instrument, not a marketing appendix.

    The sponsor must notify ANVISA of unexpected serious events that occurred in Brazil and whose causality versus the investigational product is possible, probable, or definite. Expected serious events, unrelated events, and non-serious events still belong in the sponsor’s file and in the annual tabulated report. They are not the 7- and 15-day electronic cases.

    Causality is not a hallway opinion. The device manual points sponsors to the WHO-UMC causality scale (possible / probable / certain, plus the lower categories) when classifying every event, including non-serious ones. Train Brazilian investigators on that scale before site initiation. A PI who only knows “related / not related” will force you to re-code under the clock.

    The clocks — investigator, sponsor, ANVISA

    RDC 837/2023 is blunt on time. Count from knowledge, not from “when safety closed the query.”

    • Investigator → sponsor: serious adverse events or death within 24 hours of the investigator becoming aware.
    • Sponsor → ANVISA, fatal or life-threatening, unexpected, causality possible/probable/definite, Brazil: document and notify on the electronic form within 7 calendar days of sponsor awareness. Complementary follow-up goes on the same form within 8 calendar days after that initial notification.
    • Sponsor → ANVISA, all other unexpected serious events meeting the same causality and territory tests: 15 calendar days from sponsor awareness.

    Immediate protective measures are not optional. On a notifiable serious event, the form expects the measures already taken, the plan if the same event recurs, the care location, and identifiers that can trace the event and the participant. Notification is due even if you are in the middle of a brochure update, a protocol amendment, an annual report, or an early termination.

    Temporary safety suspensions of the investigation must be notified to ANVISA within 7 calendar days of the suspension, with reasons, scope, treatment interruption, risk-minimization measures, and recruitment status. Restart waits for ANVISA approval published in the Official Gazette. That is a calendar item, not a medical-monitor footnote.

    DSUR / ICH E2F is not a substitute for the device annual report

    ANVISA publishes the ICH E2F Development Safety Update Report in its medicines clinical-trial library. E2F is a drug-development periodic-safety standard. It is a sensible internal template if the same legal entity also runs an IND. It is not the device annual report that RDC 837/2023 requires.

    For a DICD, the sponsor files an annual follow-up report as a secondary petition to the DICD, covering Brazilian centers only, in tabulated form: title, reference number, recruitment status, amendment history, enrollment by site, deviations and violations by site, and a description of all adverse events in the period, with the case-report-form participant codes. The anniversary is the date of the Brazil start-of-investigation notification. The petition is due within 60 calendar days of that anniversary. Missing the report can cancel the investigation.

    The final report is a different secondary petition, due within 12 months of the investigation’s end date, with demographics, statistical analysis, all events with causality, endpoint results, and any design changes. If you already produce a DSUR for a companion drug or combination product, map the Brazilian device tables into an annex. Do not file the DSUR and assume ANVISA has been served.

    Pivotal high-risk (Class III/IV) designs are expected to constitute a data-monitoring committee. Recommendations go to ANVISA as a DICD addendum within 30 calendar days of the sponsor receiving them. An FIH that is not labeled “pivotal” can still justify a DMC on risk. Write that justification in the plan before first patient, including why you did not constitute one.

    What must stay aligned if the FIH will later support FDA

    FDA device investigations do not use the IND SUSAR clock. They use unanticipated adverse device effect (UADE) rules under 21 CFR 812.150. An investigator reports a UADE to the sponsor and reviewing IRB as soon as possible, and no later than 10 working days after first learning of it. The sponsor evaluates immediately and reports the evaluation to FDA, all reviewing IRBs, and participating investigators within 10 working days of first notice. If the UADE presents an unreasonable risk, termination clocks in 21 CFR 812.46 are 5 working days from that determination and 15 working days from first notice. FDA’s IDE FAQs repeat the same 10-working-day sponsor evaluation report.

