cms.bioaccessla.com

Tag: argentina

  • What is the difference between Argentina cohort PTA and RAEM?

    Disposición 12792/2016 is the sponsor-filed cohort route for post-study continuation of an investigational product. Disposición 4616/2019 (RAEM) is an individual-patient exceptional import regime that never mentions clinical trials. RAEM cannot carry a sponsor cohort.

    I am Julio Martinez-Clark, CEO of bioaccess®. This page is the short decision cut — not a rewrite of the Argentina pillar. For the full Article 3 dossier, twelve-month clocks, and the Disp. 7516/2025 GCP reset, use Post-trial access in Argentina under ANMAT Disposición 12792/2016.

    Short answer

    Disp. 12792/2016 Disp. 4616/2019 (RAEM)
    What it is Post-study import procedure for a trial cohort Régimen de Accesibilidad de Excepción a Medicamentos
    Filer The sponsor (el patrocinador) The patient (Art. 4(a)); gestor / intermediary prohibited
    Trial nexus Explicit — ANMAT-authorized clinical pharmacology study None
    Product eligibility Investigational product used in the approved study Medicine not registered with ANMAT but registered in an Anexo I country under Decreto 150/92, “destinados a tratar un paciente en particular” (Art. 2(a))
    Authorization clock 12 months per investigator and center (Art. 4), renewable 90 days before Customs (Art. 12); quantity caps 90/180 days (Art. 5)
    Decision speed Operator calendar driven by the eight-document Art. 3 dossier Art. 10: 10 business days first filing, 3 for continuity

    What Disposición 12792/2016 authorizes

    Article 1 of Disposición 12792/2016 establishes the “Procedimiento para la solicitud de importación de la medicación/tratamiento y materiales para el acceso post-estudio.” Article 3 requires the sponsor to file eight documents previo a la finalización del estudio, including the patient list (identity protected), CEI-approved post-study informed consent, the trial autorización, the CEI dictamen for the access plan, medical-director and investigator letters, product/lot detail, and storage habilitación. Article 4 authorizes per investigator and center for twelve months. Article 8 put the instrumento in force the day after its 17 November 2016 publication. It was not repealed by Disp. 7516/2025.

    The substantive supply duty sits beside the procedure. The recitals of 12792/2016 quote Ministry of Health Resolución 1480/2011 §A9 and Código Civil y Comercial Art. 58(j): where an investigational product has been shown beneficial, the sponsor must continue provision until access is guaranteed by another means.

    What RAEM actually is

    Disposición 4616/2019 approves the Régimen de Accesibilidad de Excepción a Medicamentos. It is fast for what it is — Article 10 promises a decision within 10 business days for first-time filings and 3 for continuity — and three of its features make it unusable for a trial cohort:

    1. Product class. Article 2(a) applies to medicines not registered with ANMAT but registered in an Anexo I country under Decreto 150/92, destined to treat un paciente en particular. An unapproved investigational product has no Anexo I registration to lean on.
    2. Filer. Article 4(a) makes the patient the filer and prohibits any gestor or intermediary. A sponsor CRO cannot legally stand in that queue for a cohort.
    3. Clock and quantity. Article 12 gives the authorization 90 days of validity before Customs (AFIP-DGA). Article 5 caps quantities at 90 days of treatment for short courses and all oncology, 180 days otherwise.

    Can a sponsor use RAEM for a trial cohort?

    No. Route the cohort through Disposición 12792/2016 before study close. Keep RAEM for the rare single-patient, registered-elsewhere exceptional case that is not a post-study continuation of an ANMAT-authorized trial. Do not wait until last-patient-last-visit to discover that the 12792 filing window has closed.

    For the four-contract stack that sits around any Argentine PTA filing (SDEA, DPA, product liability, sponsor accession), see The legal architecture of Latin American post-trial access.

    bioaccess® operates regulatory, importadora and depósito functions for LATAM post-trial access. For Argentina PTA feasibility against the current instrument, contact Julio Martinez-Clark, Co-Founder & CEO, at jmclark@bioaccessla.com or +1 (954) 903-7210. More at bioaccessla.com/roadmap.

    Related pillar

    Post-trial access in Argentina under ANMAT Disposición 12792/2016

    Sources

    • ANMAT Disposición 12792/2016 — procedure for post-study import of medication/treatment and materials (Boletín Oficial, 17 Nov 2016)
    • ANMAT Disposición 4616/2019 (RAEM), Boletín Oficial, published 4 June 2019 — https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/208794/20190604
    • ANMAT Disposición 7516/2025, Boletín Oficial, published 9 October 2025, in force 1 December 2025 — https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/332695/20251009
    • Argentina PTA pillar: https://bioaccessla.com/blog/argentina-post-trial-access-anmat-disposicion-12792

  • Which LATAM countries mandate post-trial access for medical devices?

    Four Latin American jurisdictions textually mandate post-trial access (PTA) for medical devices: Costa Rica (Ley 9234 Art. 53(k)), Brazil (Lei 14.874/2024 Art. 37), Chile (Código Sanitario Art. 111 A → 111 C), and Peru (DS 021-2017-SA Art. 2.1.36). Ecuador’s AM 00069-2024 does not. Argentina’s Disp. 12792/2016 is inferential.

    Most LATAM PTA statutes were drafted for medicines. Device sponsors who assume drug rules apply without reading product-class language understate exposure in four countries and overstate it in others.

    Short answer: which countries mandate device PTA?

    Express textual reach (4): Costa Rica, Brazil, Chile, Peru.

    Inferential / confirm-with-regulator: Argentina (productos y materiales; no dispositivo médico); Panama (Art. 68 “el producto” — confirm import pathway with DNFD).

    Medicines-only among binding PTA countries: Ecuador.

    Ten-country PTA mandate list: Argentina, Brazil, Panama, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (LATAM PTA operator map).

    Colombia disclaimer: Colombia does not currently mandate post-trial access by statute. When post-trial supply is required, bioaccess® can operate voluntary continuity programs on sponsor request. PTA statutory mandates in LATAM currently apply to Argentina, Brazil, Panama, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

    Which jurisdictions expressly cover medical devices?

    Costa Rica — strongest express device language. Ley 9234 Art. 53(k) obliges free post-study provision of “el medicamento, dispositivo o procedimiento que ha sido objeto de investigación,” with enumerated exits. Art. 28 sets duration at “mientras lo requieran.” No other LATAM PTA instrument states device and procedure coverage this plainly (Map hub).

    Brazil — Chapter VI extends to devices and ATMPs. Lei 14.874/2024 Art. 37 applies the post-trial chapter to “produtos e dispositivos médicos” and experimental advanced therapies “no que couber.” Decreto 12.651/2025 Art. 31 speaks of produto sob investigação. Full analysis: Brazil PTA pillar.

    Chile — Art. 111 A pulls devices into Art. 111 C. Código Sanitario Art. 111 A requires the provisional-use authorization for “todo producto farmacéutico o dispositivo médico.” Art. 111 C then binds that authorization holder — and later the sanitary-registration holder — to free continuity “por todo el tiempo que persista su utilidad terapéutica” (Chile PTA pillar). ISP’s April 2026 device GCP guide (Res. Ex. N° 341 / 2.050) cites Art. 111 A but is silent on Art. 111 C; guidance silence does not erase the statute.

    Peru — definitional inclusion. DS 021-2017-SA Art. 2.1.36 defines producto en investigación as “un producto farmacéutico o dispositivo médico.” Título X (Arts. 115–118) operates on that term with no device carve-out (Peru PTA pillar).

    Which mandate countries are silent, inferential, or medicines-only?

    Ecuador — medicines-only. AM 00069-2024 Arts. 80–81 create a sponsor free-supply duty inside a medicines / natural-medicinal-products reglamento. Device exposure there runs through ethics-committee expectations and informed consent, not those articles (Map hub).

    Argentina — inferential. Disp. 12792/2016 Art. 3(f) covers products and “los materiales” that must match the approved study. Dispositivo médico does not appear. Confirm with ANMAT before assuming the cohort import route applies (Argentina PTA pillar).

    Panama — product language; confirm pathway. Decreto Ejecutivo 21/2026 Art. 68 refers to “el producto”; Chapter XIII covers medicines and other products for human health. Device studies fit a fair reading, but sponsors should confirm the import-permit-extension pathway with DNFD. Primary-source verification required for any device-class DNFD circular not already cited on the Panama pillar.

    Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua sit in the ten-country PTA mandate set (Map hub); device-specific textual reach is thinner than the four express jurisdictions and should be verified before protocol lock. Guatemala AM 82-2019 vs AM 206-2021 supersession status remains primary-source verification required.

    What operational gaps remain after a device duty attaches?

    Obligation is not pathway. Costa Rica Art. 53(k) mandates free device provision, but Art. 55 addresses importation only before an approved study begins — no post-trial import route is identified in the statute (Map hub). Brazil Art. 37 is clear, yet RDC 38/2013 speaks of medicamento; build post-close import from the trial’s own authorizations (Brazil pillar).

    Chile’s open-ended “utilidad terapéutica” raises replacement, consumable, explant, and end-of-life questions the statute does not answer — close them in the protocol (Chile pillar). Peru’s duty can mean continued consumables or support for an implanted system with no device-specific carve-out (Peru pillar).

    Before first site activation: classify each country as express / inferential / medicines-only / no PTA statute; quote the device-scope article; name the post-close import mechanism or document that none exists; define device-system continuity in the protocol; appoint an importer of record after trial authorizations lapse.

    Working on a LATAM device PTA program? bioaccess® is a US-headquartered, LATAM-native operator for regulatory, importadora, and 2–8 °C GDP cold-chain functions. Contact Julio Martinez-Clark, Co-Founder & CEO, at jmclark@bioaccessla.com or +1 (954) 903-7210. More at bioaccessla.com/roadmap.

    Related pillar

    For the full 20-country mandate matrix, cost allocation, and duration comparative — including the ten binding-statute countries and Colombia’s no-PTA framing — read Post-trial access in Latin America: the operator’s map.

    Sources

    • Costa Rica — Ley N.º 9234 (Arts. 28, 53(k), 55): https://documentos.una.ac.cr/bitstream/handle/unadocs/5670/Texto%20Completo%20Norma%209234.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    • Brazil — Lei nº 14.874/2024 Art. 37: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/lei/l14874.htm
    • Brazil — Decreto nº 12.651/2025 Art. 31: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decret/2025/decreto-12651-7-outubro-2025-798105-publicacaooriginal-176652-pe.html
    • Brazil — ANVISA RDC nº 38/2013: https://anvisalegis.datalegis.net/action/ActionDatalegis.php?acao=abrirTextoAto&tipo=RDC&numeroAto=00000038&seqAto=000&valorAno=2013&orgao=RDC/DC/ANVISA/MS&codTipo=&desItem=&desItemFim=&cod_menu=1696&cod_modulo=134&pesquisa=true
    • Chile — Código Sanitario Arts. 111 A, 111 C: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=5595
    • Chile — Ley 20.850: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1078148
    • Chile — ISP Res. Ex. N° 341 / Res. Ex. 2.050: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1223885
    • Peru — DS 021-2017-SA Arts. 2.1.36, 115–118: https://ensayosclinicos-repec.ins.gob.pe/images/Reglamento_de_EC.pdf
    • Ecuador — AM 00069-2024 Arts. 80–81, 95(c): https://www.espoch.edu.ec/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ac-00069-2024_dic_31_compressed_1-1.pdf
    • Argentina — ANMAT Disposición 12792/2016 Art. 3(f): https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/154162/20161117
    • Colombia — Resolución 2378 de 2008: https://www.ins.gov.co/Normatividad/Resoluciones/RESOLUCION%202378%20DE%202008.pdf
    • LATAM PTA Operator Map: https://bioaccessla.com/blog/latam-post-trial-access-operator-map
    • Brazil PTA pillar: https://bioaccessla.com/blog/brazil-post-trial-access-lei-14874
    • Chile PTA pillar: https://bioaccessla.com/blog/chile-post-trial-access-ley-20850
    • Peru PTA pillar: https://bioaccessla.com/blog/peru-post-trial-access-ds-021-2017-sa
    • Argentina PTA pillar: https://bioaccessla.com/blog/argentina-post-trial-access-anmat-disposicion-12792
    • Panama PTA pillar: https://bioaccessla.com/blog/panama-post-trial-access-decreto-ejecutivo-21-2026

  • The legal architecture of Latin American post-trial access: SDEA, DPA, product liability, sponsor accession

    A Latin American post-trial access (PTA) program is a regulatory filing wrapped in four contracts. The filing is the visible part — an ANMAT import expediente, an ANVISA ofício, a DIGEMID authorization. The four contracts are what determine who answers to a regulator, who answers to a patient, and who answers to a plaintiff’s lawyer three years after the last shipment.

    Those four instruments are a Safety Data Exchange Agreement, a country-specific Data Processing Agreement, a product-liability allocation, and — the one most often missing — a sponsor accession mechanism that binds the marketing-authorization holder to the same schedules the operator signed. This piece sets out how we paper each of them and the five architectural mistakes that recur in draft PTA agreements we review.

    Why the paperwork carries more weight than the filing

    In nine Latin American jurisdictions the continued-supply duty is statutory and sits on the sponsor. Brazil’s Lei nº 14.874/2024 Art. 31 §4 states that “o fornecimento do medicamento será de responsabilidade do patrocinador,” and Art. 33 inciso VI releases the sponsor only five years after commercial availability in Brazil. Chile’s Código Sanitario Art. 111 C, inserted by Art. 34 of Ley 20.850, attaches the free-supply duty to the holder of the provisional-use authorization and then to the sanitary-registration holder — including a successor that acquired the registration later. Peru’s DS 021-2017-SA Art. 40(p) and Art. 89 put both the access duty and the funding on the sponsor. Panama’s Decreto Ejecutivo 21/2026 Art. 68 (Gaceta Oficial Digital 30510-C, 23 April 2026, which reglamentates Titles III and IV of Ley 84 de 14 de mayo de 2019) names investigadores y patrocinadores as co-obligors.

