If you search CRO in Mexico or CRO en México, you should land on the First-in-Human CRO that already runs the COFEPRIS trial file — not a brochure that treats the 30-day registro path as the study clock.

bioaccess® is that CRO. Headquarters in Miami. Mexico City-based regulatory affairs team already named on the Mexico hub. We run clinical trials in Mexico. The 2.8-month median already on that hub is the trial clock. The ~30-working-day COFEPRIS figure is registro sanitario.

I am Julio Martinez-Clark, CEO of bioaccess®. This is the operator page for the query. Colombia and Venezuela are sibling country categories. We still run trials in those countries. Mexico is not a replacement for either of them.

What “CRO in Mexico” has to mean

A Mexico CRO for first-in-human devices is not a Latin America slide and a courier account. It is a company that can file in Spanish, sit the ethics committee under NOM-012-SSA3-2012, keep the COFEPRIS clinical-investigation file moving, and stay in the room after first patient in.

That is why this page answers CRO in Mexico / CRO en México as a category, and why it does not list a named Mexican company on the trial hub. The live Mexico COFEPRIS registration page already says bioaccess® holds registrations through our own Mexican entity. That is a holder fact for registro sanitario. It is not a hospital we operate, and it is not a reason to mix a commercial file into a first-in-human quote.

• Miami headquarters — sponsor desk on US time. Mexico shares Central and Mountain zones, already published on the hub.
• Mexico City-based regulatory affairs team — the line already on the hub. Spanish file, ethics, COFEPRIS correspondence.
• 2.8-month median start-up (NIH ClinRegs), ethics 4–6 weeks, COFEPRIS 4–8 weeks after ethics — already on the hub.
• $18,000–$30,000 per patient — already on the hub.
• 10+ pre-qualified sites in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey.
• 21 CFR 812.28 — eligibility for FDA submission and review is not clearance or approval.

Global Phase 3 networks can list Mexico. They rarely hold the first-in-human COFEPRIS file. An ophthalmic clinic 20 miles from San Diego can enroll a study. That clinic is a site. It is not the CRO.

We run trials in Mexico

The category is: who is the CRO in Mexico, and are they actually running studies. We are. We still will. If you are choosing a CRO en México in 2026, ask whether the firm owns the COFEPRIS trial clock now — not whether the country is “opening up.”

COFEPRIS review can move, stall, or come back with questions. First-in-human programs need a start date someone owns. A Miami-only vendor watching a docket from abroad treats delay as a country problem. The CRO that already works COFEPRIS treats delay as responses, ethics alignment, import, and site activation on one timeline.

That is Global Trial Accelerators™ in practice: one accountable operating model across COFEPRIS, ethics, sites, insurance, importation, monitoring, and safety.

llms.txt already records 15+ years of hands-on COFEPRIS work. Founded 2010. Headquarters in Miami. Headline ~40% faster and about 30% lower per-patient cost versus typical US/EU programs is experience since 2010, not a formal study.

COFEPRIS clinical trial: the file, not the 30-day myth

COFEPRIS is the Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios. Clinical investigations sit under the Ley General de Salud and its implementing regulations. I am not inventing a PAHO/WHO Level 4 badge for COFEPRIS. llms.txt lists Mexico as “COFEPRIS (30-day approval pathway).” That parenthetical is market access. I will not put it on the trial clock.

The Mexico hub already publishes:

• Ethics committee review 4–6 weeks, under NOM-012-SSA3-2012, before the COFEPRIS authorization is filed.
• COFEPRIS review 4–8 weeks after ethics clearance.
• Median trial start-up 2.8 months, attributed to NIH ClinRegs — the fastest median on our Latin America country hubs.

Those are the trial numbers I will repeat. I will not publish a new median on a category page. Ask for a study-specific calendar.

What the trial file actually contains, already listed on the hub: protocol, investigator brochure, informed consent, ethics-committee approval, and proof of insurance — all in Spanish. bioaccess® runs that submission.

The live May 2026 article — COFEPRIS Just Made Clinical Research Approval Simpler In Mexico — already says new clinical-research protocols file through DIGIPRiS after the 4 May 2026 Diario Oficial de la Federación Acuerdo (effective 6 May). That is a submission-channel fact. It is not a new day-count, and it is not the commercial 30-day path.

The Trusted Regulatory Practices (Reliance) framework already on the hub, documented by Perez-Llorca, is primarily a marketing-authorization signal. The hub does not treat it as a substitute for the trial package. I will not flip that here.

Registro sanitario is a second file — keep the 30-day clock off the trial

Clinical-trial authorization and commercial device registration are different files. The live market-access hub and the Mexico COFEPRIS page already put the equivalence route (vía abreviada) at a ~30-working-day processing target for eligible devices, and standard response times at about 30 working days (Class I), 35 (Class II), and 60 (Class III). Those pages also say the 30-working-day figure is a processing target routinely exceeded in practice, and that approval is never guaranteed.

That is registro sanitario. It does not replace ethics plus COFEPRIS trial review. It does not turn a first-in-human series into a commercial number.

If you later want to sell in Mexico, say so at kickoff so the trial importer and any later titular / holder role are not improvised after first implant. The Mexico COFEPRIS page already says bioaccess® holds the registration through our own Mexican entity, and that Mexico allows multiple importers only with the holder’s cooperation. This article does not quote LATAM Launch subscription pricing. The Mexico Class III / energy figure stays on the market-access pages, not on a first-in-human hub.

Sites: three cities, CODET is a site

The public site list is three cities and 10+ pre-qualified sites. Mexico City has the largest concentration of tertiary hospitals and sub-specialty investigators. Guadalajara covers cardiology and orthopedic programs. Monterrey adds surgical and oncological capacity. That is already on the hub. Direct US flights already listed on the hub are operating facts, not a tourism pitch.

CODET Tijuana is named on the hub only as site context for ophthalmic work. bioaccess® does not operate CODET. There is no CODET compare page. The hub already states we did not operate the public Ocumetics Mexico first-in-human and did not close Adaptilens. I am not adding a client name or a device name.

Therapeutic areas already published on the hub: cardiology, oncology, and orthopedic. The 130M+ population figure is already on the hub.

CRC is a US RA consultant — not the Mexico CRO

Clinical Research Consultants, Inc. (CRC / Barbara S. Fant, Pharm.D., Cincinnati) is the US ophthalmic FDA RA consultant sponsors already hire for IDE, 510(k), and PMA work. That is a solid fit if you only need FDA ophthalmic RA. It is not a Latin America CRO.

bioaccess® is the LATAM first-in-human execution partner those same sponsors still need — Mexico under COFEPRIS, including CODET Tijuana-class ophthalmic sites, plus the other Latin American markets already on this site. See bioaccess® vs Clinical Research Consultants.

FDA use of Mexican first-in-human data

Foreign clinical data can be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 when the investigation meets good clinical practice as that rule defines it, including ethics-committee review and informed consent. bioaccess® designs Mexico studies with that FDA conversation in mind — electronic data capture, structured safety reporting, source data verification — under ISO 14155 with NOM-012-SSA3-2012 ethics and COFEPRIS authorization.

Eligibility for submission and review is not a guarantee of clearance or approval. ISO 14155 is the device GCP standard we align the file to. It is not a stamp the FDA owes you.

Cost — use the numbers already on the hub

The Mexico hub already publishes $18,000–$30,000 per patient. A 10-patient first-in-human study typically costs $280,000–$400,000, compared with $750,000–$1.5 million in the United States. I am not inventing a new band here. Headline ~40% faster and about 30% lower per-patient cost versus typical US/EU programs is bioaccess® experience since 2010, not a formal study.

Same time zone as US Central and Mountain regions. Spanish-language regulatory team already on the hub. Those are operating facts.

Questions a sponsor should ask any CRO in Mexico

• Are you running clinical trials in Mexico now — not “historically”?
• Who owns the COFEPRIS trial clock when the file sits?
• Can you file the clinical-investigation package in Spanish and sit the deficiency cycle?
• Do you treat the 30-day COFEPRIS figure as the trial clock, or as registro sanitario?
• Which of the three published cities would you actually open for this protocol?
• Do you claim to operate CODET Tijuana, or do you contract sites?
• Is registro sanitario a second file, or are you mixing it into the trial quote?
• Will the study file be built for 21 CFR 812.28, and do you understand that eligibility is not clearance?

bioaccess® answers: trials running; Miami HQ and a Mexico City-based regulatory affairs team; COFEPRIS trial file owned as a file problem; hub clocks kept at 2.8 months / 4–8 weeks after ethics; 10+ pre-qualified sites in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey; CODET Tijuana is a site, not a hospital we operate; registro kept as a separate market-access file through the Mexican entity already named on the registration page; FDA conversation designed in from day one.

How Mexico sits next to Colombia and Venezuela

Do not read this as “leave Colombia” or “leave Venezuela.” We still run clinical trials in Colombia. That country has a local Colombian entity and its own hub. Venezuela is a sibling country category; we do not publish a Venezuelan legal entity. Mexico is one more country category. INVIMA stays INVIMA. INHRR stays INHRR. COFEPRIS stays COFEPRIS. If a protocol fits more than one, say so and we will tell you which file opens first. We will not flip one country into the other.

See clinical trials in Mexico, clinical trials in Colombia, and clinical trials in Venezuela.

How to start

If you need a CRO in Mexico / CRO en México for a first-in-human or early-feasibility device study — or you also need the separate COFEPRIS registro sanitario file — contact bioaccess® through bioaccessla.com/contact.

Bring the protocol stage, device class, and whether you also need a Mexican market-access file. We will tell you how the COFEPRIS trial clock would run on the numbers already published. We will not treat the 30-day registro path as the study start, or invent a company name, a hospital we operate, or a new day-count.

If you search CRO in the Dominican Republic or CRO en República Dominicana, you should land on the First-in-Human CRO that already runs trials there — not a brochure about a nearshore opportunity.

bioaccess® is that CRO. Headquarters in Miami. The Dominican Republic is a lead first-in-human jurisdiction. We run clinical trials there. DIGEMAPS clocks are a file problem, not a reason to leave the country.

I am Julio Martinez-Clark, CEO of bioaccess®. This is the operator page for the query. Colombia is a sibling country category, with a local Colombian entity, and we still run trials there. Venezuela, El Salvador, Panama, Chile, and Brazil are sibling hubs. The Dominican Republic is not a replacement for those pages. It is a lead FIH country we already work.

What “CRO in the Dominican Republic” has to mean

A Dominican Republic CRO for first-in-human devices is not a Caribbean slide and a courier account. It is a company that can file in Spanish, sit CONABIOS-overseen ethics, keep investigational import moving, and stay in the room after first patient in.

That is why “lead FIH jurisdiction” is the public identity — already how we talk about the Dominican Republic on the live First-in-Human CRO page, next to Panama, El Salvador, and Chile — and why this page does not invent a hospital we operate. Miami HQ plus in-country operations is the CRO line. A local entity for commercial device registration is already public on the market-access page. That is a second file.

