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 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 Alexander Fleming as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Instituto Alexander Fleming first-in-human, Alexander Fleming Buenos Aires clinical trial, IAF Buenos Aires CRO, or “go direct Instituto Alexander Fleming,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Instituto Alexander Fleming in Buenos Aires, Argentina, is a real named oncology-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, institutional 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 Buenos Aires oncology institute. It is not Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, not Hospital Británico, not ICESP, not Barretos, not A.C. Camargo, not CORI, not Liga Norte, and not INCan. Sharing Buenos Aires or sharing an oncology search 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.

• Instituto Alexander Fleming (Buenos Aires, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=23; DEVICE n=1. Example NCT IDs: NCT00026338, NCT00040183, NCT00069745.

We will not invent a combined alias count with HIBA or Británico. We will not invent extra DEVICE IDs. DEVICE n=1 is first-alpha among remaining ALL=23 DEVICE=1 rows in this pick table; that is a ranking note, not a quality claim.

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 “Instituto Alexander Fleming first-in-human” or “Alexander Fleming Buenos Aires clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=23 (DEVICE n=1) without finding ANMAT, ethics, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on HIBA, Británico, ICESP, Barretos, Camargo, CORI, Liga Norte, or INCan. A named oncology 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 at Fleming is not a HIBA file, not a Británico file, and not an ICESP, Barretos, Camargo, CORI, Liga Norte, or INCan 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 institute

Instituto Alexander Fleming is a serious named Buenos Aires oncology institute on the public registry. ALL n=23 and DEVICE n=1 are registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from HIBA, Británico, ICESP, Barretos, Camargo, CORI, Liga Norte, or INCan. 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 Alexander Fleming 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 HIBA, Hospital Británico, ICESP, Barretos, A.C. Camargo, CORI, Liga Norte, or INCan?

No. HIBA has its own page. Británico has its own page. ICESP has its own page. Barretos has its own page. Camargo has its own page. CORI has its own page. Liga Norte has its own page. INCan has its own page. This page is Instituto Alexander Fleming, Buenos Aires only.

Is this Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires?

No. HIBA has its own page. This page is Instituto Alexander Fleming. Sharing Buenos Aires is not a merge.

Is this ICESP, Barretos, Camargo, or INCan?

No. Those are already-live oncology pages in Brazil or Mexico. This page is Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Why DEVICE n=1?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count for this string. It is still not ANMAT authorization. A published statutory target on the trial side is on the order of 90 business days and pauses for RFIs. Trial versus registro remain different petitions.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00026338?

No. We cite it as facility evidence for this string. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran it.

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. Buenos Aires sibling (do not merge): Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. São Paulo oncology sibling (do not merge): A.C. Camargo.

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 Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro first-in-human, UFRJ clinical trial, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro CRO, or “go direct Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 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 ANVISA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the university 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 university still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the UFRJ university NCT string. It is not IBPClin (separate page, a named investigative institute on a different page). It is not Instituto Nacional de Cancer Rio (different NCT string, not this page). It is not University of São Paulo, not UNIFESP, and not UFMG. Sharing a Brazilian federal-university search 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.

• Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=23; DEVICE n=2. Example NCT IDs: NCT00023452, NCT00151892, NCT00656721.

We will not invent a combined alias count with IBPClin. We will not invent a DEVICE n beyond the ranking table. Instituto Nacional de Cancer Rio is not covered on 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 university as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “UFRJ first-in-human” or “Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=23 (DEVICE n=2) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on IBPClin, Instituto Nacional de Cancer Rio, USP, UNIFESP, or UFMG. A named university string 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:

• 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 UFRJ is not an IBPClin file, not an Instituto Nacional de Cancer Rio file, and not a USP, UNIFESP, or UFMG 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 university

Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro is a serious named university on the public registry. ALL n=23 and DEVICE n=2 are registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from IBPClin, Instituto Nacional de Cancer Rio, USP, UNIFESP, or UFMG. 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 Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro 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 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 university. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as IBPClin, Instituto Nacional de Cancer Rio, USP, UNIFESP, or UFMG?

No. IBPClin is the Rio clinic page. Instituto Nacional de Cancer Rio is a different NCT string, not this page. USP has its own page. UNIFESP has its own page. UFMG has its own page. This page is UFRJ only.

Is this IBPClin?