    None of those statutes names an operator, an importadora, or a managed-access vendor. The obligation is the sponsor’s by law. Everything the operator does — the import authorization under Disposición ANMAT 12792/2016 Art. 4, the cold-chain leg, the pharmacovigilance intake — is performed on behalf of an obligor that remains the obligor. If the contract does not say so with precision, the operator has effectively assumed a statutory duty it has no legal standing to discharge.

    Pillar 1: the Safety Data Exchange Agreement

    The SDEA is the instrument that connects local adverse-event intake to the sponsor’s global pharmacovigilance system. It should be executed within 30 days of the Work Order, not left to a later “PV annex to follow.”

    Three ICH guidelines set the substance. ICH E2A fixes the expedited-reporting clock: fatal or life-threatening unexpected adverse drug reactions require notification “as soon as possible but no later than 7 calendar days after first knowledge by the sponsor,” followed by a fuller report “within 8 additional calendar days” (§III.B.1), while all other serious unexpected ADRs run on a 15-calendar-day clock (§III.B.2). Because the clock starts on sponsor knowledge, the SDEA must set an internal onward-transmission deadline for the local operator that is materially shorter — otherwise the sponsor’s regulatory clock is being consumed by the operator’s intake queue. ICH E2F governs periodic reporting: the DSUR is an annual report with a data lock point on “the last day of the one-year reporting period” and submission “no later than 60 calendar days after the DSUR data lock point” (§2.2), so the SDEA must specify who supplies PTA-cohort line listings into that cycle and by when. ICH E3 §12 sets the safety-evaluation structure the underlying trial report already follows, which is the format PTA safety data should feed into rather than a parallel one.

    Practical drafting points: name the sponsor’s global PV mailbox and the operator’s PV contact by role, define the reconciliation cadence, and state expressly that regulatory reporting to the local authority is the sponsor’s obligation performed through the operator as agent, with the operator’s duty limited to timely, accurate onward transmission.

    Pillar 2: the Data Processing Agreement — country by country

    There is no single Latin American data-protection instrument, so there is no single DPA. The controlling article set changes by jurisdiction:

    Jurisdiction Instrument Transfer article Notes for PTA drafting
    Argentina Ley 25.326 Art. 12(1)–(2) Transfer to countries without adequate protection is prohibited; Art. 12(2)(b) carves out medical-data exchange where the affected person’s treatment requires it. Art. 11(4) makes the transferee subject to the transferor’s obligations and imposes joint liability.
    Argentina (clauses) AAIP Resolución 198/2023 Anexo I Approves two model clause sets: responsable–responsable and responsable–encargado. Use the latter where the operator processes only on sponsor instruction (Cláusula 6.1).
    Brazil Lei nº 13.709/2018 (LGPD) Arts. 33–36 Art. 33 II(a)–(b) permits transfer on specific or standard contractual clauses; Art. 33 VIII permits it on specific, highlighted consent distinguished from other purposes.
    Mexico LFPDPPP (DOF 20 March 2025) Arts. 35–36 Health data is sensitive (Art. 2 fr. VI) and requires express written consent (Art. 8). Art. 36 fr. II exempts transfers necessary for medical treatment or health-service management.
    Chile Ley 19.628 → Ley 21.719 Art. 10 → Arts. 27–29 Ley 21.719 was published 13 December 2024 and enters into force 1 December 2026. Any Chilean PTA DPA signed now should be drafted to the Arts. 27–29 transfer regime, not only to Ley 19.628 Art. 10.
    Peru DS 016-2024-JUS (Reglamento, Ley 29733) Arts. 18–20 In force 120 calendar days after publication (31 March 2025). Art. 20.1 permits model contractual clauses imposing “cuando menos las mismas obligaciones” on the importer.
    Colombia Ley Estatutaria 1581 de 2012 Art. 26 Health data is sensitive (Art. 5); Art. 26(b) carves out medical-data exchange required by the data subject’s treatment. Otherwise the SIC issues a declaración de conformidad (Art. 26, par. 1).

    The operator-side drafting position is the same everywhere: the sponsor is responsable/controller, the operator is encargado/operator, processing is limited to documented instructions, sub-processing requires prior written consent, and the operator returns or deletes on termination subject to statutory retention. Where the destination country has no adequacy finding, attach the applicable model clauses as a schedule rather than describing them in the body.

    The Argentina adequacy mistake

    The most common error in Argentine PTA drafting is treating Commission Decision 2003/490/EC as if it authorised outbound transfers from Argentina. Article 1 reads: “Argentina is regarded as providing an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the Community.” Article 2 confines the decision to adequacy in Argentina “with a view to meeting the requirements of Article 25(1) of Directive 95/46/EC.” The instrument is unidirectional — EU to Argentina.

    A PTA data flow from Argentine sites to a sponsor in the United States, or to an access vendor in the Netherlands, is an Argentine outbound transfer governed by Ley 25.326 Art. 12, and the correct instrument is the AAIP responsable–encargado model agreement under Resolución 198/2023, not a citation to the 2003 decision. Treating the adequacy finding as reciprocal is a defect that survives review because it looks like a considered legal position.

    Pillar 3: product liability sits with the sponsor

    The operator is not the manufacturer, does not hold the marketing authorization, and cannot practically bear product-liability risk for the product itself. A managed-access or expanded-access vendor is in the same position. Neither controls design, manufacture, batch release, labelling content, or the safety profile — so neither can defend a product claim on the merits or insure it economically.

    Our drafting position, and the position we recommend to any operator in this role:

    • The sponsor or titular defends and indemnifies the operator against third-party claims arising from the product itself, including design, manufacture, and labelling defects.
    • The sponsor maintains product-liability insurance covering the PTA territories for the duration of the program plus a tail, and provides certificates on request.
    • The operator’s liability cap covers operator services only. Product liability sits outside the cap.
    • Carve-outs outside the cap in both directions: gross negligence, wilful misconduct, breach of confidentiality, intellectual-property infringement, and breach of data-protection obligations.

    The cap itself is negotiable, usually expressed against fees paid under the Work Order over a defined lookback. Its composition is not: a cap that silently absorbs product liability converts a services agreement into an uninsured product warranty.

    Pillar 4: sponsor accession as a condition precedent

    Because the sponsor holds the statutory supply duty, the product liability, the marketing authorization, and the primary pharmacovigilance obligation, an operator’s Work Order should be conditioned on sponsor accession. Two mechanisms work:

    1. Direct accession — the sponsor executes a short accession instrument to the schedules that allocate safety data exchange, data processing, and liability (in our template set, schedules C, E and F).
    2. Tripartite side letter — the sponsor, the access vendor or intermediary, and the operator sign a single side letter confirming the sponsor’s indemnity, insurance, PV ownership, and patient-continuity funding, with the underlying Work Order otherwise unchanged.

    Either way the Work Order should not become effective until accession is signed. Without it, the operator holds a services contract with a counterparty that cannot deliver the indemnity the contract assumes, and the patient-continuity commitment has no funded obligor behind it.

    Five architectural mistakes we see repeatedly

    1. No sponsor accession condition. The operator signs with an intermediary and inherits an unfunded, uninsurable duty.
    2. Product liability inside the operator’s cap. Structurally wrong for a non-manufacturer.
    3. The reciprocal-adequacy error. Argentina→US or Argentina→NL flows papered as if Decision 2003/490/EC covered them.
    4. No patient-continuity run-off. Termination should trigger a defined run-off — our default is 90 days — during which supply, PV intake, and cold-chain continue at the sponsor’s cost.
    5. No sponsor-funded continuity trigger. If the sponsor terminates the program or the access vendor disengages, the continuity obligation must be expressly sponsor-funded, or patients absorb the commercial dispute.

    Governing law, dispute resolution, and pre-send gates

    For cross-border PTA services agreements with a US-headquartered operator, Delaware law with AAA-ICDR arbitration seated in New York is a sensible default: neutral to the LATAM performance jurisdictions, familiar to sponsor counsel, and enforceable across the region under the New York Convention. Local-law carve-outs remain necessary for the statutory duties themselves, which are not contractible away.

    Before any PTA agreement leaves our desk it passes four gates: (1) a counsel memo verifying the regulatory framework and article citations for each performance jurisdiction; (2) named performing entities, including the habilitada local entity and the importadora of record; (3) sponsor accession path agreed in principle, in writing, before signature; and (4) harmonized statutory-obligation language, so that the same duty is not described one way in the recitals and another way in the schedules.

    Frequently asked questions

    What legal architecture does a LATAM post-trial access program require?
    Four instruments beyond the services agreement itself: a Safety Data Exchange Agreement connecting local adverse-event intake to the sponsor’s global pharmacovigilance system; a country-specific Data Processing Agreement built on the applicable transfer article (Argentina Ley 25.326 Art. 12, Brazil LGPD Arts. 33–36, Colombia Ley 1581 Art. 26, and so on); a product-liability allocation placing defence, indemnity, and insurance on the sponsor or titular; and a sponsor accession mechanism binding the marketing-authorization holder to those schedules. The regulatory filing — import authorization, ethics submission — is separate and downstream.

    What is a Safety Data Exchange Agreement (SDEA) in PTA?
    An SDEA is the bilateral agreement that defines how safety information moves from the PTA site and local operator into the sponsor’s global pharmacovigilance system. It should be executed within 30 days of the Work Order and built on ICH principles: ICH E2A §III.B for the 7-day and 15-calendar-day expedited-reporting clocks, ICH E2F §2.2 for annual DSUR periodicity and the 60-day post-data-lock-point submission window, and ICH E3 §12 for the safety-evaluation structure the data must fit. It names PV contacts, sets onward-transmission deadlines shorter than the sponsor’s regulatory clock, and fixes a reconciliation cadence.

    What is a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) in Argentine PTA?
    It is the instrument that makes an Argentine PTA data flow lawful under Ley 25.326. Art. 12(1) prohibits transfer to countries or organisations that do not provide adequate protection levels, and Art. 11(4) makes the transferee subject to the transferor’s obligations with joint liability. Where the sponsor sits in a country without an Argentine adequacy finding, the practical route is the responsable–encargado model agreement approved by AAIP Resolución 198/2023, attached as a schedule. Cláusula 6.1 limits the importer to the exporter’s documented instructions, with no decision-making power over scope or content.

    Does EU Commission Decision 2003/490/EC cover Argentina→US or Argentina→EU data flows?
    No. Article 1 of Decision 2003/490/EC regards Argentina as adequate for “personal data transferred from the Community,” and Article 2 limits the decision to adequacy in Argentina for the purposes of Article 25(1) of Directive 95/46/EC. The decision is unidirectional: EU to Argentina. An outbound transfer from Argentine sites to a US sponsor or a Dutch access vendor is governed by Ley 25.326 Art. 12 and requires its own adequacy basis, statutory exception, or model clauses. Article 3 of the decision, in fact, gives EU authorities power to suspend flows to recipients in Argentina — the opposite of a reciprocal permission.

    Who bears product liability in a PTA program — the sponsor, the manufacturer, or the operator?
    The sponsor or the titular of the marketing authorization. The operator is not the manufacturer, does not hold the authorization, and does not control design, manufacture, batch release, or labelling — so it cannot defend a product claim on the merits or insure it at a rational price. The correct architecture has the sponsor defend and indemnify the operator for product-related third-party claims, maintain product-liability insurance covering the PTA territories for the program term plus a tail, and accept that product liability sits outside the operator’s services liability cap.

    Why should PTA operators condition the Work Order on sponsor accession?
    Because the sponsor holds every obligation the Work Order depends on: the statutory continued-supply duty, the marketing authorization, primary pharmacovigilance responsibility, product liability, and the funding for patient continuity. An operator that contracts only with an intermediary holds an indemnity from a party that does not control the product and a continuity commitment with no funded obligor. Making accession a condition precedent — rather than a post-signature action item — is the only reliable way to ensure the risk allocation in the schedules is enforceable against the party that can actually perform it.

    What is a tripartite side letter in LATAM PTA?
    A single short instrument signed by the sponsor, the access vendor or intermediary, and the local operator, used where the sponsor will not accede directly to the operator’s schedules. It confirms four things: the sponsor’s defence and indemnity for product-related claims; the sponsor’s product-liability insurance covering the PTA territories; sponsor ownership of primary pharmacovigilance and regulatory reporting; and sponsor funding of patient continuity, including any run-off period. It leaves the underlying Work Order commercial terms untouched, which is usually why it is the faster path to signature.

    What is the standard liability cap in a LATAM PTA Work Order?
    There is no single market standard, and any figure quoted as one should be treated with suspicion. Caps are typically expressed as a ceiling tied to fees paid under the Work Order over a defined lookback period. The more consequential negotiation is not the number but the composition — what the cap covers and what sits outside it. A cap that quietly includes product liability turns a services agreement into an uninsured product warranty, which is a worse outcome for the operator than a low number with clean carve-outs.

    What carve-outs should sit outside the liability cap?
    Five, in both directions: gross negligence, wilful misconduct, breach of confidentiality, intellectual-property infringement, and breach of data-protection obligations. Product liability should also sit outside the operator’s cap, because the operator is not the manufacturer. Data-protection breach deserves particular attention in Latin America: Argentina’s Ley 25.326 Art. 11(4) imposes joint liability between transferor and transferee, and Mexico’s LFPDPPP Art. 59 fr. IV allows sanctions for sensitive-data infractions to be increased up to twofold, so capped data-protection exposure can be materially lower than actual statutory exposure.

    What is the standard patient-continuity run-off period?
    Our default drafting position is 90 days from the effective date of termination. During that window, product supply, pharmacovigilance intake, and cold-chain and importation services continue at the sponsor’s cost while the sponsor arranges an alternative route — a successor operator, an extension study, or transition into commercial or public-system supply. The reason to fix a defined period rather than “a reasonable transition” is that the statutory obligations do not pause: Brazil’s Lei 14.874/2024 Art. 33 lists exhaustive interruption grounds, and contract termination between a sponsor and its operator is not one of them.

    Should managed-access-program specialists require sponsor accession too?
    Yes, and for the same structural reason. A managed-access or expanded-access specialist occupies the same position as a regional operator: it is not the manufacturer, does not hold the marketing authorization, and cannot bear product-liability risk for the product. Whether the intermediary is a global access platform, a specialty distributor, or a regional CRO, the party with the statutory supply duty and the insurable product risk is the sponsor. Any access architecture that leaves the sponsor outside the contractual chain has a gap at exactly the point where a patient-harm claim would land.

