Category: Preparing for First-In-Human Studies

Offers insights and best practices for Medtech, Biopharma, and Radiopharma companies preparing for their first-in-human clinical trials.

  • Latam Research Associates (Panama) vs a First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Latam Research Associates (LR Associates, LRA, lrassociates.health) into a search box, you are probably vetting a site partner for a clinical study in Panama. This article uses only what is public about Latam Research Associates (lrassociates.health) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It is a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What Latam Research Associates publishes

    Latam Research Associates Corp. is a Panama corporation (sociedad anónima) registered in Panama City on May 5, 2025, listed as active in the public company registry (registry listing). Its website, lrassociates.health, titled “LR Associates”, showed an email sign-up form when reviewed in November 2026; we found no published services, team, study list or address there. Outreach from the company describes access to affiliated doctors and medical groups in Panama.

    A search of ClinicalTrials.gov in November 2026 returned no study records mentioning “Latam Research Associates” (query). Based on its own description, it presents as a physician and site network intermediary rather than a full-service CRO.

    Latam Research Associates vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Latam Research Associates bioaccess®
    Core focus Network of affiliated doctors and medical groups in Panama First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Founded Registered in Panama, May 2025 Latin America, since 2010
    Public study record No ClinicalTrials.gov records found mentioning the company (Nov 2026) Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    Device FIH track record No named device first-in-human study found on the public pages reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Live multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you only need introductions to physicians in Panama, a referral network like Latam Research Associates may be one option; ask it for its investigator list, prior sponsors and executed studies before you commit.

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

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

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

    Facts from the Latam Research Associates website, the Panama company registry and ClinicalTrials.gov linked above, reviewed for bioaccess® competitive research (Nov 2026). No invented sponsors, prices or contacts.

  • Visionware Clinical Sydney vs a Latin America First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Visionware Clinical into a search box, you are probably building a CRO shortlist. This article uses only what Visionware Clinical publishes (visionwareclinical.com · visionwareclinical.com/services · visionwareclinical.com/about-us) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It is a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What Visionware Clinical publishes

    Visionware Clinical is a Sydney-area (Mosman, NSW) contract research organisation that calls itself an emerging CRO in Australia and New Zealand specialising in medical devices. Its services page covers consulting, data gathering, medical writing, clinical trials and regulatory work. It says it will help design and conduct first-in-human, feasibility and pivotal trials, set up paper or electronic data capture, and support ARTG registration with the TGA. It also advises on Australia's R&D tax incentive and on setting up a local entity. Dina Peleg Kowarski is CEO and Director of Clinical Operations, with more than 15 years in clinical trials. We found no named sponsor or study on its site.

    Visionware Clinical vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Visionware Clinical bioaccess®
    Core focus Boutique Australian medical-device CRO First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography Australia and New Zealand Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record No named device first-in-human study found on the public pages reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial ARTG registration support with the TGA and post-market clinical trials, per its services page Live multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you want a small device-only team for a first Australian feasibility study, with ARTG support afterwards, Visionware publishes that offer.

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

    Australia sells real country features: the CTN scheme, English-language ethics and, for eligible companies, the R&D tax incentive. Those are country features, not Visionware Clinical features. The country math is on bioaccess® vs Australia, and the established Australian device EFS boutique is covered in Mobius Medical vs bioaccess®.

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

    Competitor facts from the Visionware Clinical public pages linked above and public announcements, reviewed for bioaccess® competitive research (Aug 2026–Nov 2026). Claims are theirs. No invented sponsors, prices or contacts.

  • Scientia Clinical Research Sydney vs a Latin America First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Scientia Clinical Research into a search box, you are probably building a CRO shortlist. This article uses only what Scientia Clinical Research publishes (www.scientiaclinicalresearch.com.au · www.scientiaclinicalresearch.com.au/about-scientia · www.scientiaclinicalresearch.com.au/our-experience · www.scientiaclinicalresearch.com.au/sponsors) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It is a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What Scientia Clinical Research publishes

    Scientia Clinical Research is a not-for-profit Phase 1 unit in Randwick, Sydney, incorporated in 2015 and based in the Bright Building on the Randwick health precinct. It has a long-term lease with South Eastern Sydney Local Health District and a service agreement with Prince of Wales Hospital for emergency support, and calls itself the only purpose-built first-in-human Phase 1 unit in central Sydney run as a not-for-profit. It claims 300+ studies completed, 24/7 participant monitoring, in-house ethics and start-up specialists, and experience in SAD/MAD, food-effect, drug-interaction, PK, biosimilar, vaccine and Phase 1 oncology studies. Its experience page lists "First In Human Medical device studies" among its capabilities, but we found no named device sponsor on the pages reviewed.

    Scientia Clinical Research vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Scientia Clinical Research bioaccess®
    Core focus Not-for-profit drug Phase 1 unit; device FIH listed as a capability First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography Australia Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record No named device first-in-human study found on the public pages reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Live multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you need a Sydney Phase 1 unit for a drug, a biologic, or a device study that can run under Phase 1 confinement, Scientia is a credible choice.