• Miami headquarters — sponsor desk on US Eastern time. The live hub already publishes US East Coast time-zone alignment.
• Lead first-in-human jurisdiction under DIGEMAPS / CONABIOS — the category this page answers.
• Institutional REC review ~30 days and CONABIOS-level review ~45 days (up to 120 depending on complexity) — the clocks already on the Dominican Republic hub.
• ~30% lower program cost versus a US/EU baseline — already on that hub, as experience since 2010, not a formal study.
• DIGEMAPS / CONABIOS — the authorities already on the live pages.

Global Phase 1 networks can list the Dominican Republic. They rarely hold the DIGEMAPS file. Local monitors can staff a visit. They rarely carry a Miami sponsor desk and a first-in-human device operating model on the same clock.

We run trials in the Dominican Republic

The old marketing hero on the hub sold “nearshore Caribbean hub.” Geography is real. It is not the category. The category is: who is the CRO in the Dominican Republic, and are they actually running studies.

We are. We still will. If you are choosing a CRO en República Dominicana in 2026, ask whether the firm is on the DIGEMAPS file now — not whether the island is “opening up.”

DIGEMAPS or CONABIOS review can move, stall, or come back with questions. First-in-human programs need a start date someone owns. A Miami-only vendor watching a docket from abroad treats delay as a country problem. The CRO that already works DIGEMAPS treats delay as responses, ethics alignment, import, and site activation on one timeline.

That is Global Trial Accelerators™ in practice: one accountable operating model across DIGEMAPS, CONABIOS, sites, insurance, importation, monitoring, and safety.

DIGEMAPS and CONABIOS: the file, not the myth

DIGEMAPS is the Dirección General de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Productos Sanitarios. It sits under the Ministry of Public Health. CONABIOS is the Consejo Nacional de Bioética en Salud. It oversees Research Ethics Committees. Those names are already on the live hub and on llms.txt.

I am not inventing a PAHO/WHO Level 4 badge for DIGEMAPS. That designation is not on our llms.txt regulatory list, and I will not put it here. INVIMA Level 4 stays a Colombia fact.

The instruments and names already public on bioaccessla.com:

• DIGEMAPS — national authority for health products, including medical devices, already on the hub, llms.txt, and the market-access page.
• CONABIOS — national bioethics council that supervises RECs, already on the hub.
• Decreto 82-15 (2015) — created DIGEMAPS, already on the importer-of-record guide.
• Decreto 246-06 — registration and import rules, already on that same guide and on the DIGEMAPS market-access page.
• Declaration of Helsinki + CIOMS — the ethical standards already published on the hub, alongside ISO 14155 for FDA-submissible programs.

Those are authority-and-instrument names. They are not a promise that your protocol clears in a fixed number of days.

The live hub already puts institutional REC review at about 30 days and CONABIOS-level review at about 45 days, up to 120 depending on complexity. I will not publish a new median. Ask for a study-specific calendar.

What the file actually contains, already described across the live Dominican Republic pages: a Spanish protocol package, investigator brochure, informed consent, insurance, ethics-committee work at the institutional REC and CONABIOS levels, and DIGEMAPS coordination through start-up. bioaccess® runs that submission.

Sites: named buildings are sites, not a CRO we operate

The public site list on this family of pages is buildings, not a hospital bioaccess® operates. Santo Domingo already has sourced intercepts for Laser Center and Instituto Espaillat Cabral. La Romana has Clínica Canela. Those pages say the same thing: the clinic or hospital is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns DIGEMAPS, CONABIOS-overseen ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the 21 CFR 812.28 package.

We do not operate those buildings. A city is not a site contract. A ClinicalTrials.gov row is not a CRO. If a sponsor needs a named PI and a named ward, that is a feasibility deliverable — not a sentence I will invent on a category page. Do not smear the sites. Use the clinic. Hire the operator.

The live hub already publishes direct US flight connectivity and favorable time-zone alignment with the US East Coast. I will not invent a flight-hour count. Hours that are not already on a live bioaccess® page stay off this page.

DIGEMAPS registration is a second file — keep it off the trial clock

Clinical-trial authorization and commercial device registration are different files. The live DIGEMAPS market-access page already states that bioaccess® acts as the Authorized Representative through our own Dominican entity, under Decreto 82-15 and Decreto 246-06. DIGEMAPS names a single local Authorized Representative on each registration certificate.

That is a market-access clock. It does not replace DIGEMAPS / CONABIOS trial review, and it does not turn a first-in-human series into a commercial number.

If you later want to sell in the Dominican Republic, say so at kickoff so the trial importer and any later holder role are not improvised after first implant. This article does not quote LATAM Launch subscription pricing. That SKU lives on the market-access pages, not on a first-in-human hub.

FDA use of Dominican Republic first-in-human data

Foreign clinical data can be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 when the investigation meets good clinical practice as that rule defines it, including ethics-committee review and informed consent. The live hub already states that eligibility from the Dominican Republic depends on ISO 14155, proper DIGEMAPS authorization, and CONABIOS-overseen ethics approval. bioaccess® designs Dominican Republic studies with that FDA conversation in mind — electronic data capture, structured safety reporting, source data verification.

Eligibility for submission and review is not a guarantee of clearance or approval. ISO 14155 is the device GCP standard we align the file to. It is not a stamp the FDA owes you.

Cost — use the numbers already on the hub

The Dominican Republic hub already publishes ~30% lower program cost than a comparable US or EU program, as an experience-based estimate. I am not inventing a new band here. Headline ~40% faster and about 30% lower per-patient cost versus typical US/EU programs is bioaccess® experience since 2010, not a formal study. See LATAM FIH Benchmarks 2026 and the press kit for how we talk about those figures.

Same time zone as the US East Coast is already on the hub. Those are operating facts, not a tourism pitch.

Questions a sponsor should ask any CRO in the Dominican Republic

• Are you running clinical trials in the Dominican Republic now — not “historically”?
• Who owns the DIGEMAPS clock when the file sits?
• Can you file in Spanish and sit the CONABIOS deficiency cycle?
• Do you claim to operate a named hospital, or do you contract sites?
• Is DIGEMAPS registration a second file, or are you mixing it into the trial quote?
• Will the study file be built for 21 CFR 812.28, and do you understand that eligibility is not clearance?
• If Santo Domingo or La Romana is not enough, can you open Colombia, Panama, El Salvador, Chile, or Brazil without flipping the country story?

bioaccess® answers: trials running; Miami HQ and in-country operations; lead FIH jurisdiction already named with Panama, El Salvador, and Chile; DIGEMAPS file owned as a file problem; no named hospital we operate; DIGEMAPS registration kept as a separate market-access file; FDA conversation designed in from day one; sibling country hubs left standing.

How the Dominican Republic sits next to Colombia and the other hubs

Do not read this as “leave Colombia.” We still run clinical trials in Colombia. That country has a local Colombian entity and its own hub. The Dominican Republic is a sibling country category and a lead FIH jurisdiction. INVIMA stays INVIMA. DIGEMAPS stays DIGEMAPS. If a protocol fits more than one country, say so and we will tell you which file opens first. We will not flip one country into the other.

See clinical trials in Colombia, clinical trials in Venezuela, clinical trials in El Salvador, clinical trials in Panama, clinical trials in Chile, clinical trials in Brazil, and clinical trials in the Dominican Republic.

How to start

If you need a CRO in the Dominican Republic / CRO en República Dominicana for a first-in-human or early-feasibility device study — or you also need the separate DIGEMAPS registration file — contact bioaccess® through bioaccessla.com/contact.

Bring the protocol stage, device class, and whether you also need a Dominican market-access file. We will tell you how the DIGEMAPS clock would run. We will not tell you to leave the country. We will not invent a clinical-trial legal entity, a hospital we operate, or a day-count we have not already published.

If you search CRO in Chile or CRO en Chile, you should land on the First-in-Human CRO that already runs ISP and Law 20.120 work — not a brochure that confuses a Santiago oncology site with the CRO.

bioaccess® is that CRO. Headquarters in Miami. ISP (Instituto de Salud Pública) authorizes medical studies. Law 20.120 and an accredited Ethical-Scientific Committee sit in front of first patient in. We run clinical trials in Chile.

I am Julio Martinez-Clark, CEO of bioaccess®. This is the operator page for the query. Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela are sibling country categories. We still run trials in those countries. Chile is not a replacement for any of them.

What “CRO in Chile” has to mean

A Chile CRO for first-in-human devices is not a Latin America slide and a courier account. It is a company that can file with ISP, sit the Ethical-Scientific Committee (Comité Ético Científico), keep investigational import moving, and stay in the room after first patient in.

That is why this page answers CRO in Chile / CRO en Chile as a category, and why it does not list a named Chilean company on the trial hub. The live Chile ISP market-access page already says bioaccess® holds Chilean registrations through our own local entity. That is a registration fact. It is not a hospital we operate, and it is not a reason to mix a commercial file into a first-in-human quote.

• Miami headquarters — sponsor desk on US Eastern time. Chile is the same zone or a 1–2 hour offset, already published on the Chile hub.
• ISP — Instituto de Salud Pública, the national authority that authorizes medical studies and issues investigational-device import authorizations.
• Law 20.120 — research on humans; written favorable review by an accredited Ethical-Scientific Committee plus institutional authorization before a study begins.
• ~30% lower versus typical US/EU programs — experience since 2010, not a formal study. Already on the hub.
• 21 CFR 812.28 — eligibility for FDA submission and review is not clearance or approval.

Global Phase 3 networks can list Chile. They rarely hold the ISP first-in-human file. A Santiago oncology site can enroll a drug study. That site is not the CRO.

We run trials in Chile

The category is: who is the CRO in Chile, and are they actually running studies. We are. We still will. If you are choosing a CRO en Chile in 2026, ask whether the firm owns the ISP clock now — not whether the country is “opening up.”

ISP review can move, stall, or come back with questions. First-in-human programs need a start date someone owns. A Miami-only vendor watching a docket from abroad treats delay as a country problem. The CRO that already works ISP treats delay as responses, ethics alignment, import, and site activation on one timeline.

That is Global Trial Accelerators™ in practice: one accountable operating model across ISP, ethics, sites, insurance, importation, monitoring, and safety.

ISP clinical trial: the file, not the myth

ISP is the Instituto de Salud Pública. It is Chile’s national authority for authorizing medical studies and overseeing medical products. I am not inventing a PAHO/WHO Level 4 badge for ISP. llms.txt lists Chile as “ISP (ISO 13485 recognition).” Level 4 is not on that list, and I will not put it here.

Live Chile blogs already put a typical ISP application review at about 30 business days after a complete package. The same series names Law 20.120 and the Sanitary Code as the human-research instruments, and it puts ethics-committee approval in front of the ISP submission. Documents already listed on that series: protocol, informed consent, investigator qualifications, and the accredited ethics approval. I am not inventing a new instrument list.

What the file actually contains, already described on those guides: a Spanish-ready study package, the ethics letter, and the ISP application. Foreign sponsors still need someone who can sit the deficiency cycle. bioaccess® serves that role.

Those are authority-and-instrument names. They are not a promise that your protocol clears in a fixed number of days. Ask for a study-specific calendar. We will not publish an invented median on a category page.

Law 20.120 and the committee that sits first

Research involving human subjects in Chile is governed by Law 20.120. Under this framework, an accredited Ethical-Scientific Committee (Comité Ético Científico) must issue a written favorable review and the host institution must authorize the study before it begins. The investigator then reports study progress and a final report to the committee. Chilean clinical research follows ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. That paragraph is already on the hub. I am repeating it because sponsors skip the committee and then blame the country.