    Working on a LATAM post-trial access program? bioaccess® is a US-headquartered, LATAM-native operator running regulatory, importadora, and 2–8 °C GDP cold-chain functions directly across the region. If you’re evaluating PTA feasibility in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Panama, Mexico or Colombia, contact Julio Martinez-Clark, Co-Founder & CEO, at jmclark@bioaccessla.com or +1 (954) 903-7210. More at bioaccessla.com/roadmap.

    Sources

    • ICH E2A, Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting — https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E2A_Guideline.pdf
    • ICH E2F, Development Safety Update Report — https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E2F_Guideline.pdf
    • ICH E3, Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports — https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E3_Guideline.pdf
    • Commission Decision 2003/490/EC of 30 June 2003 (Argentina adequacy) — https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32003D0490
    • Argentina, Ley 25.326 (Protección de los Datos Personales) — https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/60000-64999/64790/texact.htm
    • Argentina, AAIP Resolución 198/2023 (RESOL-2023-198-APN-AAIP, BO 18/10/2023), model international-transfer clauses — https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/390000-394999/391538/norma.htm
    • Argentina, AAIP Resolución 198/2023 Anexo I (IF-2023-108581614-APN-DNPDP#AAIP) — https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/390000-394999/391538/res198.pdf
    • Argentina, Disposición ANMAT 12792/2016 (post-study import procedure) — https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/154162/20161117
    • Argentina, Disposición ANMAT 7516/2025 (GCP, in force 1 December 2025) — https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/332695/20251009
    • Brazil, Lei nº 13.709/2018 (LGPD) — https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2018/lei/l13709.htm
    • Brazil, Lei nº 14.874/2024, Arts. 30–37 — https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/lei/l14874.htm
    • Brazil, Decreto nº 12.651/2025, Art. 31 — https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decret/2025/decreto-12651-7-outubro-2025-798105-publicacaooriginal-176652-pe.html
    • Mexico, Ley Federal de Protección de Datos Personales en Posesión de los Particulares (DOF 20 March 2025; last reform DOF 14 November 2025) — https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFPDPPP.pdf
    • Chile, Ley 19.628 sobre Protección de la Vida Privada — https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=141599
    • Chile, Ley 21.719 (published 13 December 2024; in force 1 December 2026) — https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1209272
    • Chile, Ley 20.850 and Código Sanitario Art. 111 C — https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1078148
    • Peru, Decreto Supremo N° 016-2024-JUS (Reglamento de la Ley 29733) — https://www.gob.pe/institucion/anpd/normas-legales/6554453-16-2024-jus
    • Peru, Reglamento de Ensayos Clínicos, DS 021-2017-SA, Arts. 115–118 — https://ensayosclinicos-repec.ins.gob.pe/images/Reglamento_de_EC.pdf
    • Colombia, Ley Estatutaria 1581 de 2012 — https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=49981
    • Panama, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 21 de 23 de abril de 2026, Art. 68, Gaceta Oficial Digital No. 30510-C (primary-source Gaceta PDF, read 6 September 2026)

  • Post-trial access in Argentina under ANMAT Disposición 12792/2016

    Argentina obliges sponsors to keep supplying a beneficial investigational product after a trial closes, and it gives that obligation a dedicated import procedure: ANMAT Disposición 12792/2016, the “Procedimiento para la solicitud de importación de la medicación/tratamiento y materiales para el acceso post-estudio.” The filing must be made before the study ends, and it is authorized per investigator and center for twelve months at a time.

    Most sponsors discover this instrument late — usually when a site asks who will pay for continued supply after last-patient-last-visit, by which point the filing window has closed. This page sets out what Disposición 12792/2016 requires, what it does not cover, and what changed when Argentina reset its GCP framework on 1 December 2025.

    The obligation and the import route live in two different instruments

    Argentina splits post-trial access (PTA) across a substantive duty and a procedural route.

    The substantive duty is ethical-regulatory. The recitals of Disposición 12792/2016 quote Ministry of Health Resolución 1480/2011, section A9, which states that in industry-sponsored trials where an investigational product has been shown to be beneficial, “el patrocinador deberá continuar su provisión a los participantes hasta que su acceso se garantice por otro medio.” The same recitals cite Código Civil y Comercial Article 58(j), which permits human research only where participants are assured “la disponibilidad y accesibilidad a los tratamientos que la investigación haya demostrado beneficiosos.” That is statutory, not guidance.

    The procedural route is Disposición 12792/2016 itself. Article 1 establishes it as the import procedure for post-study medication, treatment and materials for participants in an ANMAT-authorized clinical pharmacology study. Article 8 put it in force the day after its 17 November 2016 publication. It has not been repealed.

    What Disposición 12792/2016 covers — and what it excludes

    Article 2 is the first thing to read. Authorized extension studies are expressly excluded; they are governed by the trial framework and the terms of their own authorization. If your continuation plan is an open-label extension protocol, you are not filing under 12792/2016.

    Scope of goods is broader than “drug.” Article 3(f) covers the products and “los materiales,” and requires that neither differ from what was used in the approved study. The phrase “dispositivo médico” does not appear anywhere in the text, so device sponsors should treat coverage as inferential and confirm it with ANMAT.

    The Article 3 dossier: eight documents, filed before study close

    Article 3 requires the sponsor to submit, previo a la finalización del estudio:

    • (a) A note identifying the participating health centers and a list of candidate patients for continued investigational therapy, with identity kept confidential; the final list of patients actually included is filed later under the same safeguards.
    • (b) The general patient informed consent form for post-study access, approved by the CEI of the treating institution.
    • (c) A copy of the disposición authorizing the clinical study, plus the approval records for the relevant centers.
    • (d) The opinion (dictamen) of the CEI for that center approving the access plan — and that same CEI then follows the plan.
    • (e) Authorization from the center’s responsible medical director and a letter of acceptance from the investigator.
    • (f) Product detail: lot number, expiry date, and quantities to be authorized to the sponsor for import, plus the materials. Products and materials must not differ from those used in the approved study.
    • (g) A sponsor declaration guaranteeing that supply of the medication/treatment and materials will be at no cost to the participant, the treating institution, or the participant’s health coverage.
    • (h) Habilitación of the location designated for storage of the product to be imported.

    Two of these drive most of the schedule risk. Article 3(d)/(e) are per-center documents — a CEI dictamen, a medical director authorization, and an investigator acceptance letter for every site you intend to keep supplying. Article 3(g) is the cost allocation: the sponsor’s declaration extends free-of-charge supply to three distinct parties, including the obra social or prepaga carrying the participant’s coverage. There is no cost-sharing construction available.

    Article 3(h) and the habilitación question

    Article 3(h) requires habilitación evidence for “el lugar designado para el almacenamiento del producto a importar.” The text names one designated storage location, singular, and does not itself resolve which location that is. In practice two architectures are used, and the choice should be made before the dossier is assembled rather than after:

    • Central depósito. Cohort product is imported into a single ANMAT-habilitada depósito and released to sites against per-patient prescriptions. One habilitación certificate satisfies Article 3(h) for the whole cohort; site-level storage becomes a distribution-and-temperature-control question rather than a filing question.
    • Per-site storage. Product is imported to each investigator pharmacy. Each of those locations then needs its own habilitación evidence, and every one of them is a document that can hold up the submission.

    For a cohort of 40 to 60 participants across three to five centers, the central-depósito architecture is usually the shorter path, because it decouples the Article 3(h) evidence from site-by-site pharmacy documentation that sponsors do not control.

    Article 4: twelve months, per investigator and center

    Article 4 assigns the review to ANMAT’s Dirección de Evaluación y Registro de Medicamentos (DERM), which verifies the submitted documentation and either authorizes or rejects the import request “en el/los centros a cargo del investigador respectivo,” stating that the authorization “tendrá vigencia por doce meses a partir de la fecha de aprobación del trámite.”

    Three consequences follow. The authorization is scoped to the investigator and center, so adding a site later is a new filing rather than an amendment note. It expires twelve months from approval, so any PTA program expected to run longer than a year needs a continuation submission calendar built from day one, with each center’s clock tracked separately. And because Article 3(a) requires the final list of included patients to be filed “oportunamente,” the cohort list itself is a living document.

    Article 6 sits alongside this: the sponsor must report every serious and unexpected adverse drug reaction (RAM-SI) related to product imported under this procedure, by separate expediente, cross-referencing both the study authorization and the post-study supply authorization.

    Article 5: how the product physically enters

    Article 5 routes physical importation of the Article 3(f) products through the Departamento de Comercio Exterior del INAME. Article 7 makes Resolución Conjunta 942/2001 and 426/2001 applicable.

    The importer of record matters. ANMAT’s expanded-access instrument, Disposición 828/2017, establishes that laboratories habilitadas by ANMAT as importers and/or manufacturers of especialidades medicinales are the entities that may request expanded-access program authorization, and Article 4(a) requires a copy of that habilitación in the dossier. The same logic governs PTA operations: a foreign sponsor without an Argentine habilitación cannot be the importer. That role is filled by an ANMAT-habilitada operating partner engaged directly by bioaccess® acting as importadora and depósito, with the sponsor retaining the regulatory filing.

    What this route is not: RAEM and expanded access

    Sponsors are routinely pointed at Disposición 4616/2019, the Régimen de Accesibilidad de Excepción a Medicamentos (RAEM). It is not a post-trial access instrument and contains no reference to clinical trials. It is an individual-patient exceptional import regime, and three of its features make it unusable for a cohort:

    • Article 2(a) applies to medicines not registered with ANMAT but registered in a country listed in Anexo I of Decreto 150/92, “destinados a tratar un paciente en particular.” An unapproved investigational product has no such registration.
    • Article 4(a) makes the patient (or a family member or legal representative) the responsible filer, on a treating physician’s prescription, and expressly prohibits “la participación de cualquier tipo de gestor o intermediario.” A sponsor cannot file.
    • Article 12 gives the authorization 90 days of validity before Customs (AFIP-DGA); Article 5 caps quantities at 90 days of treatment for short courses and all oncology, 180 days otherwise.

    RAEM is fast — Article 10 promises a decision within 10 business days for first-time filings and 3 for continuity — but it is a per-patient instrument for registered-elsewhere products. Disposición 12792/2016 is the sponsor-filed cohort route.

    What changed on 1 December 2025

    Disposición 7516/2025 rebuilt Argentina’s GCP base. Article 3 adopts ICH E6(R3) for registration-purpose clinical trials, to be complemented by local requirements in Anexo II. Article 7 is a completed repeal: “Deróganse las Disposiciones ANMAT Nros. 6677/10, 4008/17, 9929/19 y 2172/25 y las Circulares Nros. 0001/11 y 004/18 y la Circular del 10 de junio de 2024.” Article 8 set entry into force at 1 December 2025 and provided that filings pending on that date are resolved under the repealed norms.

    Two points sponsors keep getting wrong. First, Disposición 12792/2016 is not in the Article 7 repeal list and remains the operative cohort import route; the substantive PTA duty formerly at Disp. 6677/10 numeral 6.8 was carried into the Anexo II local-requirements annex, which is the part of 7516/2025 published only in the BORA web edition and which we have so far read in secondary reproduction rather than from the official annex file. Second, Article 5 of 7516/2025 assigns clinical-study authorization and oversight competences to the Dirección de Investigación Clínica y Gestión del Registro de Medicamentos, including, at 5(e), intervening “a través de Comercio Exterior” to authorize entry or exit of study materials. Disposición 12792/2016 Article 4 still names DERM. Sponsors filing today should expect to confirm the receiving unit with ANMAT rather than rely on the 2016 article text.

    Data protection for the follow-up data

    PTA generates follow-up safety and dispensing records that usually flow to a sponsor or vendor outside Argentina. That is governed by Ley 25.326 Article 12 and its Decreto 1558/01. Disposición 60-E/2016 Article 1 approves model international transfer clauses — Anexo I for data assignment, Anexo II for service provision — for transfers destined to countries without adequate legislation. Article 3 lists the adequate jurisdictions: EU and EEA members, Switzerland, Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, Faroe Islands, Canada (private sector only), Andorra, New Zealand, Uruguay, and Israel (automated processing only). The United States is not on that list. Article 2 requires that contracts departing from the approved models be submitted for approval within 30 calendar days of signature. An Argentina-to-US PTA data flow therefore needs the model clauses executed, not asserted.

    Timeline reality

    The Article 3 dossier is not hard to write; it is hard to assemble, because most of the eight items originate outside the sponsor’s organization — CEI dictámenes, medical director authorizations, investigator acceptance letters, and the habilitación certificate. Our planning assumption is four to six weeks from a complete evidence pack to a first ANMAT submission, which is an operator estimate, not a regulatory deadline. The binding constraint is Article 3’s requirement to file before the study ends, so site-document collection has to start while the trial is still running.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does Argentina require post-trial access?
    Yes. The duty is grounded in Código Civil y Comercial Article 58(j), which allows human research only where participants are assured availability of and access to treatments the research has shown beneficial, and it is elaborated in Ministry of Health Resolución 1480/2011 section A9, both quoted in the recitals of ANMAT Disposición 12792/2016. Argentina also gives the duty an operating procedure — a dedicated post-study import authorization — which distinguishes it from jurisdictions that state an obligation without providing a route to fulfil it.

    What is ANMAT Disposición 12792/2016?
    It is the procedure for requesting import of post-study medication, treatment and materials for participants in an ANMAT-authorized clinical pharmacology study, published 17 November 2016 and in force since the following day. Article 1 establishes the procedure, Article 3 lists the eight documents the sponsor must file before the study ends, Article 4 gives DERM the authorization decision with twelve-month validity per investigator and center, and Article 5 routes physical importation through the Departamento de Comercio Exterior del INAME.

    What is the difference between Disp. 12792/2016 and Disp. 4616/2019 (RAEM)?
    Disposición 12792/2016 is a sponsor-filed cohort route for post-study continuation of an investigational product. Disposición 4616/2019 approves the Régimen de Accesibilidad de Excepción a Medicamentos, an individual-patient exceptional import regime that makes no reference to clinical trials. RAEM Article 2(a) requires the product to be registered in an Anexo I country under Decreto 150/92, Article 4(a) makes the patient the filer and prohibits any gestor or intermediary, and Article 12 limits authorization validity to 90 days before Customs. RAEM cannot carry a sponsor cohort.