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

    Australia sells real country features: the CTN scheme, English-language ethics and, for eligible companies, the R&D tax incentive. Those are country features, not Scientia Clinical Research features. The country math is on bioaccess® vs Australia, and the established Australian device EFS boutique is covered in Mobius Medical vs bioaccess®.

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

    Competitor facts from the Scientia Clinical Research public pages linked above and public announcements, reviewed for bioaccess® competitive research (Aug 2026–Nov 2026). Claims are theirs. No invented sponsors, prices or contacts.

  • How to Run a First-in-Human Medical Device Clinical Trial in Costa Rica: The Regulatory Pathway

    General information, not legal advice. Requirements change and each ethics committee applies its own procedures. Confirm with the scientific ethics committee (CEC), CONIS and Costa Rican counsel before you commit a timeline. Last verified 28 October 2026.

    This is our one-page regulatory pathway for a first-in-human (FIH) medical device clinical trial in Costa Rica. It is written for sponsors who already have a protocol and want to know who approves what, in what order, what it costs, and where the time goes. Every rule below is linked to the public source we read it from. Where the law is silent, or where we only have experience and no published data, we say so.

    Key takeaways

    • One law, one regulation. Clinical research in humans is governed by Ley 9234 (Ley Reguladora de Investigación Biomédica, 2014) and its regulation, Decreto Ejecutivo 39061-S (2015, as amended by 39533-S).
    • The ethics committee is the gate. A CONIS-accredited CEC must approve the protocol in writing before anything starts. Each committee sets its own submission format, fees and meeting calendar, so ask the CEC that will review your study.
    • CONIS registration plus a 3% levy. The approved study is registered with CONIS, the national health research council under the Ministry of Health. At registration the principal investigator pays CONIS 3% of the total study budget (Ley 9234, art. 60).
    • Insurance must be enforceable in Costa Rica, and the Spanish consent form has to describe the policy.
    • Device import comes last. Investigational units may be imported only after CEC approval and CONIS registration (Decreto 39061-S, art. 55).
    • Public (CCSS) hospitals add a second layer: their own regulation, a central CCSS committee, a contract signed by the CCSS and CCSS tariff-based cost recovery. Plan for materially longer than a private site.

    The legal framework

    • Ley 9234 regulates biomedical research with humans in both public and private settings and creates CONIS (official SCIJ text).
    • Decreto 39061-S sets out the submission package, committee deadlines, the levy and the rules for importing investigational products (consolidated copy; official SCIJ record).
    • Reglamento de Investigación Biomédica de la CCSS (La Gaceta, Alcance 50, 10 March 2021) applies only at CCSS public facilities (PDF from CENDEISSS).
    • CONIS lists all three on its legislation page.

    An investigational device does not need Costa Rican sanitary registration to be used in an approved study. The regulation authorizes the import and use of registered and unregistered products for research purposes, limited to studies that are properly approved and registered (Decreto 39061-S, art. 53). Commercial registration later is a separate file. See how to register a medical device with MINSA.

    Step 1: Choose the site, and with it the committee

    In Costa Rica the site and the ethics committee choice go together:

    • Private hospital or research center. The study normally goes to that institution’s own CONIS-accredited CEC, or to another accredited CEC if it has none. Each committee publishes, or will send you, its own forms, fees and session dates. Ask that CEC directly what it requires; there is no single national form. See the table of private and university CECs below.
    • CCSS public hospital. Proposals go to one of the CCSS’s central CECs (CEC-CENTRAL), not to a committee chosen by the sponsor (CCSS regulation, art. 14). See the CCSS section below.
    • Is a device FIH “Phase I”? Ley 9234 makes the Ministry of Health’s own committee (CEC-MS) the only committee in the country that can approve Phase I and bioequivalence studies (art. 46, as summarized in the Ministry’s CEC-MS notice). The law defines the phases in drug and vaccine terms. Whether a given device FIH is routed to CEC-MS or can be reviewed by a site CEC should be confirmed in writing with CONIS or the committee before you plan the calendar.

    Every investigator must be accredited by CONIS and hold a Good Clinical Practice course certificate less than three years old (Decreto 39061-S, art. 44(z)–(aa)).