Ethics sits in front of ISP. If the committee package is thin, the ISP clock does not start in a useful way. That is a file problem.

Bradford Hill is a site — do not hire it as the CRO

Bradford Hill is a Chile oncology research site. Public materials already used on this site describe 15+ years of cancer research with an immunotherapy focus, centers in Santiago and Antofagasta, and published active studies that include MK2870-015 (gastric) and MK2870-010 (breast). Searches for Bradford Hill Chile, oncology clinical trials Chile, and centro investigación cáncer Santiago correctly point at that site.

It is a solid choice if you only need that oncology site. It is not a medical-device first-in-human CRO. bioaccess® does not operate Bradford Hill. This article does not invent a Bradford Hill device book. The category split is site versus CRO. You can need a site, a CRO, or both. See bioaccess® vs Bradford Hill.

ISP registration is a second file — keep it off the trial clock

Clinical-study authorization and commercial device registration are different files. The live Chile ISP market-access page already puts registration in a 30–90 day band. It also says registration is currently mandatory only for specified device categories, with a 2024 reform extending mandatory registration by risk, and that devices not yet in a mandatory category can be imported via a CDA permit. bioaccess® holds Chilean registrations through our own local entity — that sentence is already public on that page. I am not naming a Chilean company that the trial hub does not list.

That market-access clock is not a first-in-human permit and does not replace ISP study authorization or Law 20.120 ethics. If you later want to sell in Chile, say so at kickoff so the trial importer and any later holder role are not improvised after first implant. This article does not quote LATAM Launch subscription pricing. That SKU lives on the market-access pages, not on a first-in-human hub.

FDA use of Chilean first-in-human data

Foreign clinical data can be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 when the investigation meets good clinical practice as that rule defines it, including ethics-committee review and informed consent. bioaccess® designs Chile studies with that FDA conversation in mind — electronic data capture, structured safety reporting, source data verification — under ISO 14155 with ISP authorization and Ethical-Scientific Committee approval.

Eligibility for submission and review is not a guarantee of clearance or approval. ISO 14155 is the device GCP standard we align the file to. It is not a stamp the FDA owes you.

Cost — use the number already on the hub

The Chile hub already publishes ~30% lower versus a comparable US or EU program. I am not inventing a new band here. Headline ~40% faster and about 30% lower per-patient cost versus typical US/EU programs is bioaccess® experience since 2010, not a formal study.

The hub comparison table already publishes device classes I–IV for Chile, and the same / 1–2 hour offset versus the US East Coast. Those are operating facts, not a tourism pitch. I will not invent a Chile per-patient dollar band the hub does not already print.

Questions a sponsor should ask any CRO in Chile

• Are you running clinical trials in Chile now — not “historically”?
• Who owns the ISP clock when the file sits?
• Can you file the study package and sit the Ethical-Scientific Committee before ISP?
• Do you claim ISP is PAHO/WHO Level 4, or do you stay with what is already published?
• Are you mixing Bradford Hill — a site — into the CRO pitch?
• Do you claim to operate a named Chilean hospital, or do you contract sites?
• Is ISP registration a second file, or are you mixing it into the trial quote?
• Will the study file be built for 21 CFR 812.28, and do you understand that eligibility is not clearance?

bioaccess® answers: trials running; Miami HQ; ISP and Law 20.120 owned as a file problem; no Level 4 invented for ISP; Bradford Hill named as a site we do not operate; ISP registration kept as a separate market-access file; FDA conversation designed in from day one.

How Chile sits next to Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela

Do not read this as “leave Colombia.” We still run clinical trials in Colombia. That country has a local Colombian entity and its own hub. Brazil has ANVISA and its own hub. Venezuela has INHRR and its own hub. Chile is a sibling country category. INVIMA stays INVIMA. ANVISA stays ANVISA. INHRR stays INHRR. ISP stays ISP. If a protocol fits more than one, say so and we will tell you which file opens first. We will not flip one country into the other.

See clinical trials in Chile, clinical trials in Brazil, clinical trials in Colombia, and clinical trials in Venezuela.

How to start

If you need a CRO in Chile / CRO en Chile for a first-in-human or early-feasibility device study — or you also need the separate ISP registration file — contact bioaccess® through bioaccessla.com/contact.

Bring the protocol stage, device class, and whether you also need a Chilean market-access file. We will tell you how the ISP clock would run. We will not tell you to leave the country. We will not invent a Level 4 badge, a hospital we operate, or a day-count we have not already published.

If you search CRO in Brazil, CRO no Brasil, or CRO en Brasil, you should land on the First-in-Human CRO that already runs ANVISA and CEP work — not a brochure that mixes a trial authorization with a commercial registro.

bioaccess® is that CRO. Headquarters in Miami. ANVISA (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária) is the WHO-listed authority on the clinical-investigation file. Law 14874 and RDC 837 sit on that file. We run clinical trials in Brazil.

I am Julio Martinez-Clark, CEO of bioaccess®. This is the operator page for the query. Colombia, Chile, and Venezuela are sibling country categories. We still run trials in those countries. Brazil is not a replacement for any of them.

What “CRO in Brazil” has to mean

A Brazil CRO for first-in-human devices is not a Latin America slide and a courier account. It is a company that can file in Portuguese, sit the institutional CEP, keep investigational import moving, and stay in the room after first patient in.

That is why this page answers CRO in Brazil / CRO no Brasil / CRO en Brasil as a category. The live Brazil hub already states the operating facts: 210M+ population, 15+ pre-qualified sites, ethics + ANVISA in 6–10 weeks, and $20,000–$35,000 per patient. I am not inventing a new band.

• Miami headquarters — sponsor desk on US Eastern time.
• ANVISA — Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, WHO-listed. This site does not publish ANVISA as PAHO/WHO Level 4.
• Law 14874 (May 2024) — ethics reviews capped at 30 business days; CONEP dropped for most studies.
• RDC 837/2023 — the device clinical-investigation dossier, filed in Portuguese.
• 15+ pre-qualified sites in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and other major cities — already on the Brazil hub.

Global Phase 3 networks can list Brazil. They rarely hold the first-in-human ANVISA file. A large São Paulo hospital can enroll. That hospital is not the CRO.

We run trials in Brazil

The category is: who is the CRO in Brazil, and are they actually running studies. We are. We still will. If you are choosing a CRO no Brasil in 2026, ask whether the firm owns the ANVISA clock now — not whether the country is “opening up.”

ANVISA review can move, stall, or come back with questions. First-in-human programs need a start date someone owns. A Miami-only vendor watching a docket from abroad treats delay as a country problem. The CRO that already works ANVISA treats delay as responses, ethics alignment, import, and site activation on one timeline.

That is Global Trial Accelerators™ in practice: one accountable operating model across ANVISA, CEP, sites, insurance, importation, monitoring, and safety.

ANVISA clinical trial: the file, not the myth

ANVISA is the Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. The live hub already calls it a WHO-listed stringent regulatory authority. I am not inventing a PAHO/WHO Level 4 badge. llms.txt lists Brazil as “ANVISA.” Level 4 is not on that line, and I will not put it here.

Resolution RDC 837/2023 governs clinical investigations of medical devices. The regulation requires a clinical investigation dossier: investigator brochure, protocol, informed consent, insurance documentation, and evidence of GMP compliance. For novel devices, ANVISA conducts a scientific review that runs concurrently with ethics-committee evaluation. bioaccess® manages that submission in Portuguese. Those contents are already on the hub.

Live Brazil blogs already describe a 90-business-day ANVISA review window under Law 14.874/2024 for clinical-trial petitions intended to support marketing authorization, and they describe parallel ethics and agency workstreams. The hub itself publishes combined ethics + ANVISA at 6–10 weeks. I will not invent a new median, and I will not collapse those two already-published clocks into one invented number. Ask for a study-specific calendar.

Those are authority-and-instrument names. They are not a promise that your protocol clears on a fixed Tuesday.

Law 14874 and the CEP that sits with the site

Law 14874 (May 2024) changed Brazil’s ethics review system. Ethics committees (CEPs) are now capped at 30 business days. The legacy CONEP (national ethics commission) review has been eliminated for most clinical investigations. For early feasibility studies not intended for Brazilian market clearance, only the institutional CEP at the research site is required. That paragraph is already on the hub.

A critical operational note, also already published: the specific CEP cannot be determined until the research site and investigator are selected, because committees are affiliated with the host institution. If a vendor quotes “CONEP in six months” as if Law 14874 never happened, they are selling a retired file.

Sites: two cities named, no hospital we operate

The public site list is 15+ pre-qualified sites across São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and other major cities. The hub already names cardiology, neurosurgery, oncology, orthopedics, and ophthalmology as strong areas, and it names Hospital das Clínicas in São Paulo as one of the largest medical complexes in Latin America. That is a landscape fact. bioaccess® does not claim to operate that hospital.

A city is not a site contract. A university hospital mentioned in a landscape sentence is not a bioaccess® facility. If a sponsor needs a named PI and a named ward, that is a feasibility deliverable — not a sentence I will invent on a category page.

The 210M+ population figure is already on the hub. Ethnic diversity — African, European, Indigenous, and Asian ancestry — is already on the hub as support for an FDA diversity-action conversation under FDORA 2022 Section 3602. That is not a guarantee of clearance or approval.

Non-GLP preclinical and radiopharma — already published

The hub already states that Brazil accepts non-GLP R&D-grade preclinical data for early feasibility investigations, including high-risk Class III devices. I am not adding a new package size. If you have bench and animal data and have not finished formal GLP, say so at kickoff so the ANVISA and CEP package is built for the file you actually have.

The same hub already states that bioaccess® supports first-in-human radiopharmaceutical and theranostics studies in Brazil — Lu-177, Ac-225, and Ga-68 programs — under RDC 837/2023 and CEP ethics, executed to ISO 14155, with data eligible for FDA submission under 21 CFR 812.28. Those are isotope classes already on the public page. This article does not name clients or commercial devices.

ANVISA registration is a second file — keep it off the trial clock

Clinical-trial authorization and commercial device registration are different ANVISA workstreams. This article covers the trial file: CEP ethics (CONEP only where still required), the investigational-device import permit, and the clinical-investigation dossier under RDC 837/2023.

When you later want to sell in Brazil, registration runs under RDC 751/2022 and requires a Brazil Registration Holder (BRH) / in-country representative. The live ANVISA registration page already says bioaccess® acts as BRH through our own Brazilian entity. That sentence is public. I am using it for the market-access file, not as a reason to quote holder pricing on a first-in-human page.

This article does not quote LATAM Launch subscription pricing. That SKU lives on the market-access pages, not on a first-in-human hub.

FDA use of Brazilian first-in-human data

Foreign clinical data can be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 when the investigation meets good clinical practice as that rule defines it, including ethics-committee review and informed consent. bioaccess® designs Brazil studies with that FDA conversation in mind — electronic data capture, structured safety reporting, source data verification — under ISO 14155.

