Free scoping read. A written assessment of your manuscript in two business days, at no cost.

Start one

Home/Therapeutics/Rare disease

Rare Disease Medical Writing, Statistics and Regulatory Documentation

Pubrica supports sponsors and clinical research teams developing treatments for rare diseases with medical writing, statistical analysis, regulatory documentation and publications. Projects include single-arm trials with external or natural-history controls, n-of-1 and crossover designs, registries and orphan designation dossiers. We prepare protocols, statistical analysis plans, clinical study reports, submission summaries and manuscripts, and document how closely natural-history cohorts match the trial population. A designated project lead coordinates the protocol, analysis plan, study report and publications to keep data interpretation and messaging consistent.

In this areaone named lead

We identify the reporting guideline and extension that fit your study design during the free scoping read.

Every programme
  • Assigned by indication
  • One named lead throughout
  • Reporting guideline identified
  • Mutual NDA on request
  • You remain the sponsor

Scope of Work

Rare disease study types, guidelines and analysis issues

Small patient populations often rule out conventional randomised designs, so rare disease programmes rely on external controls, natural-history data and registries. The design determines the reporting guideline and the points assessors and payers examine.

Typical study types

Typical study types

Single-arm trials with external or natural-history controls, n-of-1 and crossover designs, registries and orphan dossiers.

Reporting guidelines

Guidelines and extensions applied

CONSORT extensions for small populations, STROBE for natural-history studies, and regulatory guidance on small-population clinical trials.

Key analysis issue

Points reviewers examine closely

External controls: whether a natural-history cohort is comparable enough to support the planned comparison.

Common review points

Common review points in rare disease submissions

Assessors reviewing rare disease programmes frequently raise the points below. We check each one before documents are filed.

Points we check before filing

Common review findingExternal control cohorts assembled without documented comparability, so the treatment effect cannot be separated from patient selection.
Payer evidence needsPayers want natural-history data as well as trial data. Setting up the registry late is a common gap.
Reporting guideline checkIncluded in the free scoping read: an item-by-item check that the required guideline extension has been applied
Cross-document consistency checkConfirms that the clinical overview, study report and publications present the results consistently

Services for this area

Services for rare disease programmes

Services are grouped by programme stage. Device and diagnostic work follows MDR and IVDR rather than ICH and is covered on the relevant industry pages.

Services can be ordered individually or as a programme. A designated project lead coordinates the documents so that data and messaging stay consistent.

Who We Serve

Who we support in rare disease

The free scoping read is written for the team that requests it, whichever function it sits in.

Teams we work with

Regulatory affairsDossier modules and health-authority responses in this indication
Clinical developmentProtocols and study reports that follow the applicable reporting guideline
BiostatisticsAnalysis plans and estimands appropriate to the endpoint
Medical affairsPublication plans and congress content timed to data readouts
Market accessValue dossiers and HTA submissions prepared for the assessing agency
Principal investigatorsPrimary manuscripts and the responses that follow review

Our compliance and guideline standards

Guidelines applied at the current edition

Each deliverable names the guideline and extension your design requires, and the edition used. Writing to the current edition reduces the risk of findings linked to superseded guidance.

Standards applied in this area

This area’s standardCONSORT extensions for small populations, STROBE for natural-history studies, and regulatory guidance on small-population clinical trials.
ICH E3, E6 and E9Study reports, good clinical practice and statistical principles
ICH E9(R1)The estimand framework, which defines what the treatment effect estimates
ICH M4The common technical document and its modules
PRISMA 2020 and GRADEEvidence synthesis and certainty of evidence
CHEERS 2022Health economic evaluation, to the assessing agency’s reference case
ICMJE and GPP 2022Authorship and good publication practice
ISO 9001:2015The quality system the process itself runs under

Where AI is used, and where it is not

Used for search and formatting. Not used to write your science.

This policy applies in every therapy area and to every deadline.

Our AI policy

Used forLiterature search expansion, de-duplication, reference formatting and consistency checks
Not used forDrafting clinical content, interpreting results or generating text submitted under your name
DisclosedWhere a tool touched a deliverable, the handover says which tool and for what
Your dataNever used to train a model, and never sent to a service that would

How it works

Five steps, starting with a free scoping read

We review your programme before providing a quote.

One

Scoping read

Free, within two business days: what the programme needs, who would lead it and the expected cost.