    Those clocks will not match Brazil’s 24-hour / 7-calendar / 15-calendar structure. Alignment is not “pick the longer one and hope.” Alignment is a single source narrative:

    • One event identifier from the Brazilian CRF code through NotivisaEC and, if an IDE exists or will exist, through the UADE file.
    • One expectedness baseline — the same brochure version cited in the DICD and in the IDE investigational plan. If Brazil updates the brochure after an unexpected event (RDC 837/2023 requires investigators to be informed and the brochure to be updated), send that version into the FDA file in the same week.
    • One causality sentence that a device reviewer recognizes (device, procedure, disease, concomitant product). Do not let the Brazilian form say “possible” and the IDE memo say “unrelated” without a dated reconciliation.
    • Device identifiers — lot, serial, software version, accessory — on every case. Import traceability under the DICD DOU number is the same data FDA will ask for when the unit later supports a 510(k), De Novo, or PMA.
    • Quality-system evidence that the investigational unit was built under a system you can defend as you move toward the QMSR. A NotivisaEC case that cannot find the device history record is already a future FDA inspection finding.

    If there is no U.S. IDE yet, still write Brazilian cases as if 812.150 will apply later. Reconstructing UADEs from a drug-safety database two years on is how FIH datasets lose credibility.

    Where programs actually break

    The bottleneck is rarely the web form. It is the weekend between the PI’s 24-hour email and a U.S. medical monitor who is still arguing expectedness against an old brochure. Build a Brazil on-call roster that can file NotivisaEC without waiting for California business hours. Give the Brazilian authorized representative and the ORPC (if one is the DICD face) read-only access to the safety tracker. Import holds, ethics queries, and ANVISA inspections all ask for the same case list.

    Second break: treating CEP notification and ANVISA notification as the same send. Law 14.874/2024 sends serious events to the CEP. RDC 837/2023 sends a narrower unexpected-and-related set to ANVISA on NotivisaEC. Your SOP should have two lines, two clocks, two receipts.

    Third break: annual-report amnesia. The 60-day secondary petition is how ANVISA sees aggregate harm. If your data-management lock cannot produce site-level AE tables from Brazilian CRF codes, you will miss a petition that can cancel the DICD — after first patients are already in.

    A practical next step

    Before site initiation, run one tabletop: a fatal unexpected device-related event at 18:00 Brasília on a Friday. Walk the 24-hour investigator notice, the 7-calendar-day NotivisaEC filing, the 8-day follow-up, the CEP notice under Law 14.874/2024, the brochure update, and — if an IDE is live or planned — the 10-working-day UADE evaluation to FDA. If any of those hands is “we’ll figure it out,” rewrite the safety SOP and name the NotivisaEC filer. First-patient week is the wrong time to discover that VigiMed was the only account anyone opened.

  • ANVISA medical device classification rules for FIH studies in Brazil

    Most first-in-human (FIH) delays I see in Brazil do not start on the ANVISA clock. They start earlier, when regulatory affairs treats class as a registration afterthought instead of the decision that decides whether you even file a clinical investigation dossier, what the import petition can carry, and what the investigator brochure must treat as expected.

    This is not another walkthrough of Brazil’s 90-day ANVISA review window, and it is not a recap of Law 14.874/2024. Those calendars matter, but they sit on top of a classification call. If that call is wrong, the clock you are watching is the wrong clock.

    RDC 751/2022 is the class rule, not a slogan

    Collegiate Board Resolution RDC No. 751 of 15 September 2022 is ANVISA’s current framework for medical-device risk classification, labeling and instructions for use, and the notification versus marketing-authorization (registro) regimes. Article 5 places devices in four intrinsic-risk classes:

    • Class I — low risk
    • Class II — medium risk
    • Class III — high risk
    • Class IV — maximum risk

    Articles 6 and 7 then split the premarket path: Classes I and II are subject to notification; Classes III and IV are subject to marketing authorization. ANVISA’s English overview of the same split is on the Agency’s medical devices page.