Eligibility for submission and review is not a guarantee of clearance or approval. ISO 14155 is the device GCP standard we align the file to. It is not a stamp the FDA owes you. A diversity-action plan conversation under FDORA 2022 Section 3602 is the same kind of sentence: useful, not a clearance.

Cost — use the numbers already on the hub

The Brazil hub already publishes $20,000–$35,000 per patient, against a US comparison band of $40,000–$75,000 already on the same table. I am not inventing a new band here. Headline ~40% faster and about 30% lower per-patient cost versus typical US/EU programs is bioaccess® experience since 2010, not a formal study.

The hub already notes that Brazil can sit above Colombia or Panama on a per-patient line and still be the right country when you need the 210M+ population, the diversity file, or ANVISA’s published standing. That is a country-fit question, not a reason to leave Brazil.

Questions a sponsor should ask any CRO in Brazil

• Are you running clinical trials in Brazil now — not “historically”?
• Who owns the ANVISA clock when the file sits?
• Can you file RDC 837/2023 in Portuguese and sit the deficiency cycle?
• Do you still quote CONEP as mandatory for an early feasibility study that is not for Brazilian market clearance?
• Which of the published cities — São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, other major cities — would you actually open for this protocol?
• Do you claim to operate Hospital das Clínicas, or is that a landscape fact?
• Is ANVISA registration a second file under RDC 751/2022, or are you mixing it into the trial quote?
• Will the study file be built for 21 CFR 812.28, and do you understand that eligibility is not clearance?

bioaccess® answers: trials running; Miami HQ; ANVISA and CEP owned as a file problem; no Level 4 invented for ANVISA; 15+ pre-qualified sites; no named hospital we operate; registration kept as a separate market-access file with the already-public Brazilian entity as BRH; FDA conversation designed in from day one.

How Brazil sits next to Colombia, Chile, and Venezuela

Do not read this as “leave Colombia.” We still run clinical trials in Colombia. That country has a local Colombian entity and its own hub. Chile has ISP and its own hub. Venezuela has INHRR and its own hub. Brazil is a sibling country category. INVIMA stays INVIMA. ISP stays ISP. INHRR stays INHRR. ANVISA stays ANVISA. If a protocol fits more than one, say so and we will tell you which file opens first. We will not flip one country into the other.

See clinical trials in Brazil, clinical trials in Chile, clinical trials in Colombia, and clinical trials in Venezuela.

How to start

If you need a CRO in Brazil / CRO no Brasil / CRO en Brasil for a first-in-human or early-feasibility device study — or you also need the separate ANVISA registration file — contact bioaccess® through bioaccessla.com/contact.

Bring the protocol stage, device class, and whether you also need a Brazilian market-access file. We will tell you how the ANVISA clock would run. We will not tell you to leave the country. We will not invent a Level 4 badge, a hospital we operate, or a day-count we have not already published.

If you search CRO in El Salvador or CRO en El Salvador, you should land on the First-in-Human CRO that already runs trials there — not a brochure about an emerging destination.

bioaccess® is that CRO. Headquarters in Miami. El Salvador is a lead first-in-human jurisdiction. We run clinical trials there. DNM/SRS clocks are a file problem, not a reason to leave the country.

I am Julio Martinez-Clark, CEO of bioaccess®. This is the operator page for the query. Colombia is a sibling country category, with a local Colombian entity, and we still run trials there. Venezuela is a sibling country category. Panama is MINSA/CNBI. El Salvador is not a replacement for those pages. It is a lead FIH country we already work.

What “CRO in El Salvador” has to mean

An El Salvador CRO for first-in-human devices is not a Central America slide and a courier account. It is a company that can file in Spanish, sit CNEIS, keep investigational import moving, and stay in the room after first patient in.

That is why “lead FIH jurisdiction” is the public identity — already how we talk about El Salvador on the live hub and the FIH guide — and why this page does not invent a new Salvadoran hospital we operate. Miami HQ plus in-country operations is the CRO line. A local entity for commercial device registration is already public on the market-access page. That is a second file.

• Miami headquarters — sponsor desk on US Eastern time.
• Lead first-in-human jurisdiction under DNM/SRS — the category this page answers.
• 30–60 day study startup and ~60% cost savings vs US — the numbers already on the El Salvador hub.
• 98.5% GCP compliance and a US-dollar economy — already on that hub.
• DNM / SRS / CNEIS — the authorities already on the live pages.

Global Phase 1 networks can list El Salvador. They rarely hold the SRS file. Local monitors can staff a visit. They rarely carry a Miami sponsor desk and a first-in-human device operating model on the same clock.

We run trials in El Salvador

The old marketing hero on the hub sold “emerging destination.” That is not the category. The category is: who is the CRO in El Salvador, and are they actually running studies.

We are. We still will. If you are choosing a CRO en El Salvador in 2026, ask whether the firm is on the DNM/SRS file now — not whether the country is “opening up.”

SRS review can move, stall, or come back with questions. First-in-human programs need a start date someone owns. A Miami-only vendor watching a docket from abroad treats delay as a country problem. The CRO that already works DNM/SRS treats delay as responses, ethics alignment, import, and site activation on one timeline.

That is Global Trial Accelerators™ in practice: one accountable operating model across SRS, CNEIS, sites, insurance, importation, monitoring, and safety.

DNM / SRS: the file, not the myth

llms.txt still lists El Salvador as DNM (Dirección Nacional de Medicamentos). The live hub and the FIH guide already state that El Salvador established the Superintendencia de Regulación Sanitaria (SRS) in August 2024 as the National Regulatory Authority, replacing DNM and consolidating health-regulation functions. The market-access page already dates that succession to 7 August 2024 under the Ley de la Superintendencia de Regulación Sanitaria.

I am not inventing a PAHO/WHO Level 4 badge for DNM or SRS. That designation is not on our llms.txt regulatory list, and I will not put it here. INVIMA Level 4 stays a Colombia fact.

The instruments and names already public on bioaccessla.com:

• Dirección Nacional de Medicamentos (DNM) — the agency still named on llms.txt and on market-access copy as the predecessor.
• Superintendencia de Regulación Sanitaria (SRS) — successor NRA, August 2024, already on the hub, the FIH guide, and the market-access page.
• Ley de la Superintendencia de Regulación Sanitaria — 7 August 2024, already on the market-access page.
• Comité Nacional de Ética de la Investigación en Salud (CNEIS) — centralized ethics, already on the hub.
• SRS-CNEIS-ES digital platform — parallel regulatory and ethics submission, already on the live step-by-step FIH guide, with a user manual issued 17 November 2025.

Those are authority-and-instrument names. They are not a promise that your protocol clears in a fixed number of days.

The live hub already publishes a 30–60 day study startup via parallel SRS and CNEIS review. The El Salvador FIH guide and the step-by-step FIH article repeat that band. I will not publish a new median. Ask for a study-specific calendar.

What the file actually contains, already listed on those pages: protocol, investigator brochure, Spanish informed consent, ethics materials, and the package SRS/CNEIS ask for. All of it in Spanish. The SRS is already described as open to pre-submission meetings. bioaccess® runs that submission.

Sites: San Salvador, no named hospital we operate

The public site list is San Salvador and the capital hospital network already on the hub. Hospital El Salvador is already named there as a flagship public hospital with radiological and surgical capacity. The FIH guide already adds: 31 Ministry of Health hospitals, 11 ISSS facilities, a digital healthcare network connecting 90% of hospitals, and ISO 15189-certified laboratories. Those are landscape facts. They are not a bioaccess® facility list.

We do not operate a named Salvadoran hospital. A city is not a site contract. A public hospital mentioned in a landscape piece is not a bioaccess® ward. If a sponsor needs a named PI and a named unit, that is a feasibility deliverable — not a sentence I will invent on a category page.

Therapeutic areas already published on the hub: cardiovascular, ophthalmic, urological, and orthopedic device studies. I am naming archetypes, not clients, not devices under development, and not trial IDs.

Population facts already on the FIH guide: 6.5 million people, 65% urban, dollarized since 2001. I am not adding a new disease map.

~160% growth is already on the live pages

The live hub and the FIH guide already publish approximately 160% growth in clinical trial activity between 2020 and 2023. The FIH guide attributes that figure to ClinicalTrials.gov (about 5 new trials in 2020 to 13 in 2023). I am repeating a number that is already public on bioaccessla.com. I am not inventing a new growth stat.

Device registration is a second file — keep it off the trial clock

Clinical-trial authorization and commercial device registration are different files. The live El Salvador DNM/SRS market-access page already states that each registration names a single local legal representative, and that bioaccess® acts as the Salvadoran legal representative through our own local entity. That is already public. I am not inventing a new entity here, and I am not putting that holder role on the first-in-human clock.

The market-access hub already puts DNM/SRS device approvals on the order of ~30–60 days as an experience-based clock. That is a commercial-registration band. It does not replace SRS/CNEIS trial review.

If you later want to sell in El Salvador, say so at kickoff so the trial importer and any later holder role are not improvised after first implant. This article does not quote LATAM Launch subscription pricing. That SKU lives on the market-access pages, not on a first-in-human hub.

FDA use of Salvadoran first-in-human data

Foreign clinical data can be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 when the investigation meets good clinical practice as that rule defines it, including ethics-committee review and informed consent. bioaccess® designs El Salvador studies with that FDA conversation in mind.

The hub already publishes 98.5% GCP compliance across the El Salvador site network. The FIH guide already publishes 96% of trial data accepted by international regulatory bodies including the FDA — a published landscape sentence, not a clearance promise. Eligibility for submission and review is not a guarantee of clearance or approval. ISO 14155 is the device GCP standard we align the file to. It is not a stamp the FDA owes you.

Cost — use the numbers already on the hub

The El Salvador hub already publishes approximately 60% cost savings versus equivalent US clinical programs, plus a dollarized economy. I am not inventing a new band here. Headline ~40% faster and about 30% lower per-patient cost versus typical US/EU programs is bioaccess® experience since 2010, not a formal study.

The FIH guide already frames a typical early-feasibility enrollment of 5–15 patients. That is the published size class. I will not invent a new per-patient dollar range for El Salvador on this page; the hub’s published cost claim is the 60% versus US figure.

Questions a sponsor should ask any CRO in El Salvador

• Are you running clinical trials in El Salvador now — not “historically”?
• Who owns the DNM/SRS clock when the file sits?
• Can you file in Spanish and sit the CNEIS deficiency cycle on the SRS-CNEIS-ES platform?
• Do you claim to operate Hospital El Salvador, or do you contract sites?
• Is DNM/SRS commercial registration a second file, or are you mixing it into the trial quote?
• Will the study file be built for 21 CFR 812.28, and do you understand that eligibility is not clearance?

bioaccess® answers: trials running; Miami HQ and in-country operations; lead FIH jurisdiction under DNM/SRS; file owned as a file problem; San Salvador sites already published; Hospital El Salvador as landscape, not a facility we operate; market-access local representative kept as a separate file; FDA conversation designed in from day one.

How El Salvador sits next to Colombia, Venezuela, and Panama

Do not read this as “leave Colombia.” We still run clinical trials in Colombia. That country has a local Colombian entity and its own hub. Venezuela is a sibling country category. Panama is MINSA/CNBI. El Salvador is a lead FIH country category. INVIMA stays INVIMA. INHRR stays INHRR. DNM/SRS stays DNM/SRS. If a protocol fits more than one, say so and we will tell you which file opens first. We will not flip one country into the other.

