Blog

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

If you searched Vila Santa Catarina first-in-human, Hospital Municipal Vila Santa Catarina clinical trial, Vila Santa Catarina CRO, or “go direct Hospital Municipal Vila Santa Catarina,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Municipal Vila Santa Catarina in São Paulo, Brazil, is a real named municipal-hospital string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

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

This page is the named São Paulo Vila Santa Catarina campus. It is not Hospital Paulistano, not Hospital Samaritano, not Heliópolis (separate page), and not ICESP. Sharing São Paulo is not a license to collapse them.

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

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Hospital Municipal Vila Santa Catarina (São Paulo, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=8; DEVICE n=1. Example NCT IDs: NCT04554823, NCT05081674, NCT04831580.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Vila Santa Catarina first-in-human” finds ALL n=8 (DEVICE n=1) without finding ANVISA. A named municipal hospital is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANVISA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Hospital Municipal Vila Santa Catarina is a serious named São Paulo municipal hospital on the public registry. ALL n=8 / DEVICE n=1 is registry volume, not a punchline. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANVISA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Hospital Municipal Vila Santa Catarina directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Heliópolis or ICESP?

No. Heliópolis is Hospital Heliópolis São Paulo. ICESP has its own page. This page is Vila Santa Catarina only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT04554823?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. São Paulo siblings (do not merge): Heliópolis, ICESP.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Chapultepec Morelia first-in-human, Centro de Investigacion Clinica Chapultepec clinical trial, Chapultepec CRO, or “go direct Centro de Investigación Clínica Chapultepec Morelia,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Centro de Investigacion Clinica Chapultepec in Morelia, Mexico, is a real named research-center string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the COFEPRIS file.

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

This page is the named Morelia Chapultepec campus. It is not CECLIQ Querétaro (separate page), not a Mexico City Chapultepec landmark guess, not Axis Clinicals Latina, and not Hospital General de México. Sharing a Chapultepec name is not a license to collapse them.

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

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Centro de Investigacion Clinica Chapultepec (Morelia, Mexico) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=8; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT06937086, NCT04273945, NCT07202884.

Counts for the S.A are kept separate. de C.V. alias. We do not invent a CDMX campus onto this page.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Chapultepec Morelia first-in-human” finds ALL n=8 (DEVICE n=0) without finding COFEPRIS. A named research center is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

• COFEPRIS. COFEPRIS governs device investigations in Mexico. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub; combined start-up is cited there as a 2.8-month median. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A hallway conversation in Morelia is not a CECLIQ file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How COFEPRIS actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Mexico and CRO in Mexico. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub; combined start-up is cited there as a 2.8-month median. Keep trial clocks separate from registro sanitario (~30 working days on that hub). Eligibility of foreign data under 21 CFR 812.28 is not a guarantee of clearance.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not COFEPRIS clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Centro de Investigación Clínica Chapultepec is a serious named Morelia center on the public registry. ALL n=8 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the COFEPRIS / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Centro de Investigación Clínica Chapultepec Morelia directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as CECLIQ or Hospital General de México?

No. CECLIQ is CECLIQ Querétaro. Hospital General de México has its own page. This page is Chapultepec Morelia only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT06937086?

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

Next step

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

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched CECLIQ first-in-human, Centro de Estudios Clinicos de Queretaro clinical trial, CECLIQ CRO, or “go direct CECLIQ Querétaro,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Centro de Estudios Clínicos de Querétaro (CECLIQ) in Querétaro, Mexico, is a real named research-center string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the COFEPRIS file.

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

This page is the named Querétaro CECLIQ campus. It is not Centro de Investigación Clínica Chapultepec Morelia (separate page), not Morales Vargas, not Ciudad Madero, and not Axis Clinicals Latina. Sharing a CE-style acronym is not a license to collapse them.