    Classification is not a marketing preference. It is a rules exercise against the manufacturer’s intended purpose. Annex I of RDC 751/2022 sets the classification rules (duration of use, invasiveness, active energy, implants, special rules). The most stringent applicable rule wins. Software as a medical device is classified on its own intended purpose when it is standalone. In vitro diagnostic devices sit on a separate IVD classification track; do not force an IVD into the same clinical-investigation box as an implant.

    For an FIH program, lock three statements in the same document: intended purpose in Portuguese that will appear on the DICD and later on the registro file; the Annex I rule (or rules) you applied; and the resulting Class I–IV. If clinical, quality, and the Brazilian authorized representative cannot repeat those three lines without hedging, you are not ready to talk about first-patient dates.

    RDC 10/2015 is not the current FIH filing rule

    Sponsors still arrive with “RDC 10/2015” in the regulatory plan. That resolution existed. It is not the current device-investigation statute.

    RDC No. 548 of 30 August 2021 revoked RDC No. 10 of 20 February 2015 (Article 84 of RDC 548/2021). RDC No. 837 of 13 December 2023 then replaced that 2021 text. ANVISA announced the update and the alignment with international practice in its 18 December 2023 notice (in force early January 2024). Article 80 of RDC 837/2023 revokes RDC 548/2021.

    Current device clinical-investigation procedure is RDC 837/2023. Use RDC 10/2015 only as history. Do not cite it as the filing basis for a 2026 FIH.

    How class drives whether you file a DICD

    RDC 837/2023 is explicit about scope. A Dossiê de Investigação Clínica de Dispositivo Médico (DICD) is required for clinical investigations involving Class III or Class IV devices that are not yet registered in Brazil. A registered device studied for an indication different from the indication in the sanitary registration also goes in as a DICD.

    The same resolution carves out investigations that do not go to ANVISA as a DICD, including:

    • clinical performance studies of IVDs;
    • usability/human-factors-only studies (unless the clinical investigation also includes those endpoints among others);
    • investigations of devices already registered in Brazil for the same approved indications;
    • clinical investigations of Class I or Class II devices.

    Class I and II investigations are still expected to follow good clinical practice. RDC 837/2023 points to the Document of the Americas and ISO 14155 as the GCP standard. They still need ethics approval. They do not get a free pass on import controls or on manufacturing quality of investigational units. What they do not get is a DICD as the ANVISA on-ramp.

    That is the classification bottleneck. A U.S. significant-risk implant that an RA lead quietly “simplifies” to Class II to avoid a dossier is not a timeline win. It is a first-patient hold when import, ethics, or a later registro reviewer asks why the intended purpose looks like Rule 8 (long-term surgically invasive / implant) and the file says Class II. The opposite error is also expensive: forcing a true Class II tool through a DICD because someone copied a Class III playbook wastes petition fees and a review cycle you did not owe.

    What the DICD actually has to carry

    When class puts you in DICD scope, RDC 837/2023 consolidates the old two-dossier habit into one submission. The petition typically includes the DICD form, the sanitary-surveillance fee (GRU) or exemption, the investigator brochure, a safety-experience summary (prior human use and any foreign post-market experience), the investigational-device dossier, the clinical investigation plan under GCP, and proof of registration in a WHO ICTRP or ICMJE-recognized trial registry (or that proof at start-date notification if it is not ready at first protocolization).

    ANVISA’s petition checklist for DICD subject 80104 is published in the Agency’s SAT instruction list. Use that list, not a recycled IND table of contents.

    Two operational rules from the same resolution save weeks if you lock them before translators start:

    • The party who files the DICD owns every later secondary petition. Do not let a consultant file “just this once.”
    • An organização representativa de pesquisa clínica (ORPC) may file only when the sponsor has no headquarters or branch in Brazil. If you already have a Brazilian legal presence, that presence is the face of the file.

    RDC 837/2023 gives ANVISA 90 calendar days (dias corridos) to issue a manifestation on the DICD, with a tacit-start path after ethics approval if the Agency is silent. Law 14.874/2024 Article 58 speaks of 90 business days (dias úteis) for primary sanitary analysis of clinical-trial petitions intended to support registration. Those are not the same unit of time. Treat the mismatch as a planning flag; do not invent a hierarchy in a slide. The clock posts already cover activation math. Classification decides whether that math applies to you at all.