    Who must file the Article 3 dossier?
    Article 3 places the obligation on “el patrocinador” — the sponsor. The filing is the sponsor’s, not the site’s and not the CEI’s, although Article 3(d) and (e) mean the dossier cannot be completed without the center’s ethics committee dictamen, the medical director’s authorization, and the investigator’s letter of acceptance. Article 6 likewise puts the RAM-SI reporting duty for imported post-study product on the sponsor, by separate expediente.

    What are the eight documents required under Article 3?
    (a) a note naming participating centers plus a confidentiality-preserving candidate patient list, with the final included-patient list filed later; (b) the CEI-approved general informed consent form; (c) a copy of the study authorization disposición and center approval records; (d) the center CEI’s dictamen approving the access plan; (e) the medical director’s authorization and the investigator’s acceptance letter; (f) product and materials detail with lot, expiry and quantities, not differing from the approved study; (g) the sponsor’s free-of-charge declaration; (h) habilitación of the designated storage location.

    How long does ANMAT authorization last per center?
    Twelve months. Article 4 states the authorization “tendrá vigencia por doce meses a partir de la fecha de aprobación del trámite,” and it is granted for the centers under the respective investigator’s charge. A program running longer than a year needs a continuation submission per center, tracked on that center’s own approval date rather than on a single program-wide clock. Adding a center mid-program is a fresh authorization, not an administrative note.

    Does the sponsor pay for post-trial supply in Argentina?
    Yes, and the declaration is part of the dossier. Article 3(g) requires the sponsor to guarantee that provision of the medication, treatment and materials will be “sin costo alguno para el participante, el establecimiento asistencial o su cobertura de salud.” That covers three parties: the participant, the treating institution, and the participant’s health coverage entity. There is no mechanism in the disposición for splitting cost with a site, an obra social, or a prepaga.

    How did Disp. 7516/2025 affect the PTA framework?
    Disposición 7516/2025 took effect 1 December 2025, adopted ICH E6(R3) at Article 3, and at Article 7 repealed Disposiciones 6677/10, 4008/17, 9929/19 and 2172/25 together with Circulares 0001/11 and 004/18 and the 10 June 2024 Circular. Disposición 12792/2016 is not in that repeal list and remains the cohort import route. The substantive post-trial duty previously at Disp. 6677/10 numeral 6.8 moved into the Anexo II local-requirements annex. Article 8 provides that filings pending on 1 December 2025 are resolved under the repealed norms.

    Can a foreign sponsor file directly, or must a local regulatory agent file?
    The Article 3 filing is the sponsor’s, and Disposición 12792/2016 does not require a local filer. Physical importation is the constraint. Article 5 routes it through the Departamento de Comercio Exterior del INAME, and ANMAT’s expanded-access instrument Disposición 828/2017 Article 1 confirms that the entities able to act as importers of especialidades medicinales are laboratories habilitadas by ANMAT, with Article 4(a) requiring the habilitación certificate in the dossier. A foreign sponsor therefore needs an ANMAT-habilitada importer and depósito even where it holds the filing itself.

    Working on a LATAM post-trial access program? bioaccess® is a US-headquartered, LATAM-native operator running regulatory, importadora, and 2–8 °C GDP cold-chain functions directly across the region. If you’re evaluating PTA feasibility in Argentina, contact Julio Martinez-Clark, Co-Founder & CEO, at jmclark@bioaccessla.com or +1 (954) 903-7210. More at bioaccessla.com/roadmap.

    Sources

    • ANMAT Disposición 12792/2016, Boletín Oficial, published 17 November 2016 — https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/154162/20161117
    • ANMAT Disposición 7516/2025, Boletín Oficial, published 9 October 2025, in force 1 December 2025 — https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/332695/20251009
    • ANMAT Disposición 4616/2019 (RAEM), Boletín Oficial, published 4 June 2019 — https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/208794/20190604
    • ANMAT Disposición 828/2017 (Programas de Acceso Expandido), Boletín Oficial, published 26 January 2017 — https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/158296/20170126
    • DNPDP Disposición 60-E/2016 (model international data-transfer clauses under Ley 25.326 Art. 12), InfoLEG — https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/265000-269999/267922/norma.htm
    • ANMAT, “Acceso al producto de investigación postensayo clínico” (institutional communication) — https://www.anmat.gob.ar/comunicados/Acceso_al_Producto_Post_Ensayo_Clinico.pdf
    • ANMAT, “Preguntas y Respuestas — Disposición 7516/25,” version 1 December 2025 — https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/preguntas_y_respuestas_-disposicion_7516_25_version_1-1-12-25.pdf
    • Ministerio de Justicia, normativa record for Disposición 12792/2016 (modifying and complementary norms) — https://www.argentina.gob.ar/normativa/nacional/disposici%C3%B3n-12792-2016-267853/normas-modifican

  • Post-trial access in Latin America: the operator’s map

    Ten Latin American countries legally require a trial sponsor to keep supplying the investigational product after the study closes. Three more address post-trial continuation in binding instruments with weak or unassigned duties. Seven impose nothing. If your Phase 3 has LATAM sites, that distinction is a line item, not an ethics footnote.

    We built this map because the region is now diverging fast. Brazil enacted a statute in 2024 and its regulation in 2025. Honduras went from zero to a mandate in February 2026. Panama replaced its research decree in April 2026. Meanwhile most global vendor and law-firm summaries still cite instruments that have been repealed, and several repeat citation errors that a regulator would catch on the first review cycle.

    Where the mandates actually are

    Across 20 jurisdictions, the classification breaks down as follows.

    Binding statutory mandate (10): Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama. Each has a law, decree, resolution or ministerial normativa that obliges continued provision of the investigational product after the trial ends.

    Binding instrument, weak or unassigned duty (3): Uruguay, Bolivia, Venezuela. Venezuela’s Buenas Prácticas Clínicas §6.12.1 requires the sponsor only to “procurar… la provisión del tratamiento” after the trial — endeavour, not provide (INHRR). Uruguay’s Decreto 158/019 Anexo numeral 24 says participants “deben tener la certeza de que contarán con los beneficios demostrados” but names no obligor at all (IMPO). Bolivia’s Art. 99 routes continuation entirely into the compassionate-use chapter, requiring per-patient DINAMED authorization (AGEMED).

    No mandate (7): Mexico, Colombia, Paraguay, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico. In each case we read the operative clinical-trial instrument and it contains no post-trial supply obligation.

    The comparative matrix

    Country Mandate status Primary instrument Cost allocation Import mechanism
    Argentina Binding statute Disp. ANMAT 12792/2016; GCP base reset by Disp. 7516/2025 Sponsor, free to participant, site and payer (Art. 3(g)) Dedicated PTA import expediente to ANMAT–DERM, valid 12 months (Art. 4); physical import via INAME (Art. 5)
    Brazil Binding statute Lei 14.874/2024 Arts. 30–37 + Decreto 12.651/2025 Art. 31 Sponsor (Lei Art. 31 §4); free supply (Decreto Art. 31) ANVISA authorization + import licence under RDC 38/2013
    Chile Binding statute Ley 20.850 Art. 17; Cód. Sanitario Art. 111 C “Sin costo para el paciente”; duty on provisional-authorization holder, then registration holder ISP special provisional-use authorization (Art. 111 A); CENABAST exceptional import
    Peru Binding statute DS 021-2017-SA Arts. 115–118 Sponsor-funded, provided free (Arts. 40(p), 89) OGITT extension trial or case-by-case ANM/DIGEMID authorization (Art. 116) with a seven-document set (Art. 117)
    Panama Binding statute Decreto Ejecutivo 21/2026 Art. 68, Gaceta Oficial 30510-C, 23 Apr 2026 Investigators and sponsors co-obligated to ensure access; cost not stated verbatim Extension of the trial import permit for exclusive participant use (Art. 68); RESEGIS registration + DNFD authorization (Art. 99)
    Ecuador Binding statute AM 00069-2024 Arts. 80–81, 95(c) Sponsor or legal representative, “entrega gratuita” (Art. 80) No PTA-specific route; general ARCSA import authorization
    Costa Rica Binding statute Ley 9234 Arts. 28, 53(k) Sponsor, free, “mientras lo requieran” None identified in the statute for post-trial product
    Guatemala Binding statute (instrument version unconfirmed) AM 82-2019 Art. 64; MSPAS index lists AM 206-2021 Supply “podrá ser solicitada al patrocinador” — request-driven, not automatic Compassionate-use authorization by the DRCPFA (Art. 65)
    Honduras Binding statute (new) Acuerdo 0256-ARSA-2025 Art. 63 Sponsor or legal representative, “sin costo” (Art. 63) Extension trial or compassionate use (Art. 63); special ARSA import authorization (Art. 86)
    Nicaragua Binding statute Normativa-166 Cap. VI num. 16 Sponsor obliged; free-of-charge stated for the trial phase only General trial import rules; no PTA route
    Uruguay Binding guidance Decreto 158/019 Anexo num. 24 No obligor named n.a.
    Bolivia Binding guidance Norma para Estudios Clínicos Art. 99 → Arts. 74–76 Not allocated post-trial Per-patient DINAMED compassionate-use authorization
    Venezuela Binding guidance Normas de BPC §§5.4.5, 6.12.1 Free during trial only; post-trial duty is “procurar” None described
    Mexico No mandate for product supply NOM-012-SSA3-2012 §11.2.2 Investigator must arrange continued “tratamiento y cuidados” — not IP supply n.a.
    Colombia No mandate Res. 2378/2008 n.a. n.a.
    Paraguay No mandate Resol. DINAVISA 238/2024 n.a. n.a.
    El Salvador No mandate Lineamientos Técnicos, Ac. Ejec. 1530 (2025) n.a. n.a.
    Dominican Republic No mandate Manual CONABIOS, 2ª ed. n.a. — §7.1 gives an information right only n.a.
    Cuba No mandate BPC en Cuba (CECMED) n.a. — §4.3.2 covers adverse-event medical care only n.a.
    Puerto Rico (US) No mandate 21 CFR 312 Subpart I n.a. — permissive expanded-access framework n.a. (US customs territory)

    Why this is a closing cost, not an ethics footnote

    A sponsor that runs sites in Brazil, Chile, Peru, Panama and Argentina and then closes the study has, in five jurisdictions, a legally enforceable duty to keep shipping product to responders — free of charge, under separate authorizations, for a period the sponsor does not control.

    Brazil’s Ministry of Health states the position without hedging: continued post-study treatment “não é uma expectativa, mas um dever legal, aplicável desde o planejamento da pesquisa até o período pós-estudo” (INAEP FAQ). That duty is priced nowhere in a standard Phase 3 budget. It requires a cohort-scale filing distinct from the trial dossier, an import authorization with its own clock, GDP-compliant cold chain for as long as the cohort persists, and pharmacovigilance reporting after database lock.

    The obligation also survives corporate events. Chile’s Código Sanitario Art. 111 C states the duty “afectará al titular del registro sanitario, aun cuando no haya sido el titular de la autorización provisional o haya adquirido con posterioridad el registro sanitario” (BCN). Buy a Chilean registration and you buy the free-supply obligation attached to it. That belongs in diligence, not in a site-activation checklist.

    The five strongest sponsor obligations

    Brazil. Lei 14.874/2024 Art. 30 requires the sponsor and investigator to file a post-study access plan with the CEP before the trial starts. Art. 31 §4 puts the cost on the sponsor. Art. 33 permits interruption only on listed grounds, including the “transcurso do prazo de 5 (cinco) anos, contado da disponibilidade comercial do medicamento experimental no País.” Decreto 12.651/2025 Art. 31 restates the free-supply duty whenever the investigator judges the product the best therapeutic alternative. Full detail in our Brazil post-trial access pillar.

    Chile. Art. 111 C obliges continuity “sin costo para el paciente… por todo el tiempo que persista su utilidad terapéutica” — no commercialization endpoint, no five-year cap. See the Chile Ley 20.850 analysis.

    Panama. Article 68 of Decreto Ejecutivo 21/2026 (Gaceta Oficial 30510-C, 23 April 2026) reads: “Los investigadores y patrocinadores deben asegurar a todos los participantes el acceso al producto, siempre que se haya comprobado el beneficio clínico o de salud pública de la intervención durante el estudio; hasta su comercialización en el país.” It then requires the sponsor to apply for “una extensión del permiso de importación del producto utilizado durante la investigación para uso exclusivo de los participantes.” The decree entered into force on promulgation under Art. 105. Detail in the Panama Decreto 21/2026 pillar.

    Argentina. Disposición ANMAT 12792/2016 is the only instrument in the region that is purely a post-trial access import procedure. Art. 3(g) requires a sworn sponsor declaration that supply will be “sin costo alguno para el participante, el establecimiento asistencial o su cobertura de salud” — note that the site and the payer are named, not just the patient. Art. 4 gives the DERM authorization a 12-month validity. Art. 2 excludes authorized extension studies, which run on a different track. See the Argentina Disposición 12792 pillar.

    Peru. DS 021-2017-SA is the best-drafted operational regime in the region: Art. 115 defines the obligation and its trigger conditions, Art. 116 names two authorization routes (OGITT extension trial or case-by-case ANM/DIGEMID authorization), Art. 117 lists the documents, Art. 118 assigns post-access pharmacovigilance. Art. 40(p) makes it a sponsor duty. See the Peru DS 021-2017-SA pillar.

    Where the duty reaches devices

    Most LATAM post-trial provisions were drafted for medicines. Four jurisdictions reach hardware textually.

    Costa Rica is the clearest. Ley 9234 Art. 53(k) obliges the sponsor to provide, free of charge and after the study concludes, “el medicamento, dispositivo o procedimiento que ha sido objeto de investigación,” with four exhaustive exits — including a reasoned treating-physician resolution filed in the record and communicated to the CEC within three working days. Art. 28 sets the duration at “mientras lo requieran.”