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

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Centro de Estudios Clínicos de Querétaro (CECLIQ) (Querétaro, Mexico) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=8; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT05556512, NCT06226883, NCT04847557.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “CECLIQ first-in-human” finds ALL n=8 (DEVICE n=0) without finding COFEPRIS. A named research center is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

• COFEPRIS. COFEPRIS governs device investigations in Mexico. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub; combined start-up is cited there as a 2.8-month median. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A hallway conversation at CECLIQ is not a Morelia file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How COFEPRIS actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Mexico and CRO in Mexico. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub; combined start-up is cited there as a 2.8-month median. Keep trial clocks separate from registro sanitario (~30 working days on that hub). Eligibility of foreign data under 21 CFR 812.28 is not a guarantee of clearance.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not COFEPRIS clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

CECLIQ is a serious named Querétaro research center on the public registry. ALL n=8 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the COFEPRIS / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract CECLIQ Querétaro directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Chapultepec Morelia or Morales Vargas?

No. Chapultepec Morelia is Centro de Investigación Clínica Chapultepec Morelia. Morales Vargas has its own page. This page is CECLIQ only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT05556512?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Mexico sibling (do not merge): Chapultepec Morelia.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Clinica Coronel Suarez first-in-human, Coronel Suarez clinical trial, Coronel Suarez CRO, or “go direct Clínica Coronel Suárez,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Clinica Coronel Suarez in Coronel Suárez, Argentina, is a real named clinic string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANMAT file.

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

This page is the named Coronel Suárez campus. It is not Instituto del Buen Aire Santa Fe, not CEMAIC, not Go Centro Médico San Nicolás, and not Hospital El Cruce. Sharing Buenos Aires Province is not a license to collapse them.

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

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Clinica Coronel Suarez (Coronel Suárez, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=8; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT05754957, NCT00094302, NCT00168857.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Coronel Suárez first-in-human” finds ALL n=8 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT. A named clinic is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

• ANMAT. Argentina’s national medicines and devices authority (Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica) is the file a sponsor actually needs. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A published statutory target on the trial side is 90 business days and the clock pauses for RFIs. Trial authorization and commercial registro are separate petitions. A hallway conversation in Coronel Suárez is not a San Nicolás file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How ANMAT actually works (the short version)

Use live bioaccess® Argentina / ANMAT pages for the full pathway. Trial authorization and commercial registro are different petitions. Do not put both on one Gantt labeled “Argentina.” A published statutory target on the trial side is on the order of 90 business days and pauses for RFIs; ask for a protocol-specific calendar rather than treating an NCT row as start-up.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANMAT clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Clínica Coronel Suárez is a serious named Buenos Aires Province clinic on the public registry. ALL n=8 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANMAT / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Clínica Coronel Suárez directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as San Nicolás or Buen Aire Santa Fe?

No. Go Centro Médico San Nicolás has its own page. Instituto del Buen Aire has its own page. This page is Clínica Coronel Suárez only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT05754957?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Argentina siblings (do not merge): San Nicolás, Buen Aire.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Martti Antila first-in-human, Clinica de Alergia Martti Antila Sorocaba clinical trial, Martti Antila CRO, or “go direct Clínica de Alergia Martti Antila Sorocaba,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Clinica de Alergia Martti Antila in Sorocaba, Brazil, is a real named allergy-clinic string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

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

This page is the named Sorocaba Martti Antila campus. It is not LAL Valinhos, not São Germano, not CPCLIM Marília, and not CMiP. Sharing São Paulo state is not a license to collapse them.

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

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Clinica de Alergia Martti Antila (Sorocaba, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=8; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT04705597, NCT05735483, NCT07219173.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Martti Antila first-in-human” finds ALL n=8 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA. A named clinic is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANVISA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Clínica de Alergia Martti Antila is a serious named Sorocaba clinic on the public registry. ALL n=8 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANVISA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Clínica de Alergia Martti Antila Sorocaba directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as LAL Valinhos or São Germano?