    Import, IOR/AR, and QMSR sit on the same class decision

    Investigational units do not enter Brazil on a commercial registro. RDC 837/2023 Chapter IX puts exclusive clinical-use import under sanitary inspection and SISCOMEX release. The importer must cite the Diário Oficial da União resolution number for the DICD grant. Outer packaging must carry that DOU number, storage conditions, and a lot, identification, or serial code that can trace the unit. Quantities are limited to what the investigation needs. Commercialization of those units is prohibited.

    If someone other than the DICD holder imports, both parties sign a delegation-of-import-responsibility document. That is your import authorized representative problem, not a freight problem. The same legal person who will later hold notification or registro as authorized representative should see the investigational import list now. A first-patient kit that is not on the DICD product list will sit on the dock.

    On quality: RDC 837/2023 requires investigational devices, and any placebo or sham, to be manufactured to good manufacturing practice and labeled so they are identifiable as investigational. ANVISA may inspect the manufacturing site against the technical, production, and quality-control story in the DICD. If the same design will later support an FDA marketing file, build those units under the quality system you intend to defend — including the United States Quality Management System Regulation transition — not under a “prototype exception” that you cannot reconstruct.

    What the RA lead must lock before first patient

    Write these eight items as a one-page gate. Do not open the site until each line has an owner and a document ID.

    1. Intended purpose. The Portuguese indication that will classify the device under RDC 751/2022 Annex I and that will appear in the investigator brochure. Changing “long-term implant” to “intraoperative aid” after ethics approval is a new class, not a wording tweak.
    2. Class and rule. Class I–IV plus the governing Annex I rule. Record why neighboring rules were rejected.
    3. DICD yes/no. Apply RDC 837/2023 Articles 2 and 4. Class I/II, same-indication post-market, IVD performance, and usability-only studies are out of DICD scope. Class III/IV unregistered, and new indications on a registered device, are in.
    4. Filing face. Sponsor legal entity in Brazil versus ORPC. Name the person who will own secondary petitions: start/end dates, amendments, annual report.
    5. Import list. Every investigational SKU, spare, and accessory that will clear SISCOMEX, mapped to the DICD form. No “we’ll add the introducer later.”
    6. Expectedness language. The brochure and operator manual define “unexpected” for later safety notification. If the FIH protocol lists risks the brochure omits, you have built a 7- and 15-day reporting trap.
    7. Ethics path. CEP submission under Law 14.874/2024 in parallel with, not after, the sanitary file when a DICD is in scope. Single-CEP review for multicenter protocols is a legal design, not a courtesy.
    8. Start-date discipline. RDC 837/2023 requires start- and end-date forms as secondary petitions within 30 calendar days of each Brazil date. First patient is a regulatory event, not only a clinical one.

    Amendments after that gate are expensive. Substantial changes to the brochure or device dossier that can affect quality or safety wait for ANVISA manifestation (again, 90 calendar days in RDC 837/2023). Substantial protocol amendments that affect participant safety or scientific value wait the same way, except amendments that remove an immediate risk, which you implement and notify. Classification mistakes tend to surface as those amendments.

    A practical next step

    This week, run a 90-minute classification huddle with RA, clinical, quality, and the Brazilian representative. Put the intended-purpose sentence, the Annex I rule, the Class I–IV result, and a yes/no DICD decision on one page. Attach the RDC 751/2022 English text and the RDC 837/2023 scope articles. If those four people cannot sign the page, do not book first-patient week. The calendar you save is not ANVISA’s — it is the month you would have spent unscrewing a class you never locked.

  • After First Patients: How to Sequence FDA/IDE Data and LATAM Registration

    Most founders treat Latin America as a trial geography until first patients are in, then treat it as a launch geography only after FDA has spoken. The post-FIH question is not “FDA first, then LATAM.” It is: what do you do with the same evidence package while the clock is still cheap?