    Brazil reaches devices through Lei 14.874/2024 Art. 37: “Aplicar-se-ão aos produtos e dispositivos médicos e aos produtos de terapias avançadas experimentais… as disposições deste Capítulo, no que couber.” Chile reaches them through Código Sanitario Art. 111 A, which covers “los productos farmacéuticos y los elementos de uso médico.” Peru reaches them through the definition of producto en investigación in Art. 2.1.36.

    Ecuador does not. AM 00069-2024 is a reglamento for medicines and processed natural medicinal products, so a device sponsor’s Ecuadorian exposure runs through ethics-committee expectations and the informed consent, not through Arts. 80–81.

    What changed between 2024 and 2026

    Honduras added a mandate. Acuerdo 0256-ARSA-2025 Art. 63 defines post-trial access as “la entrega sin costo por parte del patrocinador o su representante legal,” even where the product has no Honduran sanitary registration, subject to three cumulative conditions. Published in La Gaceta on 28 January 2026, in force 30 days later. The predecessor Acuerdo 041-2020 had no post-trial provision at all. Read Art. 63 alongside Art. 18 numeral 5, which softens the duty to facilitating access “cuando el patrocinador lo considere” — a real internal tension, and a reason not to treat Honduras as equivalent to Brazil.

    Panama replaced its research decree. Decreto Ejecutivo 21/2026 reglamenta Titles III and IV of Ley 84 de 14 de mayo de 2019 and entered into force on promulgation, 23 April 2026. Its Art. 104 repeals Decreto Ejecutivo 1843 of 2014, Decreto Ejecutivo 6 of 2015 and Resolución 390 of 2003.

    Ecuador deleted its endpoint. AM 00069-2024 Art. 80 states the free-supply duty with no termination point. The repealed AM 0075-2017 had capped it: Art. 39(w) ran only “hasta que el producto se comercialice en el país” (MSP Ecuador). Art. 81 narrowed the trigger to three cumulative conditions while the duration became open-ended. Almost nobody has flagged that trade.

    Brazil completed a two-step build. Statute in 2024, regulation in 2025, with further INAEP guidance promised by Decreto 12.651/2025 Art. 31 §2.

    Argentina reset its GCP base. Disposición 7516/2025 took effect 1 December 2025 (Art. 8). Its Art. 7 repealed Disposiciones 6677/10, 4008/17, 9929/19 and 2172/25 plus Circulares 0001/11 and 004/18. Disp. 12792/2016 is absent from that repeal list, so the post-trial import procedure stands — but the substantive continuity duty moved into the new GCP annex, and sponsors are filing against instruments that no longer exist. The legal architecture of LATAM PTA piece works through how the obligation layer and the import layer interact.

    Colombia: no binding post-trial access statute

    We read Resolución 2378 de 2008 and Resolución 8430 de 1993 in full, checking expressly for post-trial supply language. Neither contains any. Res. 8430/1993 allocates only harm-related costs — Art. 13 medical care for research-related injury, Art. 15(j) treatment availability and indemnification, Art. 15(k) additional costs against the research budget.

    That makes Colombia a cost-certainty jurisdiction: no statutory tail obligation, no separate post-trial filing, no open-ended supply exposure. It does not make post-trial access impossible. A sponsor that wants to continue supplying responders in Colombia can run a voluntary continuity program on its own initiative, handled through the ethics committee, the informed consent and the general product import rules. The exposure is contractual and reputational rather than statutory, which means it has to be allocated in the CRO and site agreements rather than assumed away.

    Mexico sits in an adjacent position and is routinely misdescribed. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 §11.2.2 obliges “el investigador principal” to arrange continuation of “el tratamiento y cuidados” to prevent withdrawal effects. That is an investigator duty about care, not a sponsor duty to supply the investigational product.

    What sponsors get wrong

    Citing repealed instruments. Argentina’s Disp. 6677/2010, which historically carried the continuity obligation, is repealed. Ecuador’s AM 0075-2017 is repealed. Honduras’s Acuerdo 041-2020 is revoked in its entirety. Panama’s Decreto Ejecutivo 1843/2014 and 6/2015 are repealed. Filings and legal memos still quote all of them.

    The “Ley 419/2023” error. Panama’s medicines statute is Ley 419 of 1 February 2024, not 2023 — and it is a commercial-medicines law, not the post-trial access instrument. The binding post-trial duty sits in Decreto Ejecutivo 21/2026 Art. 68, under Ley 84 of 2019. Getting this wrong signals to a Panamanian reviewer that the filer has not read the current framework.

    Treating Argentina’s RAEM as post-trial access. Disposición 4616/2019 approves the Régimen de Accesibilidad de Excepción a Medicamentos: an individual-patient exceptional import route with 90-day, 180-day and one-year quantity windows (Boletín Oficial). It contains no reference to clinical trials or post-trial access. Filing a trial cohort through RAEM means one expediente per patient, per renewal, on the wrong legal basis. Cohort post-trial access in Argentina runs on Disp. 12792/2016.

    Assuming an obligation implies a pathway. Costa Rica mandates continued free provision of the device or medicine under Art. 53(k), but Art. 55 addresses importation only before an approved study begins. No post-trial import route is identified in the statute. Ecuador and Nicaragua have the same shape. The obligation is real; the mechanism has to be constructed.

    The fastest route to compliance

    For a sponsor closing a multi-country LATAM Phase 3, the sequence that works is: classify each participating country into mandate / soft / none using the operative current instrument; identify which mandate countries require a filing distinct from the trial dossier (Argentina, Brazil, Panama, Peru at minimum); confirm whether your product class is textually in scope, which matters most for devices; establish who the legal importer of record will be in each country, since the trial import authorization frequently expires with the trial; and only then estimate cohort size, duration and cold-chain cost. Countries with no mandate still need a documented position, because the ethics committee and the informed consent will ask.

    Working on a LATAM post-trial access program? bioaccess® is a US-headquartered, LATAM-native operator running regulatory, importadora, and 2–8 °C GDP cold-chain functions directly across the region. If you’re evaluating PTA feasibility in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Panama, Costa Rica or elsewhere in Latin America, contact Julio Martinez-Clark, Co-Founder & CEO, at jmclark@bioaccessla.com or +1 (954) 903-7210. More at bioaccessla.com/roadmap.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Which Latin American countries require post-trial access?
    Ten jurisdictions impose a binding statutory duty: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. Three more — Uruguay, Bolivia and Venezuela — address post-trial continuation in binding instruments but with weak verbs, no named obligor, or routing into per-patient compassionate use. Seven impose nothing: Mexico, Colombia, Paraguay, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Puerto Rico. The classification depends on reading the operative current instrument, not a secondary summary, because five of these countries changed their framework between 2024 and 2026.

    Which LATAM country has the strongest post-trial access mandate?
    Brazil. Lei 14.874/2024 Art. 30 requires a post-study access plan to be filed with the ethics committee before the trial begins, Art. 31 §4 assigns the cost to the sponsor, and Art. 33 permits interruption only on listed grounds — one of which is the passage of five years from the product’s commercial availability in Brazil. Decreto 12.651/2025 Art. 31 restates the free-supply duty. Brazil’s Ministry of Health describes this as a legal duty rather than an expectation. Chile is the closest runner-up because Art. 111 C has no endpoint at all and the obligation follows the sanitary registration to any subsequent holder.

    Does post-trial access in LATAM apply to medical devices or only drugs?
    Both, in four jurisdictions. Costa Rica’s Ley 9234 Art. 53(k) is the most explicit, obliging free post-study provision of “el medicamento, dispositivo o procedimiento.” Brazil extends its post-trial chapter to devices and advanced therapies through Lei 14.874/2024 Art. 37. Chile’s Código Sanitario Art. 111 A covers “elementos de uso médico.” Peru’s definition of producto en investigación in DS 021-2017-SA Art. 2.1.36 includes devices. Ecuador’s AM 00069-2024 does not cover devices. Argentina’s Disp. 12792/2016 covers products and “materiales” without using the word dispositivo médico, so device coverage there is inferential.

    Which LATAM countries do NOT require post-trial access?
    Mexico, Colombia, Paraguay, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Puerto Rico. Colombia’s Resoluciones 2378/2008 and 8430/1993 contain no post-trial supply obligation; Res. 8430/1993 allocates only harm-related costs. Mexico’s NOM-012-SSA3-2012 §11.2.2 imposes a continuity duty on the principal investigator covering treatment and care, not on the sponsor to supply the investigational product. Notably, both Paraguay (2024) and El Salvador (2025) rewrote their research frameworks in this window and declined to add a post-trial provision, which cuts against the assumption that the whole region is converging on mandatory access.

    What changed in LATAM post-trial access regulation in 2024-2026?
    Five substantive moves. Brazil completed a two-step build with Lei 14.874/2024 and Decreto 12.651/2025. Ecuador’s AM 00069-2024 repealed AM 0075-2017 and deleted the “until commercialized in the country” endpoint, converting a bounded duty into an open-ended one. Argentina’s Disposición 7516/2025 took effect 1 December 2025 and repealed Disp. 6677/10 among others, resetting the GCP base while leaving the 2016 post-trial import procedure standing. Honduras moved from no mandate to a binding mandate via Acuerdo 0256-ARSA-2025 Art. 63, in force from late February 2026. Panama’s Decreto Ejecutivo 21/2026 entered into force 23 April 2026 with a binding post-trial duty in Art. 68.

    What is the difference between cohort PTA (Argentina) and individual expanded access (RAEM)?
    They are separate legal regimes with separate instruments. Post-trial access under Disposición ANMAT 12792/2016 is a cohort-level procedure: one expediente covering the named participants from an ANMAT-authorized trial, approved by the ethics committee, filed with the Dirección de Evaluación y Registro de Medicamentos, with a 12-month import authorization under Art. 4. The Régimen de Accesibilidad de Excepción a Medicamentos under Disposición 4616/2019 is an individual-patient exceptional import route with 90-day, 180-day and one-year quantity limits, and it makes no reference to clinical trials. Using RAEM for a trial cohort produces per-patient filings on the wrong basis.

    Who pays for post-trial access in Latin America?
    The sponsor, in every country where the duty is clearly allocated. Brazil’s Lei 14.874/2024 Art. 31 §4 puts the supply on the sponsor. Peru’s DS 021-2017-SA Art. 89 requires products to be sponsor-financed and provided free. Costa Rica’s Ley 9234 Art. 53(k) and Ecuador’s AM 00069-2024 Art. 80 both name the sponsor. Chile’s Art. 111 C places the duty on the provisional-authorization holder and then the registration holder. Argentina goes furthest: Disp. 12792/2016 Art. 3(g) requires a sworn declaration that supply carries no cost to the participant, the treating institution or the health coverage. Uruguay, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Honduras leave the cost-bearer partly or wholly unstated.

    How does a sponsor find a qualified PTA operator in Latin America?
    Test three capabilities separately. First, regulatory: can the operator file the country-specific post-trial authorization itself, naming the correct current instrument and article, rather than subcontracting it blind. Second, importation: can it act as legal importer of record after the trial import authorization lapses, which it does in several countries. Third, distribution: can it hold and ship the product under 2–8 °C GDP conditions for the life of the cohort, with pharmacovigilance reporting after database lock. Global post-trial supply vendors market the service regionally without naming Latin American countries or local filing capability on their public pages, so ask for the specific article and the specific authorizing office.

    What is the fastest route to compliance for a sponsor closing a multi-country LATAM Phase 3?
    Start from the operative instrument in each participating country, not from a regional summary. Classify each country as binding mandate, weak instrument or no mandate; determine which mandate countries require a filing distinct from the trial dossier — Argentina, Brazil, Panama and Peru at minimum; confirm your product class is textually in scope, which is the decisive question for devices; appoint a legal importer of record in each country because trial import authorizations frequently expire with the trial; then size the cohort, the duration and the cold chain. Countries with no mandate still need a documented, defensible position for the ethics committee.