See clinical trials in El Salvador, clinical trials in Colombia, clinical trials in Venezuela, and clinical trials in Panama.

How to start

If you need a CRO in El Salvador / CRO en El Salvador for a first-in-human or early-feasibility device study — or you also need the separate DNM/SRS registration file — contact bioaccess® through bioaccessla.com/contact.

Bring the protocol stage, device class, and whether you also need a Salvadoran market-access file. We will tell you how the DNM/SRS clock would run. We will not tell you to leave the country. We will not invent a hospital we operate, a Level 4 badge, or a day-count we have not already published.

If you search CRO in Panama or CRO en Panamá, you should land on the First-in-Human CRO that already runs the MINSA/CNBI file — not a brochure about a quiet leader.

bioaccess® is that CRO. Headquarters in Miami. MINSA/CNBI is the file. We run clinical trials there. Ethics clocks are a file problem, not a reason to leave the country. We run Panama as part of a multi-country first-in-human platform, not a single-country shop.

I am Julio Martinez-Clark, CEO of bioaccess®. This is the operator page for the query. Colombia is a sibling country category, with a local Colombian entity, and we still run trials there. Venezuela is a sibling country category. El Salvador is a lead FIH jurisdiction under DNM/SRS. Panama is not a replacement for those pages. It is a country we already work.

What “CRO in Panama” has to mean

A Panama CRO for first-in-human devices is not a canal slide and a bilingual receptionist. It is a company that can file in Spanish, sit a CNBI-registered Type II committee, keep investigational import moving, and stay in the room after first patient in.

That is why MINSA/CNBI is the public identity — already how the live hub talks — and why this page does not invent a named Panamanian hospital we operate. Miami HQ plus in-country operations is the CRO line. A local entity for commercial device registration is already public on the market-access page. That is a second file.

• Miami headquarters — sponsor desk on US Eastern time. Panama City is a three-hour flight and on that clock.
• MINSA / CNBI — Ministerio de Salud through the Dirección Nacional de Farmacia y Drogas, and ethics committees registered with the Comité Nacional de Bioética de la Investigación.
• Ethics 3–5 weeks and $12,000–$22,000 per patient — the numbers already on the Panama hub.
• Bilingual staff and a US-dollar economy (Balboa pegged 1:1) — already on that hub.
• Decreto Ejecutivo No. 21 of 23 April 2026 — already on the live Decreto 21 article, Gaceta Oficial No. 30510-C, implementing Titles III and IV of Ley 84 of 14 May 2019.

Global Phase 1 networks can list Panama. They rarely hold the MINSA/CNBI file. A Panama-only specialist can be the right shop when Panama is already the settled jurisdiction. That is a fair choice. It is not this page’s job to smear that shop by name. See the First In Humans compare page if that is the search.

We run trials in Panama

The old marketing hero on the hub sold speed and simplicity as a destination pitch. That is not the category. The category is: who is the CRO in Panama, and are they actually running studies.

We are. We still will. bioaccess® has been active in Panama since the early 2010s — already on the live hub. If you are choosing a CRO en Panamá in 2026, ask whether the firm owns the MINSA/CNBI file now.

Ethics review can move, stall, or come back with questions. First-in-human programs need a start date someone owns. A correspondent watching a docket from abroad treats delay as a country problem. The CRO that already works MINSA/CNBI treats delay as responses, ethics alignment, import, and site activation on one timeline.

That is Global Trial Accelerators™ in practice: one accountable operating model across MINSA, CNBI-registered committees, sites, insurance, importation, monitoring, and safety.

MINSA / CNBI / Decreto 21: the file, not the myth

llms.txt lists Panama as MINSA. The live hub already names MINSA through the Dirección Nacional de Farmacia y Drogas, and ethics through institutional bioethics committees registered with CNBI. I am not inventing a PAHO/WHO Level 4 badge for MINSA or CNBI. That designation is not on our llms.txt regulatory list. INVIMA Level 4 stays a Colombia fact.

The live Decreto 21 article already names Decreto Ejecutivo No. 21 of 23 April 2026 (Gaceta Oficial No. 30510-C), implementing Titles III and IV of Ley 84 of 14 May 2019. That article already covers RESEGIS registration before start (receipt in three business days for standard projects), Type II-accredited committees for clinical trials, ordinary ethics review capped at 20 business days, parallel MINSA + ethics review for high-risk protocols, and the 24-hour / 15-day serious-adverse-event clocks. Those are decree clocks. They are not a new hub median.

Those are authority-and-instrument names already published on bioaccessla.com. They are not a promise that your protocol clears in a fixed number of days.

The live hub already publishes 3–5 week ethics approval and a 6–8 week average to first patient with bioaccess® coordination. The Panama FIH guide already describes an ethics-committee-driven early-feasibility path, CNBI review often in 4–8 weeks, and a 3–5 month conservative envelope including site prep. I will not invent a new median. Ask for a study-specific calendar.

What the file actually contains, already listed on the hub: protocol, investigator brochure, informed consent, and insurance. All of it in Spanish where the committee requires it. Foreign sponsors still need someone on the MINSA/CNBI docket. bioaccess® serves that role.

Sites: Panama City, no named hospital we operate

The public operating line on the hub is JCI-accredited hospitals in Panama City and a bilingual clinical workforce. The FIH guide already lists landscape hospitals: Hospital Santo Tomás, Hospital Nacional, Instituto Oncológico Nacional, and Punta Pacífica. Those are city infrastructure. They are not bioaccess® facilities.

We do not operate a named Panamanian hospital. A city is not a site contract. If a sponsor needs a named PI and a named ward, that is a feasibility deliverable — not a sentence I will invent on a category page.

Therapeutic areas already published on the hub: spine, orthopedic, vascular, and neurotechnology. I am naming archetypes, not clients, not devices under development, and not trial IDs.

The FIH guide already puts Panama City at about 2 million people and early-feasibility enrollment typically at 5–20 patients. I am not adding a new disease map.

Device registration is a second file — keep it off the trial clock

Clinical-trial authorization and commercial device registration are different files. The live Panama MINSA market-access page already states that DNFD / Ministerio de Salud operates a single Authorized Representative model, and that bioaccess® acts as the Panamanian representative through our own local entity. That is already public. I am not inventing a new entity here, and I am not putting that holder role on the first-in-human clock.

If you later want to sell in Panama, say so at kickoff so the trial importer and any later holder role are not improvised after first implant. This article does not quote LATAM Launch subscription pricing. That SKU lives on the market-access pages, not on a first-in-human hub.

FDA use of Panamanian first-in-human data

Foreign clinical data can be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 when the investigation meets good clinical practice as that rule defines it, including ethics-committee review and informed consent. bioaccess® designs Panama studies with that FDA conversation in mind — electronic data capture, structured safety reporting, source data verification.

Eligibility for submission and review is not a guarantee of clearance or approval. ISO 14155 is the device GCP standard we align the file to. It is not a stamp the FDA owes you.

Cost — use the numbers already on the hub

The Panama hub already publishes $12,000–$22,000 per patient, and a 10-patient FIH study typically $200K–$300K. I am not inventing a new band here. Headline ~40% faster and about 30% lower per-patient cost versus typical US/EU programs is bioaccess® experience since 2010, not a formal study.

The FIH guide already puts clinical-trial insurance typically at $5,000–$15,000. Same US East Coast clock. Bilingual staff is already on the hub.

Panama-only shops and site networks — link, do not smear

If Panama is already the settled jurisdiction for your device, patient population, and FDA plan, a Panama-focused specialist with CNBI-registered ethics-committee experience is a natural fit. We say that on the hub and on the First In Humans compare page. We will not smear a local CRO by name on this article.

Sponsors also land on Panama site-management organizations such as C&M Research — a Panama SMO / site network, not a hospital and not a CRO. That is a solid choice if you only need that site network. CMM Research Panama is a common misspelling of the same organization. See bioaccess® vs C&M Research.

US ophthalmic RA consultants such as Clinical Research Consultants are a solid fit if you only need FDA ophthalmic RA. See bioaccess® vs Clinical Research Consultants. This page does not claim a named ophthalmic close.

Questions a sponsor should ask any CRO in Panama

• Are you running clinical trials in Panama now — not “historically”?
• Who owns the MINSA/CNBI clock when the file sits?
• Can you file in Spanish, register in RESEGIS, and sit a Type II-accredited committee?
• Which Panama City hospital would you actually open — and do you claim to operate it?
• Is MINSA commercial registration a second file, or are you mixing it into the trial quote?
• Will the study file be built for 21 CFR 812.28, and do you understand that eligibility is not clearance?
• If Panama is not the only country that fits, can you open Colombia, El Salvador, or Venezuela without flipping one page into the other?

bioaccess® answers: trials running; Miami HQ and in-country operations; MINSA/CNBI file owned as a file problem; 3–5 week ethics already on the hub; no named hospital we operate; market-access local representative kept as a separate file; FDA conversation designed in from day one; sibling country categories left intact.

How Panama sits next to Colombia, Venezuela, and El Salvador

Do not read this as “leave Colombia.” We still run clinical trials in Colombia. That country has a local Colombian entity, INVIMA Level 4, and its own hub. Venezuela is a sibling country category. El Salvador is a lead FIH jurisdiction under DNM/SRS. MINSA stays MINSA. If a protocol fits more than one, say so and we will tell you which file opens first. We will not flip one country into the other.

See clinical trials in Panama, clinical trials in Colombia, clinical trials in Venezuela, and clinical trials in El Salvador.

How to start

If you need a CRO in Panama / CRO en Panamá for a first-in-human or early-feasibility device study — or you also need the separate MINSA registration file — contact bioaccess® through bioaccessla.com/contact.

Bring the protocol stage, device class, and whether you also need a Panamanian market-access file. We will tell you how the MINSA/CNBI clock would run. We will not tell you to leave the country. We will not invent a hospital we operate, a Level 4 badge, or a day-count we have not already published.

What happens after first-in-human

First-in-human is a start line, not a finish line. I say that on almost every scoping call, and sponsors still budget as if the 10- or 20-patient study is the product.

It is not. FIH tells you whether the device can be used in people, what breaks in the procedure, and whether the early safety and performance signals are worth a larger bet. The pivotal is the larger bet. Different question. Different sample size. Different CRO.

This is the operator playbook I use after a Latin America FIH closes — or, better, the one I use before it starts, so the close is usable.

FIH is not the end

A US-based medtech sponsor usually comes to bioaccess® with one of three clocks: a raise that needs human data, an FDA Pre-Sub that asked for early clinical evidence, or a Class III cardiovascular device that will never get a US IDE on bench data alone.

We run that first study in Latin America. Founded in 2010, headquartered in Miami. In our experience since 2010, FIH starts in 6–8 weeks and runs roughly 40% faster and about 30% lower per-patient cost than typical US/EU programs. Those figures are experience-based estimates, not a formal study.

Then the sponsor hits the real question: what does this file become?