No. LAL Valinhos has its own page. São Germano has its own page. This page is Martti Antila Sorocaba only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT04705597?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. São Paulo-state sibling (do not merge): LAL Valinhos.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Hospital Dia do Pulmao first-in-human, Hospital Dia do Pulmao Blumenau clinical trial, Pulmao Blumenau CRO, or “go direct Hospital Dia do Pulmão Blumenau,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Dia do Pulmão in Blumenau, Brazil, is a real named day-hospital string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

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

This page is the named Blumenau Hospital Dia do Pulmão campus. It is not CEPON, not Nereu Ramos, not Hospital São José Criciúma, and not AngioCor Blumenau as one combined entry. Sharing Santa Catarina is not a license to collapse them.

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

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Hospital Dia do Pulmão (Blumenau, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=8; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT04448756, NCT02657356, NCT04419558.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Pulmão Blumenau first-in-human” finds ALL n=8 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA. A named day hospital is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANVISA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Hospital Dia do Pulmão is a serious named Blumenau campus on the public registry. ALL n=8 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANVISA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Hospital Dia do Pulmão Blumenau directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as CEPON or Hospital São José Criciúma?

No. CEPON has its own page. Hospital São José Criciúma has its own page. This page is Hospital Dia do Pulmão only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT04448756?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Santa Catarina siblings (do not merge): CEPON, São José Criciúma.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Hospital Geral de Nova Iguacu first-in-human, Nova Iguacu clinical trial, Hospital Geral Nova Iguacu CRO, or “go direct Hospital Geral de Nova Iguaçu,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Geral de Nova Iguaçu in Nova Iguaçu, Brazil, is a real named general-hospital string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

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

This page is the named Nova Iguaçu Hospital Geral campus. It is not IPEC, not Instituto Américas COI, not Pedro Ernesto, and not Clementino / UFRJ (not covered on this page). Sharing Greater Rio is not a license to collapse them.

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

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Hospital Geral de Nova Iguaçu (Nova Iguaçu, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=8; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT07497594, NCT07584122, NCT00160849.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Nova Iguaçu first-in-human” finds ALL n=8 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA. A named general hospital is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANVISA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Hospital Geral de Nova Iguaçu is a serious named Baixada Fluminense hospital on the public registry. ALL n=8 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANVISA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Hospital Geral de Nova Iguaçu directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as IPEC or Instituto Américas COI?

No. IPEC has its own page. Instituto Américas COI has its own page. This page is Nova Iguaçu only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT07497594?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Rio-state siblings (do not merge): IPEC, COI.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Universidad de Guanajuato first-in-human, Universidad de Guanajuato Leon clinical trial, UGTO CRO, or “go direct Universidad de Guanajuato León,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Universidad de Guanajuato in León, Mexico, is a real named university string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the COFEPRIS file.

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

This page is the named León Universidad de Guanajuato campus. It is not Hospital Aranda de la Parra, not Morales Vargas, and not Universidad de Guadalajara. Sharing León is not a license to collapse them.

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

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Universidad de Guanajuato (León, Mexico) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=8; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT03209466, NCT04131582, NCT02635646.

Counts for “University of Guanajuato” are kept separate.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Universidad de Guanajuato first-in-human” finds ALL n=8 (DEVICE n=0) without finding COFEPRIS — and without landing on Aranda. A named university is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

• COFEPRIS. COFEPRIS governs device investigations in Mexico. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub; combined start-up is cited there as a 2.8-month median. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A hallway conversation at UGTO is not an Aranda file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How COFEPRIS actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Mexico and CRO in Mexico. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub; combined start-up is cited there as a 2.8-month median. Keep trial clocks separate from registro sanitario (~30 working days on that hub). Eligibility of foreign data under 21 CFR 812.28 is not a guarantee of clearance.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not COFEPRIS clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Universidad de Guanajuato is a serious named León university on the public registry. ALL n=8 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the COFEPRIS / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Universidad de Guanajuato León directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Aranda de la Parra or Morales Vargas?