No. IBPClin is Instituto Brasil de Pesquisa Clínica, a named investigative institute. UFRJ is the university string.

Is this Instituto Nacional de Cancer Rio?

No. That is a different NCT string, not this page. Sharing Rio de Janeiro is not a merge.

Is this USP, UNIFESP, or UFMG?

No. Those are already-live university pages in other Brazilian cities. This page is Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00023452?

No. We cite it as facility evidence for this string. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran it.

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. Country: clinical trials in Brazil. São Paulo university sibling (do not merge): University of Sao Paulo.

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 University of Campinas as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched University of Campinas first-in-human, UNICAMP clinical trial, Universidade Estadual de Campinas CRO, or “go direct University of Campinas,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. University of Campinas (UNICAMP) in Campinas, Brazil, 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 ANVISA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the university 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 university still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the UNICAMP university NCT string. It is not Centro de Pesquisa São Lucas Campinas. Sharing Campinas is not a license to collapse them. Piracicaba Dental School is a school campus of the same university system, not this page. Aliases Universidade Estadual de Campinas and short UNICAMP stay on this page; we do not ship second pages.

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.

• University of Campinas (Campinas, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=23; DEVICE n=4. Example NCT IDs: NCT00787553, NCT01032798, NCT01125254.
• Alias Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Campinas): ALL n=14. Listed separately. Same page. No combined total.
• Alias UNICAMP (Campinas): ALL n=2. Listed separately. Same page. No combined total.

Alias counts are listed separately. The 23+14+2 counts are not added together. DEVICE n=4 is the highest DEVICE among remaining ALL=23 rows in this pick table; we will not invent extra DEVICE IDs. Piracicaba Dental School is not 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 university as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “UNICAMP first-in-human” or “University of Campinas clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=23 (DEVICE n=4) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Centro de Pesquisa São Lucas Campinas or on Piracicaba Dental School as a second hospital page. A named university string 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:

• 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 on the UNICAMP university string is not a São Lucas Campinas research-center file and is not a Piracicaba Dental School 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 university

University of Campinas is a serious named university on the public registry. ALL n=23 and DEVICE n=4 are registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from Centro de Pesquisa São Lucas Campinas. 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 University of Campinas 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 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 university. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Centro de Pesquisa São Lucas Campinas or Piracicaba Dental School?

No. São Lucas Campinas has its own page, a named research-center string. Piracicaba Dental School is a school campus, not this page. Universidade Estadual de Campinas ALL n=14 and UNICAMP ALL n=2 stay listed separately on this page; we do not combine them.

Should I add ALL n=23, Universidade Estadual n=14, and UNICAMP n=2?

No. Alias n is listed separately. A combined unique-study total is not published. Portuguese and short strings stay on this page.

Is this Centro de Pesquisa São Lucas Campinas?

No. São Lucas Campinas has its own page. This page is the University of Campinas / UNICAMP university string.

Is Piracicaba Dental School this page?

No. Piracicaba Dental School is a school campus, not this page. We do not ship it as a second UNICAMP hospital page here.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00787553?

No. We cite it as facility evidence for this string. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran it.

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. Country: clinical trials in Brazil. Campinas sibling (do not merge): Centro de Pesquisa São Lucas Campinas.

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 Medical Care and Research Mérida as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Medical Care and Research Merida first-in-human, Medical Care and Research SA de CV clinical trial, Mérida CRO Mexico, or “go direct Medical Care and Research Mérida,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Medical Care and Research SA de CV in Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico, is a real named research-clinic string on ClinicalTrials.gov. This is the first Mérida page in this series. 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 clinic is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns COFEPRIS, institutional 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 Mérida clinic. It is not Oaxaca, not FAICIC Veracruz, not Scientia Chihuahua, not Clinical Research Institute Tlalnepantla, not INCMNSZ, and not INCan. Sharing a Mexican research-clinic search is not a license to collapse them. Punctuation alias Medical Care & Research SA de CV stays on this page; we do not ship a second 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.

• Medical Care and Research SA de CV (Mérida, Mexico) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=24; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT04255433, NCT04365868, NCT05256654.
• Punctuation alias Medical Care & Research SA de CV (Mérida): ALL n=23. Listed separately. Same page. We do not invent a combined unique-study total of 24+23. We do not ship a second page for the ampersand.