    You already have ethics approvals, an investigational import path, and a first cohort. Two clocks now compete for the same documents: FDA use of that data (IDE, 510(k), De Novo, or PMA) and sanitary registration at ANVISA, INVIMA, COFEPRIS, and ANMAT. Mixing those clocks is how teams lose a year.

    The split that matters after first patients

    Clinical-trial authorization and sanitary registration are not sequential stamps of the same permit. They are different legal objects, usually held by different local entities, with different import codes and different labeling.

    • Trial authorization lets you treat patients under a protocol. The device arrives as an investigational product. The local face is often an importer of record (IOR) plus a site or CRO, not your future commercial holder.
    • Sanitary registration lets you sell. The device arrives as a commercial product. The local face is an authorized representative / registration holder. The label, IFU, and QMS evidence must match the marketed configuration—not the “we’ll lock it after the last implant” version sitting in the design-history file.

    Converting a trial import into a commercial shipment without a new holder, a new dossier, and a locked configuration is a new problem, not a paperwork update.

    What FDA actually accepts from the FIH you just ran

    OUS FIH data can support an IDE or a device marketing submission. That is not folklore. In February 2018 FDA issued a final rule on acceptance of data from clinical investigations of medical devices. FDA’s own summary is here: Acceptance of Data from Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices.

    The operative text lives in 21 CFR 812.28 (Subpart B). In short:

    1. FDA will accept information from a well-designed, well-conducted investigation conducted outside the United States to support an IDE or a device marketing application or submission if the investigation was conducted in accordance with good clinical practice (GCP) as defined in § 812.28(a)(1).
    2. GCP, as defined there, includes independent ethics committee (IEC) review and approval (or a favorable opinion) before initiation, continuing IEC review, and documented informed consent—except in the narrow life-threatening situations the regulation itself describes.
    3. The sponsor or applicant must submit the supporting information in § 812.28(b) (or a cross-reference to where it lives in the file), including a description of the actions taken to ensure the research conformed to GCP.

    Do not “clean the data later for FDA” while you send a different CSR to Latin America. One evidence room. If the FIH lacked IEC review, consent, monitoring, and traceable source, you have a feasibility anecdote, not a bridge.

    QMSR is the other quiet bottleneck. FDA’s quality-system expectations sit on ISO 13485 architecture. A LATAM holder who cannot produce design controls, CAPA, supplier control, and a PMS plan will stall a registro even when the clinical tables look fine.

    What you are actually waiting on after FIH

    After first patients, the calendar is usually waiting on you—not “the regulator.”

    1. Configuration lock. Registration is for a defined product, models, accessories, software version, and intended use. If you are still iterating the delivery system after patient 6, you are not registration-ready.
    2. A CSR or a disciplined interim. High-risk dossiers want clinical evidence, not a slide. File on a pre-specified locked interim or wait for last-patient-last-visit. That choice drives the country clocks below.
    3. The commercial holder, not the trial IOR. Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina all require a local legal person to hold or promote the sanitary authorization. Appointing that holder after you “finish the study” is how you add a quarter you will never get back.
    4. Language and labeling. Portuguese IFU for Brazil. Spanish labeling for Mexico (NOM-137 is the usual label conversation), Colombia, and Argentina. English source files that are still in draft are not a translation problem; they are a lock problem.
    5. Import identity. Investigational import permissions expire with the trial. Commercial import needs a registration number, a holder, and a tariff/sanitary identity that matches the registered product.

    Four country clocks—registration, not trial

    These are market-access clocks. They are not the trial-authorization clocks you already ran.

    ANVISA (Brazil) — notification vs registro

    ANVISA’s English medical-device page states that equipment is premarket-authorized under two regimes: notification for risk Classes I and II, and marketing authorization (registro) for Classes III and IV, under the classification rules in RDC No. 751/2022. See ANVISA: Medical devices and the service page Solicitar registro de dispositivo médico.