    Step 2: Build the Spanish submission package

    Decreto 39061-S art. 44 lists the package for any experimental, clinical or interventional study. For a device FIH the items that usually drive the schedule are:

    • Protocol and investigator’s brochure in the original language plus an official Spanish translation, dated and versioned (art. 44(b)–(c)).
    • Informed consent in Spanish, in plain language (art. 44(d)). Ley 9234 art. 11(f) requires it to address the insurance policy.
    • IDE or equivalent, or a copy of an approval letter from FDA, EMA or another recognized agency, unless CONIS grants a qualified exception or the research is of Costa Rican authorship (art. 44(h)).
    • Device classification by FDA, EMA or another recognized agency (art. 44(i)).
    • Evidence the device was made under good manufacturing practice, plus a sterility certificate for sterile devices (art. 44(r)).
    • The investigator–sponsor contract and the study budget (art. 44(l)–(m)). The budget matters twice: the CEC reviews it, and the 3% CONIS levy is calculated on it.
    • Insurance policies and sponsor commitments on injury treatment and compensation (art. 44(jj)–(ll)).
    • A commitment to provide the study product free after the trial where it proved beneficial (art. 44(mm); Ley 9234 arts. 28 and 53). See our note on post-trial access for devices.
    • Site description, team CVs, CONIS accreditations and conflict-of-interest declarations (art. 44(p), (z)–(cc)).
    • A sworn statement naming any CRO (OIC) or site management organization (OAC) and its CONIS accreditation (art. 44(tt)).

    Step 3: Insurance enforceable in Costa Rica

    A civil liability policy is mandatory (Ley 9234, art. 31). It must be valid and enforceable in Costa Rica, through an insurer with branches or service centers in the country (Decreto 39061-S, art. 14(f)). It covers participants from consent signature until three years after their participation ends, and the sponsor must also cover the investigator and team. Each participant receives proof of the policy with the consent form. There is no monetary minimum in the law. Full detail: Costa Rica clinical trial insurance under Ley 9234, and the country-by-country LATAM clinical trial insurance guide.

    Step 4: CEC review

    Committees must rule on approval, rejection or renewal within one calendar month from the business day after the submission (Decreto 39061-S, art. 42). In practice that clock only helps if the package is complete. Query cycles, translation fixes and committee session calendars add time, and none of that is published. Resolutions can be appealed to the committee and then to CONIS.

    Step 5: CONIS registration and the 3% levy

    Once the CEC approves, the study is registered with CONIS. To register, the principal investigator pays CONIS 3% of the total research budget, and a copy of the signed contract, reviewed by the CEC, goes to CONIS (Ley 9234, art. 60, as quoted by the CCSS’s CENDEISSS FAQ). CONIS verifies the payment, which goes into a CONIS collection account (Decreto 39061-S, art. 49). Studies declared of public interest or a health priority can apply for an exemption (Ley 9234, art. 61; Decreto art. 50). A sponsored device FIH normally will not qualify. Budget the levy from day one and keep the CEC budget and the CONIS budget identical.

    Step 6: Institutional authorization

    CEC approval does not by itself open the site. Under Ley 9234 the health center where the study runs, public or private, must also authorize it. At a private site this is usually a letter from the institution’s legal representative or medical director. At a CCSS hospital it is a multi-office process, described next.

    Step 7: Import the investigational devices

    Investigational devices may be imported only after the study is approved by the CEC and registered with CONIS. Before the first shipment, the investigator or importer files with CONIS a list of the units and supplies needed for the whole study, approved beforehand by the CEC. CONIS uses it to issue the sanitary authorization for each customs entry, and any increase needs a new approval (Decreto 39061-S, art. 55(a)–(b)). Every product must be traceable through the supply chain to the site (art. 54).

    Public CCSS hospitals versus private sites

    The Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS) runs the public hospitals. Sponsored studies are allowed there, but under an extra regulation with its own committees, offices and contract:

    • Pre-review sign-offs. The service head and the hospital’s medical director must sign a “no objection” on the application before the CEC sees it (CCSS regulation, art. 73(b); CENDEISSS requirements). The regulation sets no deadline for this step.
    • Central CCSS committee reviews the protocol: 30 calendar days for full-committee review from a complete submission, 15 for expedited review (arts. 14, 17, 18). A CCSS review fee applies; for the second half of 2026 it is ₡1,442,664 for a first submission (CENDEISSS tariffs).
    • A CCSS employee on the team. Every study run in the CCSS must include at least one CCSS staff member, accredited by CONIS, as principal investigator or sub-investigator (art. 13). The CENDEISSS checklist adds that if the principal investigator is not a CCSS employee, a CCSS employee must be named sub-investigator and shares responsibility for the study with the principal investigator (CENDEISSS requirements, item 1). An investigator who is not on CCSS staff cannot run a study at a CCSS hospital alone.
    • Contract before approval. For sponsored studies, the contract between the investigator, the CCSS, the sponsor and any CRO or site-management company must be signed before the CEC authorizes the protocol (art. 12).
    • Conditions for industry studies: the study must be of institutional interest, must not affect patient care, must use idle capacity, and must benefit the CCSS and participants (art. 27).
    • Cost recovery. The sponsor pays the CCSS direct, indirect and administrative costs under the CCSS tariff model. Costs not in the tariff are set by the CCSS cost-accounting area, which has up to 30 calendar days (arts. 28, 77).
    • A three-party contract between the CCSS (signed by the CENDEISSS director), the investigator and the sponsor or CRO. The regulation gives 10 business days to draft it, 5 for legal review and 5 to sign (arts. 31, 69(i), 70(f), 75).
    • Sponsor paperwork. The sponsor must be current with CCSS obligations, file sworn statements on the origin of funds and, if foreign, provide apostilled corporate documents and powers of attorney with official Spanish translations (arts. 29–30).
    • Start authorization by the hospital authority within 5 business days of the CEC’s request (art. 73(c)).