These counts are not added together. We will not invent a DEVICE n. First Mérida 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 clinic as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Medical Care and Research Mérida clinical trial” or “Medical Care and Research SA de CV FIH” finds canonical ALL n=24 (DEVICE n=0) without finding COFEPRIS, ethics, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Oaxaca, FAICIC, Scientia, CRI Tlalnepantla, INCMNSZ, or INCan. 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:

• 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 Mérida is not an Oaxaca, FAICIC, Scientia, Tlalnepantla, INCMNSZ, or INCan 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 clinic

Medical Care and Research SA de CV is a serious named Mérida research clinic on the public registry. ALL n=24 is registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from Oaxaca, FAICIC, Scientia, CRI Tlalnepantla, INCMNSZ, or INCan. 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 Medical Care and Research Mérida 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 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 clinic. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Oaxaca, FAICIC, Scientia Chihuahua, CRI Tlalnepantla, INCMNSZ, or INCan?

No. Oaxaca has its own page. FAICIC has its own page. Scientia has its own page. CRI Tlalnepantla has its own page. INCMNSZ has its own page. INCan has its own page. This page is Medical Care and Research, Mérida only. Ampersand alias ALL n=23 stays listed separately; we do not combine them. First Mérida page.

Should I add canonical ALL n=24 and ampersand alias ALL n=23?

No. Alias n is listed separately. A combined unique-study total is not published. The ampersand spelling is the same Mérida campus on the same page.

Is this INCMNSZ or INCan?

No. Those are Mexico City national-institute pages. This page is Mérida, Yucatán.

Why DEVICE n=0?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count for this string. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=24 is still not COFEPRIS authorization. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks; COFEPRIS typically 4–8 weeks after ethics; 2.8-month median start-up on the Mexico hub; registro ~30 working days.

Did bioaccess® run NCT04255433?

No. We cite it as facility evidence for this string. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran it.

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 hub: clinical trials in Mexico. Mexico City sibling (do not merge): INCMNSZ. Chihuahua sibling: Scientia Chihuahua.

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 de Oncología de Rosario as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Instituto de Oncologia de Rosario first-in-human, Instituto de Oncología Rosario clinical trial, IOR Rosario CRO, or “go direct Instituto de Oncología de Rosario,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Instituto de Oncología de Rosario in Rosario, Argentina, is a real named oncology-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, institutional 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 Rosario oncology institute. It is not Hospital Provincial del Centenario, not INECO, not Fundación de Estudios Clínicos Rosario, not Sanatorio Parque, not ICESP, not Barretos, not A.C. Camargo, and not CORI. Sharing Rosario or sharing an oncology search is not a license to collapse them. Unaccented Instituto de Oncologia de Rosario is a spelling alias on this page, not a second 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 de Oncología de Rosario (Rosario, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=24; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT01026142, NCT01572038, NCT01641939.
• Unaccented alias Instituto de Oncologia de Rosario: ALL n=22. Listed separately. Same page. We do not invent a combined unique-study total of 24+22. We do not ship a second page for the missing accent.

These counts are not added together. We will not invent a DEVICE n.

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 “Instituto de Oncología de Rosario clinical trial” or “IOR Rosario FIH” finds canonical ALL n=24 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT, ethics, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Centenario, INECO, Estudios Clínicos, Sanatorio Parque, ICESP, Barretos, Camargo, or CORI. A named oncology 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 at this Rosario institute is not a Centenario, INECO, Estudios Clínicos, Parque, ICESP, Barretos, Camargo, or CORI 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 institute

Instituto de Oncología de Rosario is a serious named Rosario oncology resource on the public registry. ALL n=24 is registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from Centenario, INECO, Estudios Clínicos, Sanatorio Parque, ICESP, Barretos, Camargo, or CORI. 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 de Oncología de Rosario 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 Centenario, INECO, Estudios Clínicos Rosario, Sanatorio Parque, ICESP, Barretos, Camargo, or CORI?

No. Centenario has its own page. INECO has its own page. Estudios Clínicos Rosario has its own page. Sanatorio Parque has its own page. ICESP has its own page. Barretos has its own page. Camargo has its own page. CORI has its own page. This page is Instituto de Oncología de Rosario only. Unaccented ALL n=22 stays listed separately; we do not combine them.

Should I add canonical ALL n=24 and unaccented ALL n=22?