    What that means after FIH:

    • The applicant company must already be regularized with ANVISA (CNPJ, Solicita access). A foreign legal manufacturer does not file as itself.
    • For Classes III and IV, ANVISA’s page is explicit that the manufacturing unit must hold a valid GMP certificate issued by ANVISA; the agency may accept a GMP-certification protocol at application, but effective approval depends on publication of the GMP certification. That is often the real Brazil clock—not the clinical tables.
    • The service page cites RDC 751/2022 (devices) and RDC 830/2023 (IVDs) and states that a granted registro is valid for 10 years from publication in the Diário Oficial da União.

    Do not reuse the trial import file for commercial launch. The trial IOR and the Brazil Registration Holder are often different companies. Align them before you translate the CSR.

    INVIMA (Colombia) — I/IIA automatic vs IIB/III prior evaluation

    INVIMA’s device pages describe the sanitary registration as the public document issued under Decreto 4725 de 2005 that authorizes production, import, and commercialization. See INVIMA: Dispositivos médicos y equipos biomédicos.

    The operational split after FIH is class, not “did we already run a trial in Bogotá”:

    • Risk I and IIA: automatic-style sanitary registrations / renewals when the file is complete.
    • Risk IIB and III: prior technical-legal evaluation. INVIMA’s own normograma material on the procedure states that the Institute will process IIB and III sanitary-registration or marketing-permit requests in 90 business days once the technical and legal requirements are complete, and that a single deficiency cycle gives the applicant 90 days to respond or the request is treated as withdrawn.

    FIH data helps the IIB/III file. It does not skip the holder, the unique INVIMA form, or Spanish labeling. A site that wants to keep using the device after the protocol closes has a registration problem, not an amendment.

    COFEPRIS (Mexico) — trial authorization is not registro sanitario

    Mexico is where sponsors most often confuse the two permits. DIGIPRiS is used for both clinical-research filings and device registros. They are still different authorizations.

    COFEPRIS publishes device-authorization material at Autorización de Dispositivos Médicos and the agency home at gob.mx/cofepris. Commercial entry is a registro sanitario promoted by a Mexico Registration Holder, with Spanish labeling and a technical monograph. Equivalence / abbreviated (reliance) routes exist when you already have a reference-authority approval; those routes are not a substitute for having a holder and a Spanish dossier.

    If the next FDA step is still an IDE, Mexico’s equivalence conversation is usually later. Treat trial-to-registration as its own workstream. Do not wait for a 510(k) number unless Mexico is explicitly “abbreviated after FDA.”

    ANMAT (Argentina) — HELENA is the commercial desk

    ANMAT’s product-medical page points commercial filings to Sistema HELENA for electronic registration of productos médicos (including IVDs). See ANMAT: Productos Médicos and the HELENA login at helena.anmat.gob.ar.

    HELENA is not your ethics committee. After FIH you need a locally enabled manufacturer/importer, a class-correct expediente, and Spanish files. Argentina looks “slow” when company habilitation and digital signature start after the CSR.

    A post-FIH sequence that does not fight itself

    A sequence I use when first patients are in and the board wants both a U.S. story and a LATAM revenue story:

    1. Week 0–2 after first-patient-in: freeze the commercial identity. Intended use, models, accessories, software baseline, sterile barrier, and the claims you are willing to put on a label. If the next three patients will change the device, you are still in design, not in registration.
    2. Week 2–6: stand up holders in the countries you will actually sell, not the countries you studied. A Panama or El Salvador FIH does not create an ANVISA or COFEPRIS registration. Pick the commercial four (or a subset) and appoint holders while enrollment continues.
    3. In parallel: FDA use-case for the same data. If the next U.S. step is an IDE, write the IDE as the primary consumer of the FIH package (GCP statement, IEC packet, monitoring, device accountability). If the next U.S. step is 510(k)/De Novo, decide whether FIH is supporting clinical evidence or only human-factors/feasibility color. That choice changes how hard you should push LATAM registration on interim data.
    4. Stagger the four LATAM files by what they wait on, not by national pride.
      • INVIMA I/IIA and ANMAT lower-class HELENA filings can often start as soon as the holder and Spanish admin file exist—clinical depth is lighter.
      • ANVISA III/IV waits on BGMP as much as on the CSR. Start the GMP petition the week you lock the manufacturing site, not the week you lock the tables.
      • COFEPRIS standard registro can start on a complete Spanish monograph; save equivalence/abbreviated for when you actually have a reference-authority approval to lean on.
    5. Do not file four countries on four different device descriptions. One source IFU, four translations. One PMS / tecnovigilancia plan architecture, four local implementations. One complaint-handling owner.