    CCSS central CEC: the rules, the package and the fees

    The CCSS rules come from its Reglamento de Investigación Biomédica (La Gaceta, Alcance 50, 10 March 2021). The articles that matter most for a sponsored device study:

    • Art. 12, approval. Research is allowed in CCSS units only if it does not disrupt the unit and respects patients’ rights. It needs approval by a CONIS-accredited CCSS committee and authorization by the competent CCSS authority, plus CENDEISSS authorization (through its research area, AISSS) and CONIS registration. If a hospital director objects, the matter goes to the CCSS General Management for a final decision. For sponsored studies, the contract between the investigator, the CCSS, the sponsor and any CRO or site-management company must be signed before the committee authorizes the protocol.
    • Art. 13, CCSS staff. At least one CCSS employee, accredited by CONIS, must be principal investigator or sub-investigator. The only exception is research for an academic degree, which needs a CCSS tutor instead.
    • Art. 14, where to submit. Proposals go to one of the CCSS central committees (CEC-CENTRAL). Its technical secretariat checks that the package is complete and on the official forms.
    • Art. 27, conditions for sponsored studies. The study must be of institutional interest; must not affect patient care (study tasks during normal care hours can be done by trained third parties with the unit’s authorization); must use idle capacity of facilities and equipment; must benefit the CCSS and participants; must recognize the CCSS in publications; and must have a signed contract.
    • Art. 28, payments. Sponsored studies pay the CCSS direct, indirect and administrative costs under the CCSS health-insurance tariff model, based on the total study budget. Items not in the tariff are priced by the CCSS cost-accounting area within 30 calendar days. The money goes to the CENDEISSS research and innovation fund.
    • Art. 73, the hospital authority. The head of the hospital gives the administrative no-objection before committee review, coordinates the start within 5 business days of the committee’s request, informs the service head, and grants electronic-record access to authorized investigators.

    The submission package. The CENDEISSS checklist for interventional studies has 22 protocol items. In summary:

    • An investigator’s request letter (naming a CCSS sub-investigator if the principal investigator is not CCSS staff).
    • CCSS forms AP-IA to AP-VA: application with the service head’s and medical director’s no-objection signatures for each hospital, protocol, protocol summary, lab and pathology tests, and budget.
    • Investigator’s brochure in the original language plus an official Spanish translation, and the case report form.
    • IDE (or equivalent) or an FDA, EMA or other recognized approval letter; the device’s classification by a recognized agency; Costa Rican registration certificates if the device is already registered.
    • List of countries and sites with expected enrollment per site; approval by an accredited committee in the sponsor’s country if it has sites there; history of submissions to other Costa Rican committees.
    • GMP evidence and, for sterile devices, a sterility certificate.
    • Site licences, sample-transfer agreements, external-lab licences, and recruitment materials.
    • Spanish informed consent (and assent if needed), dated and versioned.
    • For every team member: signed CV, ID, professional licence, a CONIS-endorsed GCP certificate under three years old, CONIS accreditation, and signed commitments and conflict-of-interest declarations.
    • From the sponsor: proof of payment of the review fee; certification that the sponsor is current with CCSS social-security contributions; the investigator-sponsor contract covering all study costs; injury compensation with a policy valid at least two years after the study ends; liability insurance for the investigator and team; free post-study treatment where shown beneficial (Ley 9234 arts. 28 and 53); commitments to report final results and to involve the investigator in publication; and a sworn statement on any CRO or site-management company involved, with its CONIS accreditation.

    Fees for the second half of 2026 (CENDEISSS tariffs; they include 25% administrative costs and are paid by SICO voucher or bank transfer after requesting the payment form from the AISSS):

    Request Fee
    First review ₡1,442,664
    Amendment ₡52,454
    Annual renewal ₡849,663

    CENDEISSS states that committee review takes two to four weeks from receipt of a complete submission. It does not publish how long the sign-offs, contract and cost steps take in practice.

    How long does a CCSS approval take? On paper, the regulation’s own deadlines add up to roughly three months after a complete submission. That excludes dossier preparation, the director’s sign-off, query cycles, corporate paperwork and CONIS registration. The CCSS does not publish actual approval times, and neither does any public source we found, so plan for materially longer than a private site and ask the hospital for its recent track record. CENDEISSS itself states that committee review takes two to four weeks from receipt of a complete submission; the institutional steps around it are what add time. For context, no new clinical trials could start in Costa Rica from February 2010, when the Constitutional Court required a law, until Ley 9234 in April 2014, and until the CCSS adopted this regulation in March 2021 trials could only run in the private sector (Salud y Fármacos, 2020 report).