    Sources

    • Argentina — Disposición ANMAT 12792/2016: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/154162/20161117
    • Argentina — Disposición ANMAT 7516/2025: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/332695/20251009
    • Argentina — Disposición ANMAT 4616/2019 (RAEM): https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/208794/20190604
    • Brazil — Lei nº 14.874/2024: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/lei/l14874.htm
    • Brazil — Decreto nº 12.651/2025: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decret/2025/decreto-12651-7-outubro-2025-798105-publicacaooriginal-176652-pe.html
    • Brazil — ANVISA RDC nº 38/2013: https://anvisalegis.datalegis.net/action/ActionDatalegis.php?acao=abrirTextoAto&tipo=RDC&numeroAto=00000038&seqAto=000&valorAno=2013&orgao=RDC/DC/ANVISA/MS&codTipo=&desItem=&desItemFim=&cod_menu=1696&cod_modulo=134&pesquisa=true
    • Brazil — Ministério da Saúde / INAEP FAQ on acesso pós-estudo: https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/composicao/orgaos-colegiados/inaep/faq/faq/acesso-pos-estudo/o-acesso-fornecimento-pos-estudo-e
    • Chile — Ley 20.850 and Código Sanitario Arts. 111 A–111 C: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1078148
    • Peru — Reglamento de Ensayos Clínicos, DS 021-2017-SA: https://ensayosclinicos-repec.ins.gob.pe/images/Reglamento_de_EC.pdf
    • Panama — Decreto Ejecutivo No. 21 de 23 de abril de 2026, Gaceta Oficial Digital No. 30510-C (Arts. 68, 99, 104, 105); primary text read from the Gaceta Oficial PDF
    • Panama — Ley 419 de 1 de febrero de 2024 (medicamentos): https://www.minsa.gob.pa/sites/default/files/normatividad/ley-419-de-2024-ley-de-medicamentos.pdf
    • Ecuador — Acuerdo Ministerial 00069-2024: https://www.espoch.edu.ec/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ac-00069-2024_dic_31_compressed_1-1.pdf
    • Ecuador — Acuerdo Ministerial 0075-2017 (repealed): https://www.salud.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/A.M.-0075-REGLAMENTO-ENSAYOS-CLINICOS-1.pdf
    • Costa Rica — Ley N.º 9234, Ley Reguladora de Investigación Biomédica: https://documentos.una.ac.cr/bitstream/handle/unadocs/5670/Texto%20Completo%20Norma%209234.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    • Guatemala — Acuerdo Ministerial 82-2019: https://medicamentos.mspas.gob.gt/phocadownload/Acuerdo%20Ministerial%2082-2019.pdf
    • Guatemala — MSPAS legislación vigente index (AM 206-2021): https://medicamentos.mspas.gob.gt/index.php/legislacion-vigente/acuerdos
    • Honduras — Acuerdo No. 0256-ARSA-2025: https://www.tsc.gob.hn/web/leyes/Acuerdo-0256-ARSA-2025.pdf
    • Nicaragua — Normativa-166, Norma para la Regulación de Ensayos Clínicos: https://www.minsa.gob.ni/sites/default/files/2022-10/Norma%20de%20Ensayos%20Clinicos.11833.pdf
    • Uruguay — Decreto N° 158/019, Anexo: https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/decretos-originales/158-2019/8
    • Bolivia — Norma para Estudios Clínicos (AGEMED): https://www.agemed.gob.bo/archivos_agemed/ensayosclinicos/001-2021.pdf
    • Venezuela — Normas de Buena Práctica Clínica (INHRR): https://inhrr.gob.ve/pdf/pdf_jr/JR-1311-2013.pdf
    • Mexico — NOM-012-SSA3-2012: https://sidof.segob.gob.mx/notas/docFuente/5284148
    • Colombia — Resolución 2378 de 2008: https://www.ins.gov.co/Normatividad/Resoluciones/RESOLUCION%202378%20DE%202008.pdf
    • Colombia — Resolución 8430 de 1993: https://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/Lists/BibliotecaDigital/RIDE/de/dij/resolucion-8430-DE-1993.PDF
    • Paraguay — Resolución DINAVISA 238/2024: https://dinavisa.gov.py/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2.-Requisitos-de-Ensayos-Clinicos.-Resol.-238_2024.pdf
    • El Salvador — Lineamientos Técnicos para la Investigación en Salud, Acuerdo Ejecutivo 1530 (2025): https://asp.salud.gob.sv/regulacion/pdf/lineamientos/lineamientostecnicosparalainvestigacionensalud-Acuerdo-Ejecutivo-1530-29052025_v1.pdf
    • Dominican Republic — Manual de Normas y Procedimientos Operativos, CONABIOS: https://conabios.gob.do/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/1.Manual-de-Normas-y-Procedimientos-Operativos-V2-13-02.pdf
    • Cuba — Buenas Prácticas Clínicas en Cuba (CECMED): https://www.cecmed.cu/sites/default/files/adjuntos/Reglamentacion/Dir_BPC.pdf
    • United States / Puerto Rico — 21 CFR 312.310 (Expanded Access, Subpart I): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-312/subpart-I/section-312.310
    • FDA — Expanded Access training materials: https://www.fda.gov/media/193381/download

  • ANMAT Medical Device Registration Checklist (Argentina): Holder, HELENA Dossier, and 2026 Calendar

    If you searched “medical device registration in Argentina (ANMAT),” you are not looking for a first-in-human protocol. You are looking for a holder problem: who files in HELENA, who signs as legal representative and technical director, which Spanish dossier ANMAT actually reads, and how long the calendar runs after the Certificate of Free Sale leaves FDA or your notified body. This is that checklist — registration and market authorization, not an Argentine clinical trial.

    bioaccess® is a U.S.-anchored MedTech partner (Miami) that works with U.S. sponsors across trials and market access in 19 Latin American and Caribbean markets. Argentina is one of those markets. The notes below are experience-based planning ranges for 2026, not guaranteed clocks or a government fee table you can paste into a board deck without checking ANMAT’s current aranceles.

    What ANMAT registration is (and is not)

    ANMAT (Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica) records devices in the Registry of Producers and Products of Medical Technology (RPPTM / RPPMT). The backbone remains the Mercosur registration framework (GMC Res. 40/00, incorporated via Disposición 2318/02) plus later ANMAT dispositions — including 727/2013, 9688/2019, 11467/2024, and the 2025–2026 modernization package (notably Disposición 64/2025, 8799/2025, and 4446/2025). HELENA is the electronic product-registration portal. GEMHA is the establishment-enablement track for manufacturers and importers. Those are different queues. Mixing them is a common calendar killer.

    A U.S. 510(k), PMA, or CE mark does not become an Argentine registration. It becomes evidence — typically a Certificate of Free Sale / Certificate to Foreign Government from a recognized reference market — that your in-country holder attaches to a Spanish dossier. ANMAT still classifies the product under its own Class I–IV (devices) or A–D (IVD) rules and still reviews what you filed.

    The bottleneck is the holder, not the PDF

    A foreign manufacturer without an Argentine legal entity must appoint an Argentina Authorized Representative (AAR). The AAR is the registration holder and ANMAT’s only official counterpart. A Technical Director (director técnico) must also be named. HELENA filings are PDFs digitally signed by both. If you appoint your exclusive distributor as AAR, you have just tied the sanitary registration to a commercial contract. Changing distributors later is a transfer, not a courtesy email.

    Importer-of-record is a related but separate role. Low-risk import rules moved in 2025 (Disposición 4446/2025): many Class I/II shipments shifted from per-shipment authorization toward a sworn notification model. Class III/IV and used/refurbished product (Disposición 224/2026) still need prior thinking. Do not assume the AAR, the IOR, and the commercial distributor are the same company unless you designed it that way.

    Classification and pathway (plan the calendar here)

    • Class I / II — Declaration of Conformity route. Administrative review of a DoC plus supporting file. Published ANMAT review windows are often cited at 15–30 working days after a complete HELENA package. End-to-end calendar (translations, apostilles, AAR enablement, deficiency loops) is commonly 60–120 working days in practice.
    • Class III / IV — full technical review. Safety, performance, GMP evidence, risk file. Published review windows are often cited at 60–110 working days. Sponsors who treat that as “three months to first sale” under-plan. Deficiency rounds and GMP questions routinely push the working calendar toward a year for higher-risk implants.
    • IVDs. Separate classification (A–D) and a review window often cited at 60–90 working days. Do not reuse a device Class I playbook on a Class C infectious-disease assay.

    Before formal review, the Medical Device Registry office typically runs a completeness check (about 10 consecutive days). Incomplete HELENA uploads reset the clock. That is the cheapest delay to avoid.

    Dossier checklist for the Argentine holder

    Legal and holder pack

    • AAR appointment / power of attorney, apostilled (or consularized) and translated by a certified public translator (traductor público) where required.
    • Manufacturer incorporation evidence and manufacturing-site list that matches the CFS and ISO certificate.
    • Technical Director identification and digital-signature readiness in HELENA.
    • GEMHA (or applicable establishment) enablement if the importer/AAR is not already habilitated for your product type. Disposición 8799/2025 created a simplified sworn-declaration track (THEMIS) for some low-risk establishments — confirm whether you actually qualify before you skip GEMHA.

    Technical pack (class-dependent)

    • Spanish device description, intended use, and ANMAT classification rationale (do not paste the FDA product code and hope).
    • Certificate of Free Sale / CFG from a recognized authority (commonly U.S., EU, Canada, Japan, or Australia), recent enough for ANMAT’s “issued within the last 24 months” style expectation, apostilled.
    • ISO 13485 / GMP evidence. ANMAT-MDS is aligned with ISO 13485:2016; a current certificate covering the exact legal manufacturer and scope beats a generic brochure.
    • Risk-management file (ISO 14971) — expected for Class II+ and for implants, IUDs, and blood bags even when the class looks “low.”
    • Essential safety and performance evidence under current ANMAT rules (see Disposición 11467/2024), plus test reports appropriate to class.
    • Labeling and IFU in Spanish, mapped to ANMAT labeling dispositions (2318/02 Annex III.B and later 727/2013 rules). Leave space for the Argentine registration number; do not print a draft ANMAT number you do not have.
    • Declaration of Conformity for the Class I/II route; full technical file upload for Class III/IV.

    Translations, legalizations, and government fees

    Spanish is not a “nice to have.” HELENA wants PDFs the reviewer can read. Apostille plus traductor público is the usual foreign-document path. Budget calendar time for the CFS and ISO legalizations first; they sit on other agencies’ desks, not ANMAT’s.

    Government fees (aranceles) are published in Argentine pesos by class and move with ANMAT’s fee resolutions and FX. Practitioner ranges you will see quoted in 2026 sit in the low hundreds of U.S. dollars per product for the ANMAT tariff itself — not the total market-entry cost. AAR retainers, certified translations, dossier assembly, and deficiency responses dwarf the tariff. Do not plan around a single invented “flat fee.” Verify the current ANMAT arancel before you lock a purchase order.

    After the number: five-year clock and technovigilance

    Registrations are typically valid five years. Revalidation is due in the 90 days before expiry (Disposición 2318/02 / 727/2013 practice). Miss it and you are not “a little late” — you are often back to a new inscription. Post-market, Disposición 8194/2023 (good technovigilance practices) sits on the holder. Field actions and serious incidents do not wait for the U.S. weekend.

    FAQ-style close

    Does FDA clearance register the device in Argentina? No. It supports the CFS/CFG and the technical story. ANMAT still issues its own inscription.

    Can we file without a local holder? Not if you have no Argentine legal presence. The AAR is the applicant ANMAT recognizes.

    Is this the same as an ANMAT clinical-trial submission? No. Trial authorizations (and provincial ethics layers) are a different pathway. Do not reuse a trial SOP as a registration dossier.

    How should a U.S. sponsor sequence Argentina against other LATAM filings? Lock classification, CFS freshness, and an independent holder before you promise a launch quarter. Then run translations and GEMHA/HELENA access in parallel. If you already hold FDA or CE authorization and want a structured register-and-hold model rather than a one-off distributor filing, bioaccess® publishes that offer separately on the LATAM Launch Subscription / market-access page.

  • ICH E6(R3) Annex 2 Just Hit Step 4 In Rio. Argentina Is Positioned To Be Latin America’s First Adopter. Here’s What That Means For Medtech Sponsors.

    On June 3, 2026, the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use convened its biannual Assembly in Rio de Janeiro — the first ICH meeting ever held in Latin America. Brazil’s health regulator, ANVISA, hosted. Among the multiple guidelines under consideration at the meeting, only one was advanced to Step 4 — the final stage of ICH adoption: E6(R3) Annex 2, the guideline that codifies decentralized clinical trial design, pragmatic study architectures, digital health technologies, and real-world data as integral elements of GCP-compliant clinical research.

    For a Latin American clinical research operator that has spent the past sixteen years arguing the case to MedTech, biotech, and radiopharma founders, the June 1 to June 4 sequence in Rio is the most strategically significant positioning event of 2026. The geographic precedent is itself meaningful — ICH governance has historically convened in Geneva, Brussels, Tokyo, or other established regulatory capitals. Selecting Rio de Janeiro and partnering with ANVISA as host signals a structural shift in how ICH governance views Latin American regulatory infrastructure. The substantive outcome — only one guideline elevated to Step 4 at the meeting, and that guideline being the one that defines modern trial design — matters even more for how sponsors will think about LATAM site sequencing over the next 18 to 24 months.

    This post unpacks what Annex 2 actually changes, why the Rio venue matters, and how MedTech sponsors should think about Argentina’s position as the first Latin American jurisdiction structurally ready to accept Annex 2-compliant protocols without amendment.

    What ICH E6(R3) Annex 2 Actually Changes

    ICH E6(R3) is the current Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guideline that all major regulators — FDA, EMA, MHRA, PMDA, Health Canada, and adopting regulators in Latin America — converge on for clinical trial conduct. The most recent revision moved GCP to a risk-based, principle-driven model. Annex 2 extends E6(R3) to explicitly cover the trial designs that have become operational reality over the past five years but lacked formal codification in GCP guidance.

    Specifically, Annex 2 addresses:

    • Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) — trials where participant interaction with study sites is partially or fully replaced by remote visits, home-based assessments, mobile health units, or telehealth consultations.
    • Pragmatic trial designs — protocols built around real-world clinical settings, with broader patient populations and less restrictive inclusion criteria than traditional efficacy trials.
    • Remote site visits — sponsor monitoring conducted through electronic data review, remote source verification, and risk-based on-site oversight rather than universal in-person visits.
    • Digital health technology (DHT) data capture — continuous glucose monitors, wearable cardiac telemetry, accelerometer-based motion data, smartphone-based patient-reported outcomes, and similar tools used as primary or secondary endpoint capture methods.
    • Real-world data (RWD) — use of electronic health records, claims data, registries, and other non-trial sources as supporting evidence within GCP-compliant studies.
    • Adaptive designs — pre-specified protocol modifications based on accumulating trial data, including sample size re-estimation and arm-dropping decisions.

    The substantive shift in Annex 2 is not new regulation. It is the formal incorporation of these design elements into GCP rather than treating them as exceptions that require special justification. For sponsors who have been building modern trial designs over the past five years, the legal architecture finally caught up with the operational reality.

    Why The Rio Venue Matters

    ICH Assembly meetings rotate among the home jurisdictions of ICH members. Hosting the meeting is a substantive role — the host regulator coordinates logistics, sets the agenda for site-specific discussions, and shapes the framing of how the meeting’s outcomes are communicated to global stakeholders. ANVISA hosting the June 2026 Assembly is the strongest signal to date that Brazilian regulatory infrastructure is converging with ICH governance not as an observer but as an active participant.

    For Brazilian sponsors and CROs, the immediate implication is that ANVISA’s preparation for formal E6(R3) adoption is now visible in a way it was not six months ago. The May 28, 2026 ANVISA board session that explicitly addressed ICH E6 and E8 implementation preparation was the first concrete signal. The June 3 Assembly hosting is the next, much stronger signal. Brazilian formal E6(R3) adoption has no publicly announced timeline yet, but the operational trajectory is no longer in doubt.

    For Argentina, the implication is different but equally substantive. Argentina’s ANMAT, under Disposición 7516/25 operative since December 1, 2025, already maintains a regulatory framework aligned with E6(R3) principles. Argentina did not need to host the Rio Assembly to be ready for Annex 2 — it was already there. What the Rio Assembly does for Argentina is confirm that its regulatory positioning was correctly anticipated, and accelerate the speed at which ANMAT can absorb Annex 2-aligned protocols from sponsors.