    Three sequencing mistakes I still see after first implants

    1. Using the trial IOR as the future registration holder “to save a contract.” Cheap in month one. Expensive when you want to change distributors, add a second importer, or survive an inspection.
    2. Waiting for FDA clearance before opening any LATAM registro because “reliance will be faster.” Reliance is real in Mexico when you have something to rely on. It is not a reason to delay holder appointment, translations, or Brazil GMP.
    3. Sending LATAM a marketing brochure version of the FIH while sending FDA a GCP package. Reviewers talk. More importantly, your own QMS will not survive two truths about the same study.

    One tactical next step

    This week, build a one-page post-FIH evidence map: FDA plus the LATAM countries you will actually file, and three rows—(1) what is locked (protocol, IEC letters, device version), (2) what is open (CSR date, GMP, holder, translations), (3) the first document each agency is waiting on that is not “more patients.” Share it with regulatory, quality, and the person who signs import paperwork. If those three people cannot point to the same configuration and the same holder, you are hoping, not sequencing.

    Disclosure: I am CEO of bioaccess®, a FIH/EFS medical-device CRO and LATAM launch/in-country-holder group. The sequencing above is how I tell sponsors to think about the calendar; it is not a pitch for a particular vendor to hold your registration.

  • COFEPRIS Medical Device Registration Checklist (Mexico): MRH, Abbreviated Pathway, and Spanish Dossier

    COFEPRIS medical device registration is the ranking laggard for a reason: most English pages either recycle a generic “LATAM registration” outline or talk about manufacturing in Mexico. U.S. RA leads need a holder checklist — who owns the registro sanitario, which pathway you actually qualify for in 2026, and what must be in Spanish before DIGIPRIS will take the fee.

    bioaccess® works from Miami with U.S. MedTech sponsors and keeps trial plus market-access coverage across 19 Latin American and Caribbean markets. Mexico is one market in that footprint, not the only one. Timelines below are experience-based planning ranges for 2026, not COFEPRIS SLAs.

    What COFEPRIS registration is

    COFEPRIS (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios) issues the sanitary registration that must appear on Mexican labeling before you commercially import and sell a device. The legal spine is the Ley General de Salud plus the device reglamento and the applicable NOMs — especially NOM-137-SSA1 (labeling) and NOM-241-SSA1 (GMP / good manufacturing and quality practices for devices). Classification is risk-based Class I / II / III (with IIa/IIb language used in some COFEPRIS materials). Classification drives dossier depth and the standard-route calendar.

    A 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or CE certificate is not a Mexican registration. Since September 2025 it can be the ticket onto the abbreviated / equivalence pathway if the authorization comes from an IMDRF- or MDSAP-recognized authority (FDA is the usual U.S. case; Health Canada, TGA, and EU MDR authorizations are the other names reviewers expect). That pathway is a summary dossier plus reliance — not a copy-paste of the FDA decision summary into a Spanish folder with no Mexican holder.

    The Mexico Registration Holder is the asset

    Foreign manufacturers do not hold the registro sanitario. A Mexico Registration Holder (MRH) — a legally constituted Mexican entity, sometimes still called the authorized representative or sanitary correspondent — files, pays the government fee, and typically owns the number in its name. Transfers are possible and slow. If your exclusive distributor is the MRH, a breakup is a regulatory project.