    Where industry-funded trials actually run in Costa Rica

    We queried the ClinicalTrials.gov API on 28 October 2026 for interventional studies with an industry lead sponsor and at least one site in Costa Rica, then classified each named Costa Rican site as CCSS/public or private:

    • 185 industry-funded interventional studies list a Costa Rican site. 84 name at least one identifiable site; the rest show only placeholders such as “Pfizer Investigational Site”.
    • None of the 84 lists a CCSS hospital or clinic. Named sites are private hospitals and research centers such as CIMCA, ICIMED, Hospital Clínica Bíblica, Hospital Metropolitano, Hospital CIMA, Clínica 20/20 and Policlínico San Bosco.
    • Of the 68 started in 2016 or later, 62 name a site, and none is at a CCSS facility.
    • All 16 industry-funded device studies (all started 2020 or later) are at private sites.
    • The same search across all funders does find CCSS hospitals (Hospital México, San Juan de Dios, Calderón Guardia) in 6 studies, all sponsored by the CCSS, universities or research networks, so the method does pick up public sites when they are listed.

    Caveats: ClinicalTrials.gov does not capture every study approved in Costa Rica, older records often hide site names, and our public/private split is based on facility names. It is a snapshot of where sponsors have registered their Costa Rican sites, not an official count.

    Method. One ClinicalTrials.gov API v2 query per country, using AREA[LocationCountry], AREA[LeadSponsorClass]INDUSTRY and AREA[StudyType]INTERVENTIONAL, pulled on 28 October 2026. For each study we kept only sites in that country, set aside placeholder names (for example “Research Site” or “Investigational Site Number…”), and classified the rest as public or private by facility name. Public means a social-security, ministry, national-institute, public-university or other state hospital or clinic (in Costa Rica, the CCSS network). “Device” means at least one intervention of type Device. “Since 2016” uses the study start date.

    Public versus private sites in nearby countries

    The same method applied to four other countries. The figures show the share of studies that name a site and have at least one public site:

    Country Industry interventional studies With a named site With at least one public site Since 2016: with a public site Device studies: with a public site
    Costa Rica 185 84 0 (0%) 0 of 62 (0%) 0 of 16 (0%)
    Panama 290 150 18 (12%) 9 of 83 (11%) 1 of 35 (3%)
    Colombia 1,359 700 76 (11%)* 55 of 476 (12%)* 1 of 48 (2%)*
    Chile 1,819 900 292 (32%) 170 of 633 (27%) 24 of 79 (30%)
    Mexico 3,635 1,772 806 (45%) 531 of 1,215 (44%) 36 of 102 (35%)

    In short, public sites are rare for industry-funded trials in Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia, and more common in Mexico and Chile, where national institutes, social-security hospitals and public university hospitals often take part. Caveats: name-based classification is approximate; *Colombia’s public hospitals have many naming patterns, so its figures are a lower bound; placeholder site names hide a large share of older records in every country; and the registry does not capture every study approved locally.

    Published sources on public-sector research in Costa Rica

    • The 2010–2014 halt. In 2010 the Constitutional Court (ruling 2010-1668) annulled the decree that regulated research on humans and suspended new studies until a law was passed. Ley 9234 was approved in April 2014 and its regulation (Decreto 39061-S) was published in July 2015. Source: Homedes N. and Ugalde A., “Costa Rica: Los Comités de Ética y la Protección de los Participantes en Investigación Biomédica,” Salud y Fármacos, December 2020.
    • Private sector only until 2021. The same report states that, as of November 2020, clinical trials could only be done in the private sector because the CCSS had not yet approved its internal regulation. It also documents that the CCSS reviewed sponsored interventional studies through a central committee from 2005 on.
    • The CCSS regulation. The CCSS Reglamento de Investigación Biomédica was published on 10 March 2021 and is the current framework (see above).
    • CENDEISSS research staffing. Semanario Universidad (6 November 2024) reported that on 6 June 2023 the CCSS board withdrew authorization to use vacant resident positions to support research at CENDEISSS. A later internal audit found no irregularities and warned that the withdrawal affected ongoing research projects.
    • Size of the sector. El Financiero (14 May 2022) reported about 200 studies in the private sector and more than 400 in the public sector, and that industry groups were then working to make the contract and financial steps of the CCSS regulation operational. The article does not say how many of the public-sector studies were industry-funded clinical trials; most are likely academic or observational. We found no official count of industry-funded trials approved by the CCSS since 2021.

    CONIS-accredited private and university ethics committees

    A private site normally uses its own CEC or any other CONIS-accredited CEC. These are the non-CCSS, non-government committees on CONIS’s accredited list as of 28 October 2026. Fees and calendars change; confirm with the committee before you budget. Where a committee does not publish an item, we say so.