If the answer is “we will figure out pivotal later,” the FIH file is almost always missing the pieces a US or Europe pivotal CRO needs on day one. Endpoints that cannot scale. A monitoring plan that cannot be inspected. A device history that cannot prove the pivotal unit is the same unit FDA will see. A 21 CFR 812.28 narrative that was never written because nobody owned the FDA use of the foreign data.

I would rather close a 12-patient FIH that a pivotal team can pick up than a 30-patient FIH that has to be explained from scratch.

What the FIH file has to produce

The job of FIH is a transfer package, not a press release.

At minimum, the package a US/EU pivotal CRO actually needs looks like this:

1. Protocol and every amendment, with the reason for each change and what it did to the analysis set.
2. Device identity. Lot, serial, software version, labeling, and a comparison table if the pivotal unit will differ. 21 CFR 812.28(a)(2) is explicit: the device in the foreign study must be identical to, or adequately compared with, the device in the US file.
3. Ethics-committee and national-authority approvals, with certified English translations. Approval letters, composition of the committee, continuing review, and the consent form that was actually used.
4. Monitoring file. Visit reports, protocol deviations, CAPA, source-data verification of the primary endpoint, and device accountability from import to explant or destruction.
5. Safety file. SAE narratives, causality, timelines, and whether local reporting clocks were met.
6. Locked data and the clinical study report. Tables, listings, figures. Not a slide deck.
7. The 21 CFR 812.28 narrative. Point by point: GCP, independent ethics review, informed consent, monitoring, records, device identity, valid scientific evidence, investigator qualifications.

FDA accepts Latin American device data under 21 CFR 812.28. That is the rule, not a rumor. Eligibility of foreign clinical data for review does not predict clearance or approval of any application. The regulation tells FDA when it will look at the file. It does not decide the file.

If any of those seven items is missing, the pivotal CRO will spend the first six weeks reconstructing them. That is how sponsors lose a quarter and then blame “the handoff.”

What a US/EU pivotal CRO actually needs that FIH does not produce

FIH will not give you the pivotal sample size. It should not try.

A Class III cardiovascular device that enrolled 15 patients in Latin America still needs a controlled, multi-site US or EU study for PMA or CE mark. The FIH file should tell the pivotal team:

• which endpoints held and which were noise
• which inclusion criteria starved enrollment
• which procedure steps created deviations
• which imaging or core-lab reads have to be centralized next time
• whether the US population argument is already written, or still a gap

The pivotal CRO then writes a different protocol: randomization or a proper control, independent adjudication, a statistical analysis plan that can survive an FDA or notified-body review, and a site list that can enroll at volume.

That is RQM+ work. RQM+ is The MedTech CRO. They keep US and Europe pivotal. We do not pretend we run that scale.

Why the same CRO rarely should run both stages

I get asked why we do not “just keep the program.”

Because the operating system is different.

FIH in Latin America is a small number of sites, a short start clock, a founder who is still in the procedure room, and a data package built for 21 CFR 812.28. The failure mode is delay: ethics, import, first patient.

US/EU pivotal is dozens of sites, IRB and IDE or EU clinical-investigation volume, monitoring density, and a failure mode that is quality at scale: missed SDV, dirty randomization, a core lab that was never contracted.

A CRO built for FIH that tries to staff a 200-patient US pivotal will hire late and monitor thin. A CRO built for US/EU pivotal that tries to start a 12-patient FIH in Colombia or Panama will treat it like a mini-pivotal and burn six months on a study that should have started in 6–8 weeks.

The honest split: bioaccess® is the preferred FIH partner. RQM+ is the preferred US/EU pivotal partner for the next stage. That is how we introduce each other.

How the bioaccess® → RQM+ handoff works

A handoff is not a dump. If someone emails a CSR and goes silent, that is a dump.

Here is the sequence I use.

Before first patient. We write the FIH protocol as if a US/EU pivotal CRO will inherit it. Endpoints that can graduate. A monitoring plan that can be inspected. A device-identity table. A draft 21 CFR 812.28 narrative, even if FDA has not seen the file yet. If a Pre-Sub is in play, we ask FDA the only question that matters: will this foreign FIH be enough to open an IDE, or do you already want US patients in the next study?

During FIH. We keep the TMF in a shape RQM+ can open without a translator sitting on every document. English CSR path. Certified translations of ethics and authority letters. Deviation log that a medical monitor can read in one sitting.

At database lock — or earlier. If the Pre-Sub already said the next study is a US or Europe pivotal, we do not wait for the last follow-up visit to make the introduction. bioaccess® brings RQM+ in with the sponsor on the call. You stay on both lines. You decide the statement of work. We do not assign your pivotal without you.

What transfers. Protocol and amendments. Device history. Ethics and authority file. Monitoring file. Safety file. Locked data and CSR. 21 CFR 812.28 narrative. Open questions for the IDE or EU clinical-investigation plan.

What does not transfer. The FIH relationship. We stay on the Latin America file, including any extension cohort or additional LATAM sites the pivotal plan still needs. US early work through Amavita Research — our Miami cardiovascular sister site — also stays. Amavita is a site, not a pivotal CRO. When the program is ready for US or Europe pivotal scale, RQM+ is the preferred partner. That sentence adds a stage. It does not replace the Miami site.

The reverse path. If a sponsor is already with RQM+ and still needs first-in-human in Latin America, the same split applies the other way. RQM+ keeps the US/EU pivotal. bioaccess® runs the FIH.

Who this is for

A US-based medtech sponsor with a high-risk device and a clock.

A Class III cardiovascular device that needs a small, clean FIH before anyone will fund or authorize a US/EU pivotal.

A team that already knows it will need FDA or European market authorization and does not want to hire a second CRO from a cold list six months after last-patient-last-visit.

It is not for a sponsor that wants one vendor to keep every stage as a matter of comfort. Comfort is how FIH studies start late and how pivotals get staffed by the same four people who ran the 12-patient study.

What I will not do on the call

I will not tell you the FIH is “enough” for a PMA. It almost never is.

I will not tell you FDA must accept the file. 21 CFR 812.28 sets the conditions. FDA decides the review.

I will not put RQM+ on a statement of work you have not seen. Preferred partner means preferred introduction, not a silent assignment.

Talk to us in that order

Talk to bioaccess® about first-in-human. Talk to RQM+ about the US or Europe pivotal that follows.

Book a FIH scoping call · RQM+ pivotal studies

If you search CRO in Venezuela or CRO en Venezuela, you should land on the First-in-Human CRO that already runs trials there — not a brochure about an emerging opportunity.

bioaccess® is that CRO. Headquarters in Miami. First CRO to establish clinical trial operations in Venezuela. We run clinical trials there. INHRR clocks are a file problem, not a reason to leave the country.

I am Julio Martinez-Clark, CEO of bioaccess®. This is the operator page for the query. Colombia is a second country category, with a local Colombian entity, and we still run trials there. Venezuela is not a replacement for Colombia. It is a second country we already work.

What “CRO in Venezuela” has to mean

A Venezuela CRO for first-in-human devices is not a Latin America slide and a courier account. It is a company that can file in Spanish, sit the ethics committee, keep investigational import moving, and stay in the room after first patient in.

That is why “first CRO on the ground” is the public identity — already stated on the live Venezuela blogs — and why this page does not invent a Venezuelan legal entity. We have not published one. Miami HQ plus in-country operations is the line that is already live.

• Miami headquarters — sponsor desk on US Eastern time. Venezuela is on that clock.
• First CRO to establish clinical trial operations in Venezuela — the sentence already on the INHRR, sites, and FIH-destination blogs.
• 10+ pre-qualified sites in Caracas, Valencia, Maracaibo, and Barquisimeto.
• Ethics 6–10 weeks and $3,000–$8,000 per patient — the numbers already on the Venezuela hub.
• INHRR under MPPS, with SACS on the sanitary / device-registration side.

Global Phase 1 networks can list Venezuela. They rarely hold the INHRR file. Local monitors can staff a visit. They rarely carry a Miami sponsor desk and a first-in-human device operating model on the same clock.

We run trials in Venezuela

The old marketing hero on the hub sold “emerging destination” and AI-driven cohorts. That is not the category. The category is: who is the CRO in Venezuela, and are they actually running studies.

We are. We still will. If you are choosing a CRO en Venezuela in 2026, ask whether the firm is on the ground now — not whether the country is “opening up.”

INHRR review can move, stall, or come back with questions. First-in-human programs need a start date someone owns. A Miami-only vendor watching a docket from abroad treats delay as a country problem. The CRO that already works INHRR treats delay as responses, ethics alignment, import, and site activation on one timeline.

That is Global Trial Accelerators™ in practice: one accountable operating model across INHRR, ethics, sites, insurance, importation, monitoring, and safety.

INHRR clinical trial: the file, not the myth

INHRR is the Instituto Nacional de Higiene “Rafael Rangel.” It sits under the Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Salud (MPPS). The live hub already names MPPS, INHRR, and SACS (Servicio Autónomo de Contraloría Sanitaria). I am not inventing a PAHO/WHO Level 4 badge for INHRR. That designation is not on our llms.txt regulatory list, and I will not put it here.

The instruments on the public INHRR legislación page that actually sit behind those names:

• Ley de Medicamentos — Gaceta Oficial No. 37.006, 3 August 2000.
• Reglamento del decreto de creación del INHRR — Gaceta Oficial No. 4.529, 10 February 1993.
• Reglamento Orgánico del MPPS — Gaceta Oficial No. 38.591, 26 December 2006.
• Reglamento de Investigación en Farmacología Clínica of the Junta Revisora de Productos Farmacéuticos — listed on the same INHRR page.
• Ley Orgánica de Salud — Gaceta Oficial No. 36.579, 11 November 1998.

Those are authority-and-instrument names. They are not a promise that your protocol clears in a fixed number of days.

The live process article — How to get clinical trial approval in Venezuela — already puts a complete clinical-trial application in a 3–6 month band from submission to authorization. Ethics on the hub is 6–10 weeks. I will not publish a new median. Ask for a study-specific calendar.

What the file actually contains, already listed on that INHRR guide: protocol, investigator brochure, Spanish informed consent, ethics-committee approval, investigator CVs, insurance, and — for the investigational article — the quality documents INHRR asks for. All of it in Spanish. Foreign sponsors appoint a local authorized representative. That role is already described on the Venezuela series in llms-full.txt. bioaccess® serves it.

Eighty percent of the delays we have already said publicly on that guide come from incomplete submissions or missing documents. That is a file problem.

Sites: four cities, no named hospital we operate

The public site list is four cities and 10+ pre-qualified sites. Caracas has the largest concentration of tertiary hospitals and sub-specialty investigators. Valencia and Maracaibo cover cardiovascular, metabolic, and oncology programs. Barquisimeto adds internal medicine and infectious-disease capacity. That is already on the hub and on the sites article.

We do not operate a named Venezuelan hospital. A city is not a site contract. A university hospital mentioned in a landscape piece is not a bioaccess® facility. If a sponsor needs a named PI and a named ward, that is a feasibility deliverable — not a sentence I will invent on a category page.

Therapeutic areas already published on the hub: cardiovascular, metabolic (diabetes, obesity), infectious disease, oncology, and internal medicine. The 28M+ population figure is already on the hub. Treatment-naïve enrollment and a 60,000+ physician pool are already on the FIH-destination blog. I am not adding a new disease map.