No. Alias n is listed separately. A combined unique-study total is not published. The missing accent is the same Rosario campus on the same page.

Is this ICESP, Barretos, or A.C. Camargo?

No. Those are Brazilian oncology pages already published. This page is Rosario, Argentina.

Why DEVICE n=0?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count for this string. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=24 is still not ANMAT authorization.

Did bioaccess® run NCT01026142?

No. We cite it as facility evidence for this string. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran it.

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. Rosario sibling (do not merge): Fundación de Estudios Clínicos Rosario. São Paulo oncology sibling (do not merge): A.C. Camargo.

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 São Rafael as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Hospital Sao Rafael first-in-human, Hospital São Rafael Salvador clinical trial, HSR Salvador CRO, or “go direct Hospital São Rafael,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Sao Rafael in Salvador, Brazil, is a real named 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 Salvador hospital. It is not Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia (different NCT string, same city — not this page). Sharing Salvador is not a license to collapse them. Alias Hospital Sao Rafael – HSR stays on this page; we do not ship a second 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.

• Hospital Sao Rafael (Salvador, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=24; DEVICE n=2. Example NCT IDs: NCT00340834, NCT02003924, NCT03165734.
• Alias Hospital Sao Rafael – HSR (Salvador): ALL n=20. Listed separately. Same page. We do not invent a combined unique-study total of 24+20. We do not ship a second page for the HSR suffix.

These counts are not added together. DEVICE n=2 edges other ALL=24 rows; we will not invent extra DEVICE IDs.

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 “Hospital São Rafael Salvador clinical trial” or “HSR Salvador FIH” finds canonical ALL n=24 (DEVICE n=2) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia. A named 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 Hospital São Rafael is not a Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia 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 Sao Rafael is a serious named Salvador hospital on the public registry. ALL n=24 and DEVICE n=2 are registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia. 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 São Rafael 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 Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia?

No. Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia is a different NCT string in the same city, not this page. Alias Hospital Sao Rafael – HSR ALL n=20 stays listed separately on this page; we do not combine them.

Should I add canonical ALL n=24 and HSR alias ALL n=20?

No. Alias n is listed separately. A combined unique-study total is not published. The HSR suffix is the same Salvador campus on the same page.

Is this Núcleo de Oncologia da Bahia?

No. That is a different NCT string in Salvador. Same city is not the same hospital. It is not covered on this page.

Why DEVICE n=2?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count for the canonical string. It edges other ALL=24 rows. It is still not ANVISA authorization. Combined ethics + ANVISA is typically 6–10 weeks; CEPs 30 business days; per-patient $20,000–$35,000 as published on the Brazil country page.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00340834?

No. We cite it as facility evidence for this string. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran it.

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. Country: clinical trials in Brazil.

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 IBPClin as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched IBPClin first-in-human, Instituto Brasil de Pesquisa Clínica clinical trial, IBPClin Rio CRO, or “go direct IBPClin,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. IBPClin — Instituto Brasil de Pesquisa Clínica in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is a real named investigative-institute string on ClinicalTrials.gov. This is the first Rio de Janeiro clinic page in this series. 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 institute 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 institute still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Rio investigative institute. It is not CEPIC, not CPQuali, not CPCLIN, and not CEMEC. It is not Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (separate page, a university string on a different page). Sharing a Rio de Janeiro search or sharing a “pesquisa clínica” token 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.

• IBPClin – Instituto Brasil de Pesquisa Clínica (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=25; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT03899259, NCT03952559, NCT04255433.

We will not invent a combined alias count with UFRJ. We will not invent a DEVICE n. First Rio clinic page; UFRJ stays.

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 “IBPClin Rio first-in-human” or “Instituto Brasil de Pesquisa Clínica clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=25 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA, CEP, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on CEPIC, CPQuali, CPCLIN, CEMEC, or UFRJ. A named research 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:

• 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 IBPClin is not a CEPIC, CPQuali, CPCLIN, CEMEC, or UFRJ 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 institute

IBPClin is a serious named Rio investigative institute on the public registry. ALL n=25 is registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from CEPIC, CPQuali, CPCLIN, CEMEC, or UFRJ. 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 IBPClin 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 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 institute. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as CEPIC, CPQuali, CPCLIN, CEMEC, or Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro?