No. Aranda has its own page. Morales Vargas has its own page. This page is Universidad de Guanajuato only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT03209466?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. León siblings (do not merge): Aranda, Morales Vargas.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

If you searched Centro Medico del Angel first-in-human, Centro Medico del Angel Mexicali clinical trial, del Angel CRO, or “go direct Centro Médico del Ángel Mexicali,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Centro Medico del Angel in Mexicali, Mexico, is a real named medical-center string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the COFEPRIS file.

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

This page is the named Mexicali Centro Médico del Ángel campus. It is not the arthritis/osteoporosis Mexicali center, not FAICIC, and not Morales Vargas León. Sharing Mexicali is not a license to collapse them.

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

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Centro Medico del Angel (Mexicali, Mexico) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=10; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT05516758, NCT04634253, NCT06807424.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “del Ángel Mexicali first-in-human” finds ALL n=10 (DEVICE n=0) without finding COFEPRIS — and without landing on the arthritis campus. A named medical center is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

• COFEPRIS. COFEPRIS governs device investigations in Mexico. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub; combined start-up is cited there as a 2.8-month median. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A hallway conversation at del Ángel is not the arthritis/osteoporosis Mexicali file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How COFEPRIS actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in Mexico and CRO in Mexico. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub; combined start-up is cited there as a 2.8-month median. Keep trial clocks separate from registro sanitario (~30 working days on that hub). Eligibility of foreign data under 21 CFR 812.28 is not a guarantee of clearance.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not COFEPRIS clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Centro Médico del Ángel is a serious named Mexicali center on the public registry. ALL n=10 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the COFEPRIS / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Centro Médico del Ángel Mexicali directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Mexicali arthritis/osteoporosis?

No. That campus has its own page. This page is Centro Médico del Ángel only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT05516758?

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

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Mexicali sibling (do not merge): Artritis y Osteoporosis Mexicali.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

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

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

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

This page is the named Santa Fe Instituto del Buen Aire campus. It is not Sanatorio Parque Rosario, not Instituto CAICI, not CEMAIC, and not Hospital El Cruce. Sharing Santa Fe Province is not a license to collapse a Rosario campus onto this page.

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

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Instituto Del Buen Aire (Santa Fe, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=8; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT03381196, NCT05878769, NCT05785624.

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

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

That is the leak: a founder searching “Buen Aire Santa Fe first-in-human” finds ALL n=8 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT. A named institute is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

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

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

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

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

• ANMAT. Argentina’s national medicines and devices authority (Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica) is the file a sponsor actually needs. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A published statutory target on the trial side is 90 business days and the clock pauses for RFIs. Trial authorization and commercial registro are separate petitions. A hallway conversation in Santa Fe city is not a Rosario file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

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

How ANMAT actually works (the short version)

Use live bioaccess® Argentina / ANMAT pages for the full pathway. Trial authorization and commercial registro are different petitions. Do not put both on one Gantt labeled “Argentina.” A published statutory target on the trial side is on the order of 90 business days and pauses for RFIs; ask for a protocol-specific calendar rather than treating an NCT row as start-up.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANMAT clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Not a critique of the hospital

Instituto del Buen Aire is a serious named Santa Fe institute on the public registry. ALL n=8 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANMAT / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

A site-name search sometimes arrives with a stale story that bioaccess® “left Colombia.” That is false. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. Always bioaccess® — local entity and office, Miami headquarters, INVIMA clocks in-country. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Instituto del Buen Aire Santa Fe directly for a device FIH?

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

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

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

Is this the same page as Sanatorio Parque or CEMAIC?

No. Sanatorio Parque Rosario has its own page. CEMAIC has its own page. This page is Instituto del Buen Aire Santa Fe only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT03381196?

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

Next step

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

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®