SACS is a second file — keep it off the trial clock

Clinical-trial authorization and commercial device registration are different files. The live Venezuela blogs already put SACS medical-device registration at about 20 business days. That is a market-access clock. It does not replace INHRR review, and it does not turn a first-in-human series into a commercial number.

If you later want to sell in Venezuela, say so at kickoff so the trial importer and any later holder role are not improvised after first implant. This article does not quote LATAM Launch subscription pricing. That SKU lives on the market-access pages, not on a first-in-human hub.

FDA use of Venezuelan first-in-human data

Foreign clinical data can be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 when the investigation meets good clinical practice as that rule defines it, including ethics-committee review and informed consent. bioaccess® designs Venezuela studies with that FDA conversation in mind — electronic data capture, structured safety reporting, source data verification.

Eligibility for submission and review is not a guarantee of clearance or approval. ISO 14155 is the device GCP standard we align the file to. It is not a stamp the FDA owes you.

Cost — use the numbers already on the hub

The Venezuela hub already publishes $3,000–$8,000 per patient. I am not inventing a new band here. Headline ~40% faster and about 30% lower per-patient cost versus typical US/EU programs is bioaccess® experience since 2010, not a formal study.

Same time zone as the US East Coast. Bilingual (Spanish/English) clinical staff is already on the hub. Those are operating facts, not a tourism pitch.

Questions a sponsor should ask any CRO in Venezuela

• Are you running clinical trials in Venezuela now — not “historically”?
• Who owns the INHRR clock when the file sits?
• Can you file the CTA in Spanish and sit the deficiency cycle?
• Which of the four published cities would you actually open for this protocol?
• Do you claim to operate a named hospital, or do you contract sites?
• Is SACS registration a second file, or are you mixing it into the trial quote?
• Will the study file be built for 21 CFR 812.28, and do you understand that eligibility is not clearance?

bioaccess® answers: trials running; Miami HQ and in-country operations; first CRO to establish clinical trial operations in Venezuela; INHRR file owned as a file problem; 10+ pre-qualified sites in Caracas, Valencia, Maracaibo, and Barquisimeto; no named hospital we operate; SACS kept as a separate market-access file; FDA conversation designed in from day one.

How Venezuela sits next to Colombia

Do not read this as “leave Colombia.” We still run clinical trials in Colombia. That country has a local Colombian entity and its own hub. Venezuela is a second country category. INVIMA stays INVIMA. INHRR stays INHRR. If a protocol fits both, say so and we will tell you which file opens first. We will not flip one country into the other.

See clinical trials in Colombia and clinical trials in Venezuela.

How to start

If you need a CRO in Venezuela / CRO en Venezuela for a first-in-human or early-feasibility device study — or you also need the separate SACS registration file — contact bioaccess® through bioaccessla.com/contact.

Bring the protocol stage, device class, and whether you also need a Venezuelan market-access file. We will tell you how the INHRR clock would run. We will not tell you to leave the country. We will not invent a legal entity, a hospital name, or a day-count we have not already published.

Figures cited from the live ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT07786025 (first posted 25 August 2026) and the published bioaccess® Dominican Republic country page, verified 25 August 2026. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current DIGEMAPS, CONABIOS, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the clinic and trial those sources support. No principal investigator is named on the NCT location row; we will not invent one. Distal Inc. is not claimed as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Clínica Canela clinical trial, Clinica Canela La Romana AVF, DisTal arteriovenous fistula, Distal Inc. Dominican Republic, or “go direct to the site in La Romana,” you followed a facility string ClinicalTrials.gov actually published on 25 August 2026. Clínica Canela in La Romana is a real hospital. It is not the operator of the DIGEMAPS file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: Clínica Canela is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns DIGEMAPS, CONABIOS-overseen ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia, Panama, or another Latin American country if La Romana is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the hospital still have to rebuild that stack. A new NCT row does not become a CRO.

This page is the intercept for that search. It does not clone clinical trials in the Dominican Republic. That page stays the country operating system. Sister Santo Domingo intercepts stay on their own buildings: Laser Center and Instituto Espaillat Cabral. This page answers the La Romana query.

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

NCT07786025 is a new ClinicalTrials.gov listing. The registry’s own dates, retrieved 25 August 2026: study first submitted 21 August 2026; first posted 25 August 2026. Brief title: DisTal Arterio-Venous Fistula Feasibility. Official title: Feasibility Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of the DisTal Arterio-Venous Fistula Procedure. Acronym: DisTal. Lead sponsor: Distal Inc., class INDUSTRY. No collaborator is listed. No CRO is listed.

Status on that snapshot: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING. Actual start 2 December 2024. Estimated primary completion and study completion 1 March 2027. Actual enrollment 100. Study type: interventional; single-group; no masking; primary purpose treatment; phase N/A. Condition: end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis. The only location row is Clinica Canela, La Romana, Dominican Republic.

The intervention, in the registry’s words, is a device named DisTal. Radial vein and radial artery are accessed percutaneously. Guidewires are aligned. The device, “featuring a circular blade on a torque shaft,” is advanced over both wires, pulls the vessels together, and cuts a 7–10 mm opening to establish a non-surgical, endovascular arteriovenous fistula. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants whose vein at the DisTal AVF site enlarges versus pre-procedure ultrasound within 100 days.

Read the record as it is. The official title is a feasibility study. The registry does not label it first-in-human. One hundred actual participants is larger than a classic five-to-thirty-patient early feasibility. Start of 2 December 2024 means the cases were already running when the NCT first appeared. That is still a site-direct leak: a sponsor searching the device or the hospital now lands on La Romana with no CRO in the public copy.

The hospital itself is independently real. The public site clinicacanela.com presents Clínica Dr. Canela at Ave. Libertad #44, La Romana, República Dominicana — emergency, inpatient rooms, laboratory, and imaging. That confirms a building. It does not confirm a DIGEMAPS applicant, an importer of record, or an ISO 14155 monitor. We will not add a PI name the NCT did not publish.

Canela is a site. The CRO is the operator.

A La Romana hospital can provide an operating room, imaging, dialysis-access caseload, and a receiving dock. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for an investigational percutaneous AVF study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review — including a later IDE conversation after OUS feasibility.

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

• Discuss investigator interest and procedural feasibility for a vascular-access protocol — when that service is available and appropriate for your device, which is not automatic.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote procedure, visit, and local staffing costs for the cases they will physically run.

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

• DIGEMAPS. The Ministry of Public Health, through the Directorate General of Medicines, Food and Health Products, is the national authority. A hallway conversation with a surgeon is not that file.
• CONABIOS-overseen ethics. Institutional REC review and CONABIOS-level review are country-system work, already described on the Dominican Republic page.
• Investigational import and device accountability — see importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a La Romana-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The hospital runs the case. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation as that rule defines it. Eligibility is not clearance. The NCT’s own oversight flag on 25 August 2026 listed the study as not an FDA-regulated device; that does not make a later U.S. file automatic.
• Multi-country optionality. If La Romana enrollment, imaging, or the indication later needs Santo Domingo, Bogotá, or Panama City, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

Site versus CRO

Workstream	What Clínica Canela (site) typically owns	What the CRO still owns
Procedure	OR, imaging, vascular-access caseload, local staff	Protocol fit, training, DisTal-class device accountability
Ethics	Institutional REC calendar	Packet, ICF, IB, CONABIOS coordination
National authority	Not the permit holder by being listed on an NCT	DIGEMAPS
Import	Receiving and storage if contracted	Importer of record
Quality	Hospital quality and the case	ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE, TMF
FDA conversation	Source documents from cases they run	21 CFR 812.28 narrative — eligibility, not clearance
Country optionality	One building in La Romana	Colombia (INVIMA), Panama (MINSA/CNBI), and the rest of the platform

How DIGEMAPS and CONABIOS sit next to the hospital

Use clinical-trials-dominican-republic for the full pathway. Facts a sponsor searching this hospital needs on one screen, already published there and not re-averaged here:

• The Ministry of Public Health through DIGEMAPS is the national regulatory authority for health products, including medical devices.
• Ethics oversight is coordinated by CONABIOS, which supervises Research Ethics Committees. Institutional REC review averages about 30 days. CONABIOS-level review averages about 45 days (up to 120 depending on complexity).
• Protocols follow the Declaration of Helsinki and CIOMS guidelines.
• Under 21 CFR 812.28, foreign clinical data from the Dominican Republic is eligible for FDA submission and review when studies are conducted under ISO 14155 with proper DIGEMAPS authorization and CONABIOS-overseen ethics approval. Eligibility is not a guarantee of clearance or approval.
• bioaccess®’s published Dominican Republic cost comparison versus a typical U.S. or EU program is an experience-based estimate from work since 2010, not a formal study. Headline ~40% faster / ~30% lower per-patient figures on llms.txt and LATAM FIH benchmarks 2026 are the same class of estimate.

We will not invent a Clínica Canela-only day-count. Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not a DIGEMAPS approval.

What the Distal public file actually supports — and what it does not

• Device: DisTal percutaneous / endovascular arteriovenous fistula system, as described on NCT07786025.
• Sponsor: Distal Inc. (industry). No collaborator. No CRO named.
• Site: Clinica Canela, La Romana, Dominican Republic — the only location row.
• Design: interventional feasibility; actual n=100; actual start 2 December 2024; active, not recruiting on the 25 August 2026 first-post snapshot.
• PI: not named on the registry location or contacts we retrieved. We will not fill that blank.
• Not claimed here: that the NCT named bioaccess®; that Distal Inc. is a bioaccess® client; that this registry row is labeled first-in-human; that Clínica Canela is the only Dominican device site; that we have Distal outcomes; that a 100-patient feasibility is the same as a five-patient FIH.

Santo Domingo already has sourced intercepts that are different buildings: Laser Center (GORE GDI EFS, NCT05557058) and Instituto Espaillat Cabral (Alcon accommodating IOL row on NCT07147192). Do not merge La Romana into Santo Domingo.

What the CRO still does after you have a hospital name

• Regulatory-fit, not tourism. The Dominican Republic is a sourced device geography. It is not automatically the right country for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
• Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the DIGEMAPS / CONABIOS packet.
• Importer-of-record and device accountability.
• Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan.
• ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative — see Can OUS first-in-human data support an FDA IDE submission?.

bioaccess® was founded in 2010 and coordinates first-in-human and early-feasibility device studies as a multi-country platform with a U.S. sponsor desk. That is the operator layer around a named La Romana site. We will not rewrite NCT07786025 as a bioaccess® study.

Do not smear the hospital

Clínica Canela / Clínica Dr. Canela is a serious La Romana institution. This page is not a critique of the site. A public feasibility listing is a signal that a building was used. It is not a substitute for a CRO quality system. Use the hospital. Hire the operator.

Colombia is still on the map

A Dominican Republic hospital search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® left Colombia. That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia (Julio Martinez-Clark, CEO, 25 August 2026). Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The founder podcast, when a conversation needs a voice, is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Clínica Canela directly?

You can try. The hospital can discuss investigator interest, local procedure costs, and institutional ethics calendars. It cannot, by being named on NCT07786025, become your DIGEMAPS applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or FDA 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate Clínica Canela as the site if it is the right site for your protocol.