    Committee Type Published requirements Published fees Meetings / turnaround Contact (per CONIS and the committee)
    CEC Hospital Clínica Bíblica Private hospital Not published online Not published Not published Dra. Jessie Orlich Montejo; (506) 2522-1000 ext. 8116; investigacionhcb@clinicabiblica.com (CEC notice)
    CEC-UCIMED (Universidad de Ciencias Médicas) Private university; founded 2002 Online submission platform and full form set for interventional studies, including the CONIS 3% calculation form (CEC-UCIMED) Tariff document linked; amount not shown on the page Not published Dr. José Pablo Díaz Madriz; cec@ucimed.com; (506) 2291-6754
    CEC-UH (Universidad Hispanoamericana) Private university Procedures, forms and checklist; submit by email (CEC-UH) Interventional (2024 tariff): first review US$2,200 (US$2,486 with VAT); renewal US$1,150, protocol amendment US$350 and each additional site US$2,000 (before VAT). Pay within 7 business days of submission (tariff) Sessions in the first week of each month; review within 30 calendar days Dr. Francisco Rodríguez Fallas; cecuh@uh.ac.cr; (506) 2106-3199
    CEC-UNIBE (Universidad Iberoamericana) Private university; since 2008 Submission checklist and forms posted (CEC-UNIBE) Not found online Not confirmed Lic. David Torres Fernández; (506) 2240-0400 ext. 2203
    CEC-ULatina (Universidad Latina) Private university Accepts phase II, III and IV studies only; separate requirement guides for observational and interventional studies (CEC-ULatina) Published list (fees): interventional protocol amendment ₡196,000 (₡252,000 with consent changes); observational first review ₡1,064,000. No interventional first-review fee is shown Monthly. The page gives both “second Monday” and “last Wednesday, 2 p.m.”; documents are due by noon the Wednesday before the session Dr. Norbel Román Garita; cec.ulatina@ulatina.cr; (506) 2207-6017 ext. 16024
    CEC-USP (Universidad Santa Paula) Private university Requirements list and FO-05 checklist (CEC-USP) Fee schedule referenced, not online File at least 7 business days before an ordinary session; three reviewers have 10 business days Dra. Marlene Roselló Araya; (506) 2216-4400
    CEC Fundación INCIENSA (FUNIN) Foundation linked to the public INCIENSA institute Nothing found online Not published Not published Dr. Alejandro Calderón Céspedes; (506) 2668-1125 ext. 1348

    None of these committees states publicly whether it reviews device first-in-human studies. Ley 9234 reserves Phase I approval to the Ministry of Health’s committee (CEC-MS), and the law defines phases in drug terms, so confirm in writing with CONIS or the committee how a device first-in-human study will be routed. Public universities (UCR, UNA), INCIENSA, the Ministry of Health and CCSS hospitals also have accredited committees; they are not listed here.

    Hospital CIMA and Hospital Metropolitano do not appear on the current CONIS list, so studies at those hospitals go to another accredited CEC.

    Step-by-step timeline

    Step Who Published clock What to plan for
    1. Site, CEC and Phase I routing Sponsor, CRO, site None Get the CEC choice (or CEC-MS routing) confirmed in writing
    2. Spanish package, translations, contract, budget Sponsor, CRO, PI None Usually the longest controllable step
    3. Costa Rica–enforceable insurance Sponsor, local broker None Start early; the consent form depends on it
    4. CEC review Accredited CEC 1 calendar month (Decreto 39061-S art. 42); CCSS 30 days full review (CCSS art. 17) Add at least one query cycle and the committee’s session calendar
    5. CONIS registration and 3% levy PI Not published Confirm the current procedure with CONIS
    6. Institutional authorization Site; CCSS offices at public sites Private: none. CCSS: contract 10+5+5 business days, costs up to 30 days, start 5 business days CCSS adds the director sign-off before review plus contracting and cost steps
    7. Device import Importer, CONIS Not published Only after steps 4 and 5; quantity list approved by the CEC
    8. Site initiation and first patient Sponsor, CRO, site None Only once steps 4–7 are complete

    For a week-by-week planning view at a private site, see our Costa Rica FIH activation calendar.

    Document checklist

    • Cover letter from the PI requesting review
    • Protocol and investigator’s brochure, original plus official Spanish translation
    • Spanish informed consent describing the insurance policy
    • IDE or equivalent, or FDA/EMA/other agency approval letter (or CONIS exception)
    • Device classification, GMP evidence and sterility certificate
    • Investigator–sponsor contract and full study budget
    • Costa Rica–enforceable insurance policies and sponsor indemnity commitments
    • Post-trial access commitment
    • CVs, IDs, professional licenses, GCP certificates and CONIS accreditations for the team
    • Site description and habilitation certificate
    • Recruitment materials and the emergency and adverse-event plan
    • CRO/OAC sworn statement and accreditations
    • Investigational device quantity list for CONIS (before import)
    • At CCSS sites: director and service-head no-objection, CCSS co-investigator, CCSS fee receipt, corporate and origin-of-funds documents, CCSS contract

    Using Costa Rica data with the FDA

    If the data will support a U.S. submission, 21 CFR 812.28 lets FDA accept a foreign clinical investigation not conducted under an IDE if it followed good clinical practice, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee and informed consent, and if FDA can validate the data through an on-site inspection if needed (eCFR). A CONIS-accredited CEC approval and an ISO 14155-compliant conduct plan are how most sponsors meet that standard.