    Argentina As The First LATAM Annex 2-Ready Jurisdiction

    Disposición 7516/25 modernized Argentina’s clinical trial framework along several dimensions that align directly with E6(R3) principles: a 62-day parallel ethics and agency review pathway, ICH E6(R3) substantive alignment in protocol structure expectations, and operational mechanisms for risk-based monitoring and remote oversight. Critically for Annex 2, Disposición 7516/25 does not preclude decentralized design elements, DHT data capture, or pragmatic patient populations — it accommodates them.

    The practical consequence is that sponsors designing Annex 2-compliant protocols for FDA or EMA submission in 2026 and 2027 do not face a structural barrier to LATAM site inclusion when Argentina is the lead LATAM jurisdiction. Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and other LATAM regulators have not formally adopted E6(R3), let alone Annex 2 — meaning protocols built around decentralized or DHT-enabled designs face higher regulatory friction in those jurisdictions until each regulator adopts the guidance domestically.

    For Brazil, the trajectory is unambiguous post-Rio. ANVISA hosting the Assembly, the May 28 board session on E6 and E8 preparation, and the substantive operational alignment between ANVISA’s technovigilance and clinical research frameworks all point toward formal E6(R3) adoption in 2026 or 2027. Annex 2 acceptance follows.

    For Mexico (COFEPRIS), Colombia (INVIMA), and other LATAM regulators, the path is less defined. Colombia’s pending Decreto Único de Dispositivos Médicos e In Vitro (currently in WTO comment phase with a July 17 deadline) introduces international reliance pathways that may indirectly accelerate Annex 2 acceptance, but no formal adoption has been signaled.

    Operational Implications For MedTech Sponsors Designing 2026-2027 Protocols

    For a MedTech sponsor designing a protocol today for a 12 to 18 month FIH-to-pivotal sequence, three operational questions matter immediately.

    First, should the protocol be built Annex 2-compliant from the start? The answer is almost always yes if any of the following apply: DHT-collected endpoints are part of the endpoint set; the patient population is large enough that pragmatic design considerations would materially expand enrollment; remote visits or telehealth consultations would meaningfully reduce participant burden; or the trial design contemplates pre-specified adaptive elements such as sample size re-estimation. Building Annex 2-compliant from the start adds modest protocol-authoring effort and substantial future flexibility.

    Second, how should LATAM country sequencing change? For 2026 and through Q2 2027, Argentina-primary is now the recommended LATAM lead jurisdiction for any Annex 2-aligned design. Disposición 7516/25 is the only operative LATAM framework that can absorb the design without amendment. Brazil-secondary is appropriate as ANVISA formalizes its adoption. Mexico and Colombia remain opportunistic, evaluated on therapeutic-area depth and sponsor-specific operational requirements rather than as primary LATAM hubs for decentralized designs.

    Third, what about sponsors with existing LATAM site relationships built around traditional trial architectures? The Annex 2 guidance does not invalidate traditional trial designs. Sponsors running fully on-site, non-decentralized protocols can continue without adjustment. The shift matters for sponsors whose product strategy is built around DHT-collected endpoints or decentralized data capture — for whom the regulatory architecture in LATAM was previously a bottleneck and now is not.

    What Comes Next

    National regulator implementation of E6(R3) Annex 2 will proceed on independent timelines through 2026 and 2027. FDA has signaled implementation guidance is forthcoming. EMA has indicated alignment without formal adoption schedule. PMDA and Health Canada are expected to follow. In Latin America, ANMAT is positioned to be the first formal adopter, followed by ANVISA. The realistic timeline for ANMAT formal Annex 2 acceptance is Q4 2026 to Q1 2027. ANVISA follows in H1 2027 to H2 2027.

    For sponsors making 2026 country sequencing decisions today, the implication is straightforward. Argentina is positioned as the natural lead LATAM jurisdiction for Annex 2-aligned protocols. Brazil follows. Mexico and Colombia continue to be evaluated case-by-case based on therapeutic-area depth and sponsor-specific requirements.

    The Bottom Line

    Latin America is no longer at the edge of global GCP. The June 3 Rio Assembly, the ANVISA hosting of the meeting, and the Step 4 advancement of E6(R3) Annex 2 together signal a structural shift that sponsors building modern trial designs should integrate into 2026-2027 strategy now rather than after the fact.

    The most expensive country sequencing decision is not the one made wrong. It is the one made too late, after the trial design has been frozen and the regulatory pathway is already constrained by choices that no longer reflect the current landscape.

    If you are evaluating an Annex 2-aligned FIH protocol for 2026 or 2027 and want a LATAM country sequencing analysis that integrates the new Rio Assembly outcomes, the team at bioaccess® can produce a tailored proposal within two weeks. We have run first-in-human and pivotal-stage trials across Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Panama since 2010, and our U.S. EFS plus LATAM FIH practice is the only one in Latin America structured to deliver both pathways under a single operational team.

    Citations:

  • $8 Billion Of Pharma Capital Just Pointed At Argentina. What Medtech Founders Should Take From The May 29 CAEME Announcement.

    On May 29, 2026, the Cámara Argentina de Especialidades Medicinales (CAEME) announced jointly with President Javier Milei a six-year clinical research investment commitment from seven multinational pharmaceutical companies: Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Novartis, BMS, GSK, and Sanofi. The total commitment is USD 8 billion through 2032. On the same week, ANMAT’s Disposición 2978/2026, which cut import tariffs on medicines and medical devices by 50 to 70 percent, came into operative effect on June 1.

    For a Latin American clinical research operator that has spent 16 years arguing the case to MedTech and biotech founders, the May 29 to June 1 sequence is the strongest sovereign-level signal a Latin American country has produced for clinical research in the past decade. The data and the policy arrived in the same week. The Big Pharma capital and the regulator’s tariff cut arrived in the same week. The case Argentina has been building since Disposición 7516/25 first came into force in 2025 is now publicly endorsed by both seven multinational CEO offices and the federal executive.

    The interesting question is not whether founders should use Argentina for first-in-human (FIH) work. The interesting question is what happens to the Argentine clinical research ecosystem when USD 8 billion of pharma capital flows into a site base that, in 2026, has only 80 to 120 actively credentialed Phase 1/2 sites. This post unpacks the saturation thesis and what early-stage MedTech founders should be doing about it in 2026.

    The Site Saturation Math

    The CAEME pledge of USD 8 billion over 2026 to 2032 implies an average commitment of approximately USD 1.33 billion per year. At industry-average sponsored Phase 1 through 3 trial costs of USD 1 to 3 million per site per year for clinical operations and site fees, the pledge fully funds roughly 430 to 1,330 new trial-site-years annually if disbursed at the announced pace.

    Argentine clinical research currently runs at roughly 290 ANMAT-authorized trials per year (2025 throughput), with 1,188 active studies under ANMAT supervision and approximately 80 to 120 actively credentialed Phase 1/2 sites across all therapeutic areas. The pledge contemplates a 2.5x step-up in trial inflows against approximately the same site base.

    The implication is straightforward. By 2027, Argentine Phase 1/2 site capacity becomes the binding constraint on the system. Regulator throughput, which is already operative at 62 calendar days under Disposición 7516/25, is no longer the rate-limiting step. Site availability is. And site availability at top investigators compresses asymmetrically. A senior PI running three trials in 2026 does not move to six trials in 2027. A senior PI running three trials moves to four trials, while the marginal Phase 1/2 site backlog elongates by 6 to 12 months for the founders arriving last.

    Founders who lock in Argentine site relationships in 2026 are locking in the top quartile of investigators. Founders who arrive in 2027 are competing for what is left after Pfizer, Novartis, and the other CAEME signatories have claimed the senior beds.

    Why the Argentine Government Did This Now

    Three forces converged in 2026 that made the May 29 to June 1 sequence possible. First, the Milei administration’s broader productivity and quality agenda, codified in the proposed PCT (Productividad, Calidad y Transparencia) bill, created the legislative context for industry investment commitments. Second, ANMAT’s operational reform sequence, beginning with Disposición 7516/25 (62-day pathway, parallel ethics plus agency review, ICH E6(R3) alignment), reached a level of regulator credibility that multinationals could underwrite. Third, the comparative landscape moved against Argentina’s peer regulators. Colombia’s Ley 191 stalled in Comisión Séptima and is now effectively dead this term. Brazil’s ICH E6(R3) adoption remains on a slower trajectory than ANVISA’s 2024-2025 board sessions suggested. Mexico’s 30-day target announced at AMIIF on May 19 lacks DOF formalization. Argentina is the only major LATAM jurisdiction in 2026 with operative regulatory reform, operative tariff policy, and operative sovereign-level industry commitment in the same week.

    The PCT bill is the only caveat that matters. The CAEME pledge is contingent on PCT passage. As of June 1, the bill remains stalled. Founders evaluating Argentine sites should treat the regulatory and tariff case as the base case and the CAEME pledge as additive upside. Disposición 7516/25 and Disposición 2978/2026 are in force regardless.

    How to Sequence Argentina in 2026

    The country sequencing decision a MedTech founder makes in 2026 is structurally different than the same decision in 2024. Two years ago, the case for Argentine FIH rested on cost (USD 15,000 to 35,000 per patient versus USD 40,000 to 75,000 in the U.S. and Europe) and regulator throughput (62 days under 7516/25 versus 120 to 180 days under FDA EFS). Both arguments still apply, and the Disposición 2978/2026 tariff cut now removes a 4 to 8 percent additional cost layer on imported devices and study drugs.

    What is new in 2026 is the time pressure. The CAEME pledge does not change the operational case. It changes the urgency of the operational case. A founder who has been considering Argentine site selection for the past six months and has not yet executed is, beginning June 1, 2026, on the wrong side of a closing window. By Q4 2026, the same site relationships will be visibly competitive. By Q2 2027, the top-quartile PI list will be substantively claimed.

    For structural heart and cardiovascular device programs, the recommended sequence is Argentine site selection initiated by Q3 2026, ANMAT protocol filing by Q4 2026, first patient enrolled in Q1 2027. This sequence preserves access to the InCor São Paulo, Hospital Italiano Buenos Aires, and Fundación Cardiovascular Bogotá tier of cardiovascular research centers, with the Argentine arm operating in parallel with a U.S. EFS submission.

    For neuromodulation programs, the recommended sequence compresses further. Site selection at seed close (or post-Series A), ANMAT protocol filing within 90 days of site lock-in. The neuromodulation patient base in Argentina is concentrated at fewer specialized institutions than cardiovascular work, and the saturation pressure on neuromodulation-credentialed PIs is therefore more acute. Founders who have not selected Argentine neuromodulation sites by end of 2026 will likely face 6 to 9 month delays in 2027.

    For radiopharmaceutical and theranostics programs, the operational sequence is different in kind. Site selection has to be scoped before ANY other operational step because of isotope logistics, central pharmacy capacity, and credentialed nuclear medicine institutions. Radiopharma founders who wait until post-acceleration or post-Series A to scope LATAM partners have already added 6 to 9 months to their pivotal timeline. The Argentine radiopharma site base is even more concentrated than the neuromodulation base, and the CAEME pledge is highly likely to direct radiopharma-adjacent investment into the same handful of credentialed institutions.

    What This Means for the Colombia Case

    For bioaccess® and for any founder using a LATAM CRO with Colombian site depth, the May 29 to June 1 sequence forces an honest reassessment. Colombia in 2026 holds the following: established U.S.-trained PI density at specific institutions (Fundación Cardioinfantil, Fundación Valle del Lili, Universidad Javeriana), strong therapeutic-area depth in cardiovascular and oncology, INVIMA throughput at roughly 90 to 120 days. Colombia does not hold: operative sovereign-level investment commitment, modern ICH E6(R3) framework alignment (Resolución 8430/1993 remains the operative framework), or a recent tariff reduction comparable to Disposición 2978/2026.

    The Colombia case for 2026 is no longer “cheaper and faster.” The Colombia case is “specific therapeutic-area depth, U.S.-trained PI networks, and complementarity to an Argentine arm.” For founders running cardiovascular or oncology programs requiring U.S. data acceptance under FDA IDE pathways, the Colombian PI base remains uniquely qualified. For founders running neuromodulation or radiopharmaceutical programs at the FIH stage, the Argentine arm is now the primary recommendation, with Colombian sites operating as the complementary geography rather than the primary geography.

    This is a more nuanced positioning than the one bioaccess® and other LATAM CROs have historically used. It is also the positioning that will hold up over the next 12 to 18 months as the Argentine site saturation pressure builds.

    What Founders Should Do Before End of Q3 2026

    For MedTech, biotech, and radiopharma founders who have not yet scoped their LATAM site portfolio, the practical sequence over the next 90 days looks like:

    First, identify whether the program’s FIH country sequence is Argentina-primary, Argentina-secondary, or Argentina-complementary based on therapeutic area, regulatory pathway, and capital constraints. For structural heart and cardiac ablation, Argentina-primary or Argentina-secondary makes sense. For neuromodulation, Argentina-primary. For radiopharma, Argentina-primary with explicit isotope logistics scoping. For oncology devices with U.S. IDE pathway requirements, Argentina-complementary alongside Colombia or Brazil.

    Second, scope site availability at the institutions most likely to be impacted by the CAEME pledge. The largest pharma signatories (Pfizer, Roche, Novartis) historically work with a specific set of Argentine investigators in cardiology, oncology, and metabolism. Site availability at those investigators will compress first.

    Third, file ANMAT protocols on the Disposición 7516/25 parallel-review pathway. The 62-day timeline allows a 2026 Q3 site selection to produce first-patient-in by year-end. Delays beyond Q3 begin pushing first-patient-in into Q2 2027, by which point the competitive pressure on senior PIs will be visible in enrollment delays.

    Fourth, consider the Disposición 2978/2026 tariff cut as a planning input. The 50 to 70 percent reduction on imported devices and study drugs is most material for early-stage MedTech programs that import 80 to 100 percent of investigational supply. Plan device manufacturing and shipment timing to maximize the tariff savings.

    The Bottom Line

    Argentina did not become a clinical research hub on May 29, 2026. Argentina has been a clinical research hub for 30 years. What happened on May 29 to June 1, 2026, is that the federal executive, the regulator, and seven multinational pharma CEOs publicly aligned on the same operational thesis in the same week. That alignment compresses the founder decision window from years to quarters.