No. CEPIC has its own page. CPQuali has its own page. CPCLIN has its own page. CEMEC has its own page. UFRJ is a different Rio university string. This page is IBPClin only. First Rio clinic page.

Is this UFRJ?

No. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro is a university NCT string. IBPClin is a named investigative institute. Rio is not a merge key.

Is this CEPIC, CPQuali, CPCLIN, or CEMEC?

No. Those are already-live research-center pages in other Brazilian cities. This page is IBPClin, Rio de Janeiro.

Why DEVICE n=0?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count for this string. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=25 is still not ANVISA authorization. Combined ethics + ANVISA is typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs 30 business days; published per-patient $20,000–$35,000 on the Brazil country page.

Did bioaccess® run NCT03899259?

No. We cite it as facility evidence for this string. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran it.

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. Country: clinical trials in Brazil. São Paulo research-center sibling (do not merge): CPCLIN.

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 Hospital Privado Centro Médico de Córdoba as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Hospital Privado Centro Medico de Cordoba first-in-human, Hospital Privado Córdoba clinical trial, Centro Médico Córdoba CRO, or “go direct Hospital Privado Centro Médico de Córdoba,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Privado Centro Medico de Cordoba in Córdoba, Argentina, is a real named private-hospital 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 hospital is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANMAT, institutional 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 hospital still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Córdoba private hospital. It is not Sanatorio Allende, not Hospital San Roque Córdoba, and not Instituto Médico Río Cuarto. Sharing Córdoba or sharing a private-hospital search is not a license to collapse them. Río Cuarto is a different city.

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 Privado Centro Medico de Cordoba (Córdoba, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=25; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT00071331, NCT00232596, NCT00310375.

We will not invent a combined alias count. We will not invent a DEVICE n. We do not ship Allende or San Roque as 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 hospital as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Hospital Privado Córdoba first-in-human” or “Centro Médico de Córdoba clinical trial” finds canonical ALL n=25 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT, ethics, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Allende, San Roque Córdoba, or Instituto Médico Río Cuarto. A named private 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:

• 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 at Hospital Privado is not an Allende file, not a San Roque Córdoba file, and not a Río Cuarto 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

Hospital Privado Centro Medico de Cordoba is a serious named Córdoba private hospital on the public registry. ALL n=25 is registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from Allende, San Roque Córdoba, or Instituto Médico Río Cuarto. 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 Hospital Privado Centro Médico de Córdoba 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 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 hospital. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Sanatorio Allende, Hospital San Roque Córdoba, or Instituto Médico Río Cuarto?

No. Allende has its own page. San Roque Córdoba has its own page. Instituto Médico Río Cuarto has its own page. This page is Hospital Privado Centro Medico de Cordoba only.

Is this Sanatorio Allende?

No. Allende is a different Córdoba campus. Same city is not the same NCT string.

Is this Hospital San Roque Córdoba?

No. San Roque Córdoba has its own page. This page is Hospital Privado Centro Medico de Cordoba.

Why DEVICE n=0?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count for this string. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=25 is still not ANMAT authorization.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00071331?

No. We cite it as facility evidence for this string. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran it.

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. Córdoba sibling (do not merge): Hospital San Roque Córdoba. Río Cuarto sibling: Instituto Médico Río Cuarto.

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 Fundación Scherbovsky as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Fundacion Scherbovsky first-in-human, Scherbovsky Mendoza clinical trial, Fundación Scherbovsky CRO Argentina, or “go direct Fundación Scherbovsky,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Fundacion Scherbovsky in Mendoza, Argentina, is a real named clinical-research-foundation string on ClinicalTrials.gov. This is the first Mendoza page in this series. 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 foundation is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANMAT, institutional 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 foundation still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Mendoza foundation. It is not Sanatorio Allende (Córdoba), not CORI (La Rioja), and not CIPREC. Sharing an Argentine research search is not a license to collapse them. Mendoza is not Córdoba and is not La Rioja.

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.

• Fundacion Scherbovsky (Mendoza, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=25; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT02918019, NCT03443973, NCT03733444.