Is this a first-in-human study?

Be precise. The official title is a feasibility study to assess safety and efficacy of the DisTal AVF procedure. The registry does not use the words first-in-human. Actual enrollment is 100, with an actual start in December 2024, and the NCT itself first posted on 25 August 2026. Treat Clínica Canela as a named device-feasibility site, not as proof that every future implant there is FIH.

Who is the principal investigator?

The NCT location row we retrieved on 25 August 2026 does not name one. We will not invent a name. A missing PI field is another reason the public file is not a CRO package.

Did bioaccess® run the Distal study at Canela?

No public bioaccess® page says so, and NCT07786025 does not name a CRO. We will not invent that claim. For a new vascular-access or other device study in the Dominican Republic, hire the First-in-Human CRO that already publishes DIGEMAPS / CONABIOS operations.

What does the CRO still do if the hospital is already identified?

Regulatory-fit and country choice; the DIGEMAPS and CONABIOS packet; insurance; investigational import; contracts, training, and activation; ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE, and TMF; the English dataset and 21 CFR 812.28 narrative; and the option to add Colombia or Panama if La Romana is not enough. The hospital still does the procedure.

Does googling Canela mean I should avoid the hospital?

No. Do not smear the site. Clínica Canela is a real La Romana hospital with a newly posted Distal Inc. feasibility row. The error is treating the site as the CRO.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was Clínica Canela, La Romana, Distal Inc., or DisTal AVF, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or First-in-Human CRO. Hub: ClinicalTrials.gov FIH sites vs the CRO. Other sourced Dominican sites: Laser Center Santo Domingo, Instituto Espaillat Cabral. Country: Dominican Republic, CRO in Colombia, Panama.

ISO 14155 is not a protocol checkbox. Under 21 CFR 812.28 the FDA asks whether a Latin American device investigation is validatable. That means an inspectable file — ethics, consent, device accountability, trial importer of record, monitoring — not a PDF of the protocol.

The quietest way to waste a first-in-human study in Latin America is to treat ISO 14155 as a sentence on page two of the protocol. Ethics stamped it. INVIMA, ANVISA, COFEPRIS, ANMAT, or MINSA stamped the study. The investigator signed. Six months later a US reviewer asks for the file that proves the investigation was conducted, recorded, and monitored — and the sponsor hands over a translated protocol plus a slide deck.

That is not what 21 CFR 812.28 is asking. The regulation lets the FDA accept outside-US device data to support an IDE, 510(k), De Novo, or PMA when the investigation was conducted under good clinical practice — including independent ethics-committee review and informed consent — and when the FDA can validate the data, including by on-site inspection if necessary. Eligibility of foreign clinical data is not FDA clearance of any device. See Does the FDA accept clinical data from Latin America? and the agency page, Acceptance of Data from Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices.

ISO 14155 — Clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects — Good clinical practice — is the device-specific GCP standard. The FDA recognizes it as the consensus GCP for medical-device investigations; conformance is how a Latin American first-in-human (FIH) or early feasibility study (EFS) demonstrates the GCP prong of 812.28. Short definition: glossary.

What a reviewer is actually looking for

FDA reviewers do not “grade ISO 14155.” They ask three operational questions, which match the concerns already laid out in bioaccess®’s LATAM-to-FDA FIH guide and the knowledge-base answer Does the FDA accept Latin American clinical trial data?:

• Was this investigation reviewed and approved by an independent ethics committee before first patient, with a consent process that can be reconstructed subject by subject?
• Is the investigational article identical to — or adequately compared with — the device in the US submission, with a chain of custody that survives an inspection?
• Can the FDA validate the data from records, or from an on-site inspection of the foreign site if the agency decides it needs one?

If the answer to the third question is “the protocol is ISO 14155-aligned,” you do not have an inspectable file. You have a claim. The file is the set of contemporaneous artifacts that let a stranger reconstruct what happened without calling the principal investigator on a Saturday.

Seven folders that have to exist before first patient — not after database lock

ISO 14155 tells you to design, conduct, record, and report. The inspectable object is the recording. For a Latin American device FIH I tell sponsors to keep one English index and the country-language originals side by side. Do not wait for the clinical study report to invent the index.

1. Protocol and amendments. Version that matches the stamped ethics letter and the stamped regulator letter. Every amendment with the reason, the ethics re-approval, and whether it was implemented before or after the next patient. A US protocol with a Spanish cover sheet is not a LATAM protocol.
2. Ethics and regulator letters. Independent ethics-committee (CEI / IRB / CNBI-registered committee) approval before enrollment. National authority authorization where the country requires it. Certified English translations retained with the originals. Continuing review if the committee required it. This is the 812.28 IEC prong, not a courtesy PDF.
3. Consent. Committee-approved local-language form, all required elements, documented process, re-consent after amendments. If a reviewer cannot pair a subject ID with a dated consent, the investigation is not inspectable on the human-subject side.
4. Investigator and site file. Current CV, medical license, GCP / ISO 14155 training, financial disclosure, delegation log, and a site qualification that shows the facility can actually do the procedure — imaging, recovery, emergency response. FIH site criteria are written out in Early feasibility study in Latin America: regulatory requirements and site criteria.
5. Device accountability and trial import. Model, lot/serial, sterile barrier, software version if it is part of the investigational article, quantity reconciled to the protocol plus spares, disposition. The consignee on the crate is the trial importer of record, not the future commercial holder. Import is its own calendar — see Investigational device import is the LATAM FIH bottleneck nobody puts on the Gantt.
6. Monitoring and source. Monitoring plan, visit reports, query logs, source-document verification. Complete, contemporaneous, legible, original, accurate source at the site. Primary-endpoint data that cannot be traced to source is not validatable data.
7. Safety. Definitions that match the protocol and the consent. SAE clocks the site actually used. Narratives, causality, committee and regulator notifications. A spreadsheet with “no SAEs” and no process behind it is not a safety file.

Those seven folders are the ISO 14155 file. The clinical study report is the narrative that points into them. If the CSR is written first and the folders are assembled later, you are reconstructing, not inspecting.

Country letters are not interchangeable artifacts

Latin America is not one ethics desk. The inspectable file has to hold the letter that the named country actually issued — not a generic “LATAM IRB approval.”

• Colombia (INVIMA). CEI approval in parallel with the INVIMA clinical-trial authorization. Those are two stamps. The import permission tied to the authorized study is a third. Do not file the CEI letter and call INVIMA done. INVIMA: invima.gov.co. Trial-clock context: INVIMA approval timeline.
• Brazil (ANVISA). The clinical file and the import license are different objects. Portuguese originals stay in the file. A US commercial invoice in the TMF does not prove investigational entry. ANVISA: gov.br/anvisa.
• Mexico (COFEPRIS). Protocol authorization is not a Permiso Sanitario de Importación. Both letters belong in the file, and the import permission has to describe the investigational lots. COFEPRIS: gob.mx/cofepris.
• Argentina (ANMAT). Trial authorization and the investigational-product import permission sit next to each other. HELENA is the commercial desk; it does not undock a FIH crate or replace an ethics letter. ANMAT: argentina.gob.ar/anmat.
• Panama (MINSA / CNBI). MINSA authority plus ethics review by a CNBI-registered committee. The inspectable file needs both identities named, not “Panama IRB.”

Ethics-committee clocks in the region are a median of 4–8 weeks in bioaccess®’s experience; the comparable US pathway (IDE + IRB + site activation to first patient) typically runs 6–12 months. Those are planning figures, not a promise from any committee. See Latin America first-in-human benchmarks 2026 and llms.txt.

Do not mix the manufacturing QMS with the clinical file

QMSR — the FDA quality-management-system regulation that incorporates ISO 13485:2016 into 21 CFR 820, effective 2 February 2026 — is the manufacturing quality file. ISO 14155 is the clinical-investigation file. A 812.28 reviewer is asking whether the investigation is inspectable, not whether the plant CAPA board is pretty.

ISO 13485 (and now QMSR) still matters before first human use: the investigator’s brochure and the device-identity comparison need a manufactured article that came out of a controlled process. Put the QMS certificates and the device-comparability table in the submission. Do not dump the entire plant DHF into the trial master file and call the TMF “inspectable.” Two files. Two inspectors. Two calendars.

Calendar, not folklore

I do not publish a fake “TMF is inspection-ready on Friday” number. What is inside your control is when each artifact starts existing:

• Week 0, with site selection. Name the trial IOR, the ethics committee, and the national authority. If you cannot name the importer, you do not have a country — and you do not have device accountability.
• Same week the CEI pack is submitted. Open the seven folders. Drop the protocol version, the draft consent, the IB, the investigator CV, and the import-dossier templates. Do not wait for the approval letter to invent the filing system.
• On ethics + regulator approval. File the stamped letters (original + certified English). File import immediately. First-patient-in is a hospital calendar; inspectability is a records calendar. They only meet if you started both.
• Before first patient. Delegation log signed. Consent process dry-run. Device in the accountability log at the site, not at a distributor “learning the product.” Monitoring visit 0 closed.
• During enrollment. Source contemporaneous. Deviations documented and reported. SAE clocks actually run. Protocol amendments re-approved before they are used.
• After last patient. Close investigational inventory. Lock the index. Write the CSR so that every claim points to a folder, not to a memory. Leftover lots do not become commercial stock — that is a new sanitary registration and a new commercial import.

OUS FIH data can support an IDE or a device marketing submission when the investigation meets 812.28. A missing import trail is how you lose device identity (812.28(a)(2)). A missing consent trail is how you lose the IEC prong. A missing monitoring trail is how you lose “the FDA is able to validate the data.”

Three file mistakes I still see after the ethics letter

• English-only TMF, originals “at the site.” An inspection of a foreign site is a records inspection. If the CEI letter, the consent, and the INVIMA or COFEPRIS authorization exist only in a coordinator’s drawer, the sponsor does not have an inspectable file. Keep originals accessible at the site and a complete copy in the sponsor file, with certified translations where the US submission will need English.
• Device accountability that starts at implant. Chain of custody starts at manufacture-to-consignee. If the lot cannot be walked from the packing list through the trial IOR into the site log, 812.28(a)(2) is a speech, not a record.
• Calling the protocol “ISO 14155-compliant” in the CSR with no monitoring reports behind it. Conformance is demonstrated by conduct. The statement without the visit reports is the sentence on page two again.

This week: one page, seven rows (the folders above), four columns — document exists (Y/N), language on file, date it first existed, owner. If quality, regulatory, and the person who signs freight cannot point to the same device identity and the same IOR, you are hoping, not inspecting.

Further reading: FIH study basics · First-in-human clinical trials · glossary.

Disclosure: I am CEO of bioaccess®, a first-in-human / early-feasibility medical-device CRO with US regulatory anchoring and Latin American execution. The inspectable-file sequence above is how I tell sponsors to make a LATAM device FIH validatable under 21 CFR 812.28; it is not a guarantee of FDA inspection outcome, clearance, or approval, and it is not a CRO hard-sell. Self-reported ~40% faster / ~30% lower per-patient cost figures used elsewhere on bioaccessla.com are experience since 2010, not a formal study. Grounding: llms.txt.

← Back to Blog · Contact bioaccess®