    For early-stage MedTech, biotech, and radiopharma founders evaluating LATAM FIH strategy, the operational reality is that the next 12 to 18 months are a sponsor-favorable market with multiple jurisdictions actively recruiting trial volume. Sponsors who position now benefit from regulator attention, expedited review windows, and access to the senior PI base. Sponsors who delay lose that window.

    The most expensive FIH decision a founder makes is not the per-patient cost of a single study. It is the calendar cost of choosing the wrong country sequence for their specific program. Argentina’s May 29 to June 1 sequence makes the calendar argument harder to ignore.

    If you are evaluating a 2026 LATAM FIH country sequencing decision and want a tailored proposal that incorporates the new ANMAT regulatory and tariff environment alongside Colombian and Brazilian complementary site options, the team at bioaccess® can produce a country-level model within two weeks. We have run FIH trials across Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico since 2010, and our U.S. EFS plus LATAM FIH practice is the only one in Latin America structured to deliver both pathways under a single operational team.

    Citations:

  • Argentina Just Cut Clinical Trial Import Costs By 50 70%. Here’s What 290 Authorized Trials In 2025 Tell Founders.

    On May 19, 2026, Argentina’s National Administration of Drugs, Foods and Medical Devices (ANMAT) published Disposición 2978/2026, cutting import tariffs on medicines and medical devices by 50 to 70 percent, effective June 1, 2026. The preamble of the instrument states the policy goal explicitly: to attract clinical trial investment to Argentina. The next day, the Argentine government released throughput data that explained why the policy was built: 290 clinical trials authorized in 2025, a 12 percent year-over-year increase, with 114 already authorized in the first quarter of 2026 and 1,188 active studies under ANMAT supervision. Argentina is now formally branding itself an “internationally competitive clinical research hub.”

    For a Latin American clinical research operator who has spent 16 years arguing the speed-and-cost case to MedTech and biopharma founders, the May 19-20 sequence is the most unusual validation event the regulatory landscape has produced this decade. Most LATAM clinical research positioning is CRO marketing. Argentina’s came from the regulator itself, in the preamble of a binding instrument, on government letterhead, with throughput numbers attached. That is not the same kind of evidence as a competitive pitch deck.

    For founders running a 10-patient first-in-human (FIH) device study, the math now stacks in a way that materially changes the country sequencing decision. This post unpacks what changed, what stayed the same, and how founders pursuing a U.S. Early Feasibility Studies (EFS) plus out-of-U.S. (OUS) FIH strategy should think about Argentina in 2026.

    What Changed on May 19, 2026

    Disposición 2978/2026 is the binding instrument. The tariff reduction applies across the import basket relevant to clinical research operations, including investigational drugs, medical devices in trial-supply quantities, reference standards, and disposable consumables tied to study protocols. The pre-existing effective duty rate for imported medical devices in Argentina ranged from 12 to 18 percent before May 19. Under the new schedule, that effective rate compresses to roughly 6 to 12 percent for trial-supply imports, with category-specific reductions ranging from 50 to 70 percent depending on the harmonized system classification.

    On its own, the tariff cut is meaningful. It is more meaningful in combination with the operational baseline Argentina already had in place. Disposición 7516/2025, which came into force in 2025 and is fully aligned with ICH E6(R3), caps clinical trial protocol authorization at 62 calendar days (45 working days maximum). That includes parallel ethics committee review and ANMAT agency review, not sequential review. For comparison, the U.S. EFS pathway typically runs 120 to 180 days from IDE submission to first patient enrolled. Argentina’s ANMAT pathway is 60 to 120 days faster, depending on the comparison case.

    The April 24, 2026 importación simplification further compresses pre-first-patient timelines by removing roughly 14 to 21 days of customs and import-classification delay that previously sat between protocol approval and the actual arrival of study material at site. The June 1, 2026 tariff reduction now removes the cost penalty that previously sat alongside that delay.

    The Throughput Number Most Founders Miss

    The 290-trials-in-2025 figure deserves more attention than it has received. Of those 290 authorizations, the regulator-reported mix is approximately 70 percent biopharma and 30 percent medical device or combination product. The Q1 2026 pace of 114 authorizations annualizes to roughly 456 trials per year, which would represent a 57 percent year-over-year acceleration if sustained. Even if the run rate moderates by half, Argentina’s 2026 throughput will exceed all prior years on record.

    For a founder evaluating site capacity risk, the 1,188 active studies under ANMAT supervision is the more strategic data point. Argentina has the patient-volume depth and the principal-investigator network density to absorb new sponsor demand without the recruitment friction that emerging-market sites with thinner trial histories often impose. A FIH MedTech sponsor running a 10-patient study at two Argentine sites can realistically expect first-patient-in within 90 days of protocol approval, and last-patient-in within 5 to 7 months of contract execution. Those numbers have been stable across the last 36 months of bioaccess® operational experience.

    The Cost Math, Refreshed

    Pre-May 19, 2026, the LATAM per-patient cost range for a FIH MedTech study sat at $15,000 to $35,000, compared to $40,000 to $75,000 in the U.S. and Europe. For a 10-patient FIH device study, that is a $250,000 to $400,000 absolute swing, sufficient on its own to fund roughly four months of clinical operations headcount or a complete adaptive design biostatistics package.

    The June 1 tariff reduction does not move the per-patient labor cost. It moves the device and drug-import cost component, which typically represents 8 to 15 percent of total study cost for a MedTech FIH trial relying on imported investigational devices. A 50 percent reduction on that line item produces a 4 to 8 percent reduction on total study cost, which compounds with the labor cost advantage Argentina already offered. On a $250,000 study, that is an additional $10,000 to $20,000 of effective savings. On a $1 million pivotal-stage Argentine arm of a multi-country trial, the effect grows proportionally.

    The strategic value is not the headline savings number. It is the regulatory clarity that the tariff cut produces. Sponsors evaluating Argentina now know that the regulator has formally committed to clinical research as a strategic policy priority. That changes how a CFO evaluates jurisdiction risk in the IND-enabling phase.

    The Database Anomaly and How to Work Around It

    One operational caveat is worth flagging directly. ANMAT’s public pharmacology database, which historically served as the citable reference for trial throughput and status, remains anchored at a September 30, 2025 data cutoff. As of the publication date of this post, that anomaly has persisted for four consecutive weekly review cycles. The most likely explanation is a backend migration tied to the broader Argentine government’s digital transformation initiative, but the database itself does not yet reflect Q4 2025 or any 2026 data.

    For sponsors building a regulatory dossier or a board pack that requires citable Argentine clinical research throughput data, the May 20, 2026 government statistics package, available through argentina.gob.ar communications channels, is now the more authoritative source than the database. For real-time individual study status, the RENIS (Registro Nacional de Investigaciones en Salud) registry, accessible through the SISA portal, remains operative and current. Disposición 7516/25, the 62-day pathway, the importación simplification, and Disposición 2978/2026 are all fully in force regardless of the database refresh status.

    How to Sequence Argentina in a U.S. EFS Plus OUS FIH Strategy

    The most common 2026 founder question is whether to run U.S. EFS first, OUS FIH first, or both in parallel. The May 19-20 Argentina updates do not change the answer in every case, but they change it in enough cases that the question is worth re-examining.

    For structural heart, neuromodulation, and radiopharmaceutical or theranostic FIH programs, where the U.S. EFS pathway involves an IDE submission with 120 to 180 day review timelines, the parallel Argentina arm is now substantially more attractive. The argument runs as follows: a sponsor who files the IDE with FDA in month one and simultaneously files the ANMAT protocol under Disposición 7516/25 will, in a typical case, have ANMAT approval and first-patient-in achieved before the FDA has finished its initial IDE review. That bridge data, if collected against an FDA-aligned endpoint set, materially strengthens the IDE review and accelerates the post-IDE clinical trial path.

    The bridge data approach assumes the sponsor designs the Argentine arm to match the FDA-expected endpoints from the outset. That is not a regulatory obligation in Argentina, but it is the operational discipline that converts a 62-day pathway into a strategic asset rather than a parallel cost center. ICH M11 CeSHarP, finalized by ICH on May 21, 2026, makes that endpoint-aligned protocol authoring substantially more efficient than it was a year ago.

    For absorbable implants, cardiac ablation, and oncology device FIH programs, the Argentina arm makes sense as the primary FIH site set, with the U.S. EFS following as a confirmatory phase rather than as the primary first-in-human exposure. The 2026 tariff reduction further tips the math in this direction for sponsors with capital constraints between Series A and Series B.

    What This Means for the Latin American Clinical Research Landscape

    Argentina’s May 19-20 sequence is the clearest example to date of a Latin American regulator choosing, in policy, to compete for clinical research investment. Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia have made similar moves in the past 24 months, but none have packaged a binding tariff reduction with a coordinated government statistics release in the same week. The combination is what makes the Argentine moment unusual.

    For Latin American CROs, the strategic implication is that the next 12 to 18 months will likely be a sponsor-favorable market, with multiple jurisdictions actively recruiting trial volume. Sponsors who position now will benefit from regulator attention, expedited review windows, and the willingness of agencies to engage with novel trial designs at the pre-submission stage. Sponsors who delay until the policy environment has fully stabilized will lose the strategic window.

    For bioaccess® and other LATAM operators, the implication is that the value proposition has moved beyond cost and speed into regulatory partnership. The conversation a founder needs to have with their CRO in 2026 is no longer about how fast the trial can run. It is about how the trial design, the country sequence, and the data architecture combine to compress the Innovation Runway, the operational window between a founder’s first FIH decision and the data package their next funding round requires.

    The Bottom Line for Founders

    Argentina has just made the clearest policy statement any Latin American clinical research regulator has produced in 2026. The 62-day pathway under Disposición 7516/25 is operative. The importación simplification is in force. The 50 to 70 percent tariff reduction on imported medicines and medical devices begins June 1. The throughput data confirms that the regulatory environment can absorb new sponsor demand at scale.

    For a MedTech, biotech, or radiopharma founder evaluating a 2026 FIH country sequencing decision, the Argentine arm now warrants serious consideration as the lead site or the parallel site for any program where the U.S. EFS pathway is the comparison baseline. The most expensive FIH decision a founder makes is not the per-patient cost of a single study. It is the calendar cost of choosing the wrong study to run first. Argentina’s May 19-20 sequence makes the calendar argument harder to ignore.

    If you are evaluating a 2026 FIH sequencing decision and want a country-level model that reflects the new Argentina policy environment, the team at bioaccess® can produce a tailored proposal within two weeks. We have run FIH trials across Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico since 2010, and our U.S. EFS plus LATAM FIH practice is the only one in Latin America structured to deliver both pathways under a single operational team.

    Citations:

  • Argentina’s $8 Billion Clinical Research Commitment: What It Means For Medtech Startup FIH Trials In 2026

    Argentina’s $8 Billion Clinical Research Commitment: What It Means for MedTech Startup FIH Trials in 2026

    By Julio Martinez-Clark, CEO, bioaccess® | June 2026

    The Signal That Most MedTech Founders Missed

    In late May 2026, seven of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies — Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, and Sanofi — pledged a combined $8 billion in Argentine clinical research investment over the 2026–2032 period. Days later, Argentina’s national drug and food regulator, ANMAT, published Disposición 2978/2026, cutting import tariffs on medicines and medical devices by 50 to 70 percent, effective June 1, 2026.

    The pharma industry picked up the $8 billion figure immediately. MedTech largely did not. That gap is worth examining — because for a structural heart, neuromodulation, or radiopharmaceuticals startup planning a first-in-human (FIH) trial in the next 18 months, these two policy events together represent one of the most significant shifts in the LATAM early-phase clinical research environment in a decade.

    This piece walks through what actually changed, why it matters specifically for device and biotech FIH programs, and how to think about Argentina as part of a first-in-human trial site strategy in 2026.

    What Changed: Disposición 2978/2026 and the $8B Commitment

    The Tariff Reduction

    Disposición 2978/2026 is not a pilot, a phase-in, or a proposed amendment — it is in effect. Import tariffs on medicines and medical devices were reduced by 50 to 70 percent, effective June 1, 2026. For a device company running an FIH feasibility study, this has a direct, calculable effect on budget: investigational devices entering Argentina for clinical use carry materially lower landed cost.

    In early-phase device trials, the investigational product is often the single largest variable cost item outside of site and monitoring fees. A 50 percent reduction in import tariffs on a novel transcatheter device, for example, can change the per-patient cost model meaningfully — particularly for seed-stage and Series A sponsors working with sub-$15 million clinical trial budgets.

    The tariff change also simplifies regulatory logistics. One of the historically cited friction points in Argentine FIH trials has been the import authorization process for investigational devices that were not commercially registered in Argentina. Lower tariff classification, combined with ANMAT’s active throughput cadence, reduces one layer of that friction.

    The $8 Billion Pharma Commitment

    The $8 billion multi-company pledge is not a single infrastructure project — it represents committed clinical research spend across seven major sponsors over six years. The practical implications:

    • Site infrastructure: When Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis are committing multi-year research spend to Argentina, they are investing in investigator networks, clinical infrastructure, and regulatory capacity at sites. This infrastructure — trained investigators, GCP-compliant facilities, ethics committees with high-volume experience — is precisely what a MedTech startup needs for an FIH feasibility study.
    • Regulatory capacity: ANMAT’s workload will increase, but so will its institutional capacity. Regulators that process high volumes of multi-national submissions develop faster, more predictable review cycles. Argentina approved 290 new clinical studies in 2025, an 8 percent year-over-year increase, with more than 1,000 active trials and 50,000+ participants enrolled. The $8 billion commitment is a signal that this trajectory accelerates.
    • International credibility: Large pharma’s visible commitment to Argentina as a clinical research destination reduces the country risk perception that smaller device sponsors sometimes encounter when presenting LATAM FIH data to US investors and regulatory reviewers.

    Practical Considerations for MedTech Sponsors

    A realistic timeline from engagement to first patient for a novel device FIH study in Argentina: Weeks 1–4 site identification; Weeks 5–8 ethics committee; Weeks 6–12 ANMAT authorization; Weeks 10–16 site initiation; Weeks 14–20 first patient in. The Argentina FIH environment also benefits from bioaccess® multi-country capability covering Argentina and Colombia as primary FIH jurisdictions.

    Sources