We will not invent an alias n for this string. We will not invent a DEVICE n. We do not invent a second Mendoza 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 foundation as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Fundación Scherbovsky clinical trial” or “Scherbovsky Mendoza FIH” finds canonical ALL n=25 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT, ethics, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on Allende, CORI, or CIPREC. A named foundation is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

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

A named foundation 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 foundation 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 foundation 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 Mendoza is not an Allende Córdoba file and is not a CORI La Rioja 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 foundation

Fundacion Scherbovsky is a serious named Mendoza research foundation on the public registry. ALL n=25 is registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from Allende, CORI, or CIPREC. 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 Fundación Scherbovsky directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The foundation 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 foundation. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Sanatorio Allende, CORI, or CIPREC?

No. Allende has its own page (Córdoba). CORI has its own page (La Rioja). CIPREC has its own page. This page is Fundacion Scherbovsky, Mendoza only. First Mendoza page in the series.

Is this the first Mendoza page?

Yes. This is the Mendoza named-foundation page. We do not invent a second Mendoza page from a spelling variant we did not publish.

Is this Sanatorio Allende?

No. Allende is Córdoba. Mendoza versus Córdoba is the filter.

Why DEVICE n=0?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count for this string. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=25 is still not ANMAT authorization.

Did bioaccess® run NCT02918019?

No. We cite it as facility evidence for this string. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran it.

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. Córdoba sibling (do not merge): Hospital San Roque Córdoba. Buenos Aires sibling: Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires.

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 Centro de Investigaciones Médicas Mar del Plata as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Centro de Investigaciones Medicas Mar del Plata first-in-human, CIM Mar del Plata clinical trial, Mar del Plata CRO Argentina, or “go direct Centro de Investigaciones Médicas Mar del Plata,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Centro de Investigaciones Medicas Mar del Plata in Mar del Plata, Argentina, is a real named medical-research-center 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 center is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANMAT, institutional 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 Mar del Plata medical-research center. It is not Centro de Investigaciones Médicas Tucumán, not CIPREC, and not CINME. Sharing “investigaciones médicas” in another Argentine city is not a license to collapse them. Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas Mar del Plata is a different organization (different NCT string family; not this page). It does not have a second page here.

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 Investigaciones Medicas Mar del Plata (Mar del Plata, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=25; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT01885078, NCT02620046, NCT02760407.
• Alias Centro de Investigaciones Medicas Mar Del Plata (capital D in Del): ALL n=21. Listed separately. Same page. We do not invent a combined unique-study total of 25+21. We do not ship a second page.
• Accented alias Centro de Investigaciones Médicas Mar del Plata: ALL n=20. Listed separately. Same page. No combined total.

Alias counts are listed separately. The 25+21+20 counts are not added together. We will not invent a DEVICE n.

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 “CIM Mar del Plata clinical trial” or “Centro de Investigaciones Médicas Mar del Plata FIH” finds canonical ALL n=25 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT, ethics, import, insurance, or 21 CFR 812.28 — and without landing on CIM Tucumán, CIPREC, CINME, or the Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas Mar del Plata string. 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:

• 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 Mar del Plata is not a Tucumán CIM file and is not a Buenos Aires CIPREC or CINME 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 center

Centro de Investigaciones Medicas Mar del Plata is a serious named research center on the public registry. ALL n=25 is registry volume, not a punchline. It is separate from CIM Tucumán, CIPREC, CINME, or Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas Mar del Plata. 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 Centro de Investigaciones Médicas Mar del Plata 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 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 center. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as CIM Tucumán, CIPREC, CINME, or Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas Mar del Plata?

No. CIM Tucumán has its own page. CIPREC has its own page. CINME has its own page. Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas Mar del Plata is a different organization, not this page. This page is Centro de Investigaciones Medicas Mar del Plata only. Alias ALL n=21 and accented ALL n=20 stay listed separately; we do not combine them.

Should I add canonical ALL n=25, alias ALL n=21, and accented ALL n=20?

No. Alias n is listed separately. A combined unique-study total is not published. Capital-D “Mar Del Plata” and the accented spelling stay on this page.

Is Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas Mar del Plata this campus?

No. That is a different organization with a different NCT string. It is not covered on this page. Sharing Mar del Plata is not a merge.

Why DEVICE n=0?

That is the ranking-table DEVICE count for this string. We will not invent a DEVICE ranking. ALL n=25 is still not ANMAT authorization.

Did bioaccess® run NCT01885078?

No. We cite it as facility evidence for this string. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran it.

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): CIM Tucumán. Buenos Aires academic sibling: Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®