    • Notarized, apostilled letter of representation / power of attorney that states exactly what the MRH may file, modify, renew, and report.
    • MRH corporate standing and, where applicable, the establishment notices COFEPRIS expects for the activities they perform.
    • A written plan for who is importer of record vs. who is MRH vs. who is distributor. One company can wear two hats. Three hats on a thin distributor is how import permits stall when a person leaves.
    • Exit language: how you will transfer the registration if the commercial deal ends. Put it in the appointment, not in a slide.

    Pathways and a hedged calendar

    • Standard route. Full technical dossier. Published planning windows you will hear in 2026: on the order of 20–30 days for many Class I files, 30–60 for Class II, 60–180 for Class III — after a complete filing. Deficiency letters and workload stretch those numbers. Class III implants should not be promised as a 60-day launch.
    • Abbreviated / equivalence route (from 1 September 2025). Summary dossier that leans on a valid FDA or other recognized-market authorization. COFEPRIS has socialized a ~30-day target review across classes. Treat 30 days as a target after completeness, not as door-to-door from the day you hire counsel. Spanish labeling, the MRH pack, and “same device” identity (indications, design, manufacturer) are where abbreviated files die.

    March 2025 simplification measures trimmed some administrative steps and compressed certain low-risk reviews. They did not delete the holder requirement.

    Dossier checklist

    Every pathway

    • Device identity: generic and brand names, models, accessories, intended use, and the Mexican class you are claiming.
    • MRH letter of representation, apostilled; manufacturer corporate documents as required.
    • QMS evidence — ISO 13485 is the practical standard and is the usual way to speak to NOM-241 expectations. MDSAP or a recognized GMP certificate helps; “we are FDA-registered” alone is a thin story.
    • Spanish labels and IFU per NOM-137: generic name, origin, lot/serial, expiry if applicable, manufacturer, importer/MRH, and a reserved field for the registration number.
    • Proof of payment of the COFEPRIS government fee for the correct clave / modality. Fees are published in MXN and change. Do not freeze a USD “all-in” number from a 2023 blog post.

    Standard route extras

    • Full technical description, drawings, materials, and specifications.
    • Risk analysis (ISO 14971 or equivalent).
    • Biocompatibility, electrical, software, and sterility evidence that matches how the device is sold.
    • Clinical evidence appropriate to Class III and to novel Class II claims.

    Abbreviated route extras

    • Certified evidence of the foreign marketing authorization (FDA clearance/approval letter and current listing story, or the equivalent CE/MDR, Health Canada, TGA pack).
    • A “sameness” memo: indications, design, labeling claims, and legal manufacturer must match what the reference authority approved. A Mexico-only indication is not an abbreviated file.
    • Spanish summary of the foreign review story — not 400 pages of untranslated FDA correspondence.

    Validity, renewals, and technovigilance

    First registrations remain a five-year instrument in normal practice. As of January 2026, subsequent renewals can be granted for periods of up to ten years — useful if you are already on the market and your holder is stable. Technovigilance reporting stays with the MRH. If your U.S. complaint system does not forward Mexico-reportable events to the MRH on a defined clock, you have a regulatory gap, not a “local admin” task.

    FAQ-style close

    Can a U.S. company be the registration holder? Not without a Mexican legal entity acting as MRH. Plan the holder before you book the DIGIPRIS slot.

    Does the abbreviated pathway replace the MRH? No. It shortens the technical review when the foreign authorization is real and the device is the same. The holder still files.

    Is this the same as a COFEPRIS clinical-trial authorization? No. Research ethics and trial import of investigational units are a different authorization. Do not send a 510(k) equivalence pack to a trial desk and expect a sanitary registration number.

    How should we budget? Government fees are only the clave. Translations, apostilles, MRH retainers, and one likely deficiency cycle are the project. Hedge the calendar; do not sell the board a single flat USD fee.

    Where does a multi-country register-and-hold model live? If the devices are already FDA-cleared (510(k)/PMA) or CE-marked and you want an independent holder rather than a distributor-owned number, bioaccess® describes that separately on the market-access page. Mexico is usually sequenced with the abbreviated pack and a holder who is not also your only commercial bet.