    FAQ

    Who sets the requirements for my study?
    The law and regulation set the minimum. The CEC that reviews your protocol applies them and adds its own forms, fees and calendar. If you already work with specific hospitals, ask their committee what it needs.

    Do I pay the Ministry of Health?
    The 3% levy on the total study budget is paid to CONIS, which sits under the Ministry of Health, when the approved study is registered. CEC review fees are separate and set by each committee.

    Do I need a U.S. IDE first?
    The submission package asks for an IDE or equivalent, or an approval letter from FDA, EMA or another recognized agency, unless CONIS grants a qualified exception. Discuss your situation with the committee early.

    Is a public CCSS hospital slower than a private one?
    It has more steps: director sign-off, a central CCSS committee, cost setting and a CCSS contract. No public data on actual durations exists, so plan for longer and ask the hospital.

    Does the device have to be registered in Costa Rica?
    No. Unregistered products may be imported and used for properly approved and registered research.

    Related guides

    How bioaccess® helps

    bioaccess® runs first-in-human and early feasibility device studies in Costa Rica and across Latin America. We assemble the Spanish package, line up the CEC, insurance and CONIS steps, and manage import and site activation so the regulatory clocks start on a complete file.

    Contact bioaccess®

    Last verified: 28 October 2026. Written by Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO of bioaccess®.

  • Precision for Medicine New Zealand vs a Latin America First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Precision for Medicine (New Zealand) into a search box, you’re probably building a shortlist for a trial in New Zealand. This article uses only what Precision publishes (Precision for Medicine: New Zealand Clinical Trial Landscape (21 Nov 2025)) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It’s a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What Precision publishes

    Precision for Medicine says New Zealand runs “about 20-25% of Australia’s” trial load and “can start even faster than Australia, including in First-In Human (FIH) studies”. It cites 4–6 weeks from ethics submission to trial start, no IND, and 30–50% lower costs than the U.S. It also lists Medsafe “approval time of 45 days”. Medsafe’s current guideline gives a target of 32 working days for drug trial applications, and device trials don’t need Medsafe approval at all. The article names New Zealand early-phase sites but doesn’t describe Precision’s own device first-in-human studies there.

    Precision vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Precision bioaccess®
    Core focus Global CRO, oncology and precision-medicine led First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography Global, including Australia and New Zealand Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record Not covered in the New Zealand article Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    For biomarker-heavy oncology or early-phase drug programs spanning Australia and New Zealand, Precision’s model makes sense.

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

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

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

    Frequently asked questions

    How long does Medsafe take to approve a trial?

    For new medicines, Medsafe’s guideline targets an outcome within 32 working days of receiving the application, once fees are paid. Medical device trials need HDEC ethics approval but no Medsafe approval.

    Does a device trial in New Zealand need Medsafe approval?

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

    Can Latin American device data support an FDA submission?

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

    When is bioaccess® the better choice than Precision?

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

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

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

  • Novotech New Zealand vs a Latin America First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Novotech (New Zealand) into a search box, you’re probably building a shortlist for a trial in New Zealand. This article uses only what Novotech publishes (Novotech: Why New Zealand Is Emerging as a Clinical Trial Hub (3 Feb 2025)) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It’s a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What Novotech publishes

    Novotech promotes New Zealand as a “high-quality, cost-efficient hub for early-phase and innovative clinical research”. It says trials “can typically begin within 4–6 weeks of ethics submission”, with “no need for IND approval for most early-phase studies”, and that New Zealand can be “30–50% more cost-effective” than the U.S., plus a 15% R&D tax credit. It positions New Zealand as “a pilot study location before expanding globally” and “a back-up country”. The article focuses on oncology, vaccines, CNS and rare diseases, and doesn’t discuss device first-in-human studies.

    Novotech vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Novotech bioaccess®
    Core focus Full-service Asia-Pacific CRO, drug-led First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography Asia-Pacific, including New Zealand Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record Not covered in the New Zealand article Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    For a drug program that will expand across Asia-Pacific, Novotech’s New Zealand-plus-region model is coherent. For Novotech’s Australian positioning, see our Novotech Australia page.

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

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

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

    Frequently asked questions

    Are the 4–6 week and 30–50% figures official?

    No. They are Novotech’s own claims. The official figures are HDEC’s 15- and 35-day review targets and Medsafe’s 32-working-day target for drug trial applications. Devices don’t need Medsafe approval.

    Does a device trial in New Zealand need Medsafe approval?

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

    Can Latin American device data support an FDA submission?

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

    When is bioaccess® the better choice than Novotech?

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

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

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

  • Vera Research vs a Latin America First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Vera Research into a search box, you’re probably building a shortlist for a trial in New Zealand. This article uses only what Vera publishes (veraresearch.nz, What we do) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It’s a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What Vera publishes

    Vera Research focuses on vascular devices, therapies and endovascular procedures. It says it has “deep experience in first-in-human trials, preclinical requirements, and regulatory approvals”, and offers early-stage consulting, study design, regulatory approvals, patient recruitment and on-the-ground trial management. It describes itself as “combining global insights with expertise in New Zealand”. Its public site doesn’t list named studies, headcount or certifications.

    Vera vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Vera bioaccess®
    Core focus Vascular and endovascular first-in-human consulting and trial management First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices, across therapeutic areas
    Geography New Zealand Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record Stated focus; no named studies on its public site Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you have a vascular or endovascular device and want a New Zealand team that specialises in that field, Vera is a natural shortlist entry.

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

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

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

    Frequently asked questions

    Is Vera Research a full-service CRO?

    Its site describes consulting, study design, regulatory approvals, recruitment and on-the-ground trial management for vascular research. Ask Vera which functions it provides directly, such as monitoring, data management and safety.

    Does a device trial in New Zealand need Medsafe approval?

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

    Can Latin American device data support an FDA submission?

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

    When is bioaccess® the better choice than Vera?

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

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

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

  • Aotearoa Clinical Trials (ACTT) vs a Latin America First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Aotearoa Clinical Trials (ACTT) into a search box, you’re probably building a shortlist for a trial in New Zealand. This article uses only what ACTT publishes (aotearoatrials.nz/sponsors, ACTT Annual Report 2025) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It’s a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What ACTT publishes

    ACTT calls itself “New Zealand’s largest public-hospital-based clinical research site network”. It claims Phase I–IV capability “from early first-in-human studies through to post-marketing research”, centralised feasibility review, IAOCR Gold accreditation, and status as an IRD-approved Research Provider for New Zealand’s R&D Tax Incentive. Its 2025 Annual Report says it partners with “biopharmaceutical and medical device companies from around the world”. It also notes that after “a challenging 2024, trial activation numbers have rebounded”, and it reports a new hospital-based Phase I overnight facility at Middlemore. We found no named device first-in-human study on the public pages we reviewed.

    ACTT vs bioaccess®

    Dimension ACTT bioaccess®
    Core focus Public-hospital site network, Phase I–IV First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography New Zealand (Counties Manukau, Northland and network hospitals) Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record Says it partners with device companies; no named device FIH found Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If you want New Zealand public-hospital investigators and a single network contract, and your enrollment target fits New Zealand’s population, ACTT fits well. Its approved-provider status also matters if you have a New Zealand entity claiming the R&D Tax Incentive.

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

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

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

    Frequently asked questions

    Can ACTT help me claim New Zealand’s R&D Tax Incentive?

    ACTT says it is an IRD-approved Research Provider. Eligibility depends on your own New Zealand tax position. Inland Revenue sets the rules.

    Does a device trial in New Zealand need Medsafe approval?

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

    Can Latin American device data support an FDA submission?

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

    When is bioaccess® the better choice than ACTT?

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

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

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

  • Momentum Clinical Research vs a Latin America First-in-Human Device CRO (bioaccess®)

    If you typed Momentum Clinical Research into a search box, you’re probably building a shortlist for a trial in New Zealand. This article uses only what Momentum publishes (momentumclinicalresearch.co.nz (p3research.co.nz now redirects there)) and compares it with bioaccess®, the First-in-Human CRO for medical devices in Latin America since 2010. It’s a practitioner comparison, not a teardown.

    What Momentum publishes

    Momentum calls itself “Australasia’s largest clinical trial network”. It reports 19 clinical research sites across Australia and New Zealand “streamlined under one centralised system”, more than two decades of Phase I–IV experience across most therapeutic areas, and 118 active studies. The former P3 Research website now redirects to Momentum. We found no named medical-device first-in-human study on its public pages.

    Momentum vs bioaccess®

    Dimension Momentum bioaccess®
    Core focus Phase I–IV site network, mainly drug studies First-in-human and early feasibility studies for medical devices
    Geography Australia and New Zealand (19 sites) Latin America, since 2010
    Device FIH track record None named on the public pages we reviewed Published case studies on bioaccessla.com
    After the trial See provider site Multi-country sanitary registration and in-country holder service

    Where each one fits

    If your drug trial needs many trans-Tasman sites under one contract and one system, Momentum is built for that.

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

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

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

    Frequently asked questions

    Is Momentum the same as P3 Research?

    The p3research.co.nz web address now redirects to Momentum Clinical Research’s New Zealand site. For corporate details, check Momentum directly.

    Does a device trial in New Zealand need Medsafe approval?

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

    Can Latin American device data support an FDA submission?

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

    When is bioaccess® the better choice than Momentum?

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

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

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

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

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

    What NZCR publishes

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

    NZCR vs bioaccess®

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

    Where each one fits

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

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

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

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

    Frequently asked questions

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

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

    Does a device trial in New Zealand need Medsafe approval?

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

    Can Latin American device data support an FDA submission?

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

    When is bioaccess® the better choice than NZCR?

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

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

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