Two

Named lead

A lead matched to the indication is assigned before work starts and coordinates the programme throughout.

Three

Outline approval

Every section and its source, approved before drafting.

Four

Drafting and review

Independent review, QC and reference verification, each signed off separately.

Five

Handover

The deliverable with its working material, revised within the agreed scope.

After

Follow-up questions

Reviewer and health-authority questions are answered by the writer of the document.

Our Experts

Who works on rare disease projects

Writers are assigned by indication, not by availability. They hold a master’s degree or doctorate in life sciences, medicine or pharmacy and have at least five years in the field. Regulatory writers work to the guidance that governs each document.

Team roles

A therapy-area leadCoordinates the programme and is named before work starts
Regulatory medical writersICH-structured documents, with the guidance edition tracked
StatisticiansEstimands, analysis plans and outputs a reviewer can trace
Information specialistsReproducible searches for the literature-based components
Independent reviewersA second qualified person, who did not write the draft
Health economistsPrepare payer evidence alongside the clinical documents

Sample work

Sample deliverables

Published where the sponsor agreed, redacted where they asked.

Benefits

Benefits of indication-matched teams

What clients receive on every programme.

What you get

Correct reporting guidelineThe applicable guideline extension is confirmed in the scoping read, before drafting
Consistent documentsThe clinical overview, study report and manuscripts present the data consistently
Known review pointsYour lead identifies the points assessors are likely to question in this area
Early payer planningPayer evidence needs are identified before the dossier is written
Unlimited revisions within the agreed scopeWithin the agreed scope, without a per-round charge
You are the sponsorNamed throughout; we do not offer ghost authorship

Packages

Priced per programme, not per page

A 4,000-word study report and a 4,000-word overview involve different work, so we do not price by word count. The free scoping read gives you a programme-level figure for your budget.

First

Scoping read

Free, two business days. A written assessment of what the programme needs.

Then

A written scope

Documents, standards, named team and timeline, agreed before work starts.

Quoted

Per programme

One price for the agreed scope, with revisions included within the agreed scope rather than billed per round.

Rare disease FAQs

Questions from rare disease teams

Yes. Leads are assigned by indication and have worked in this area. They know that the comparability of external and natural-history control cohorts is a frequent review point and address it before the document is written, not after it comes back. If no one on our panel is a suitable match, we tell you and decline the project.

The study design determines the guideline, not the indication. For rare disease work this is usually a CONSORT extension for small populations, STROBE for natural-history studies, and regulatory guidance on small-population clinical trials. We confirm the applicable extension in the free scoping read, because revising a finished report to a different guideline is harder than writing to it from the start.

External control cohorts assembled without documented comparability, so the treatment effect cannot be separated from patient selection. We check this on every rare disease programme before filing, when it is easier and less costly to correct.

Payers want natural-history data as well as trial data, and registries set up late are a common gap. The scoping read identifies this early, while the evidence plan can still be adjusted.

Yes. A designated project lead coordinates the protocol, statistical analysis plan, clinical study report and publications to keep data interpretation and messaging consistent. Health-authority questions are answered by the writer of the document concerned.

We do not operate your pharmacovigilance system. We write the risk management plan and periodic reports, but case processing and reporting to authorities stay within your own PV system under your qualified person. We do not conduct trials, audit or certify GCP or GMP compliance, or claim authorship of your research. You remain the sponsor throughout.

Related Areas

Therapy areas often linked to rare disease programmes

When a programme spans two therapy areas, we assign a lead for each area.

Other therapy areas

Oncology & haematologyRECIST and iRECIST reporting, survival analysis and oncology journal submissions.
CardiovascularCONSORT 2025 trial reporting, cardiovascular outcome trials and registry analysis.
Endocrinology & diabetesMetabolic cohorts, glycaemic endpoint reporting and cardiovascular outcome trials.
NeurologyImaging endpoints, disability scales and longitudinal cohort studies.
Psychiatry & mental healthRating-scale validation, blinding assessment and patient-reported outcomes.
All sixteen areasThe full register of therapy areas
IndustriesTwelve sectors and the regulation each answers to

Discuss your rare disease project requirements

Share your indication and timeline. The free scoping read takes two business days and gives you a written view of what your rare disease programme needs and who would lead it.

Get a free quote

Regulations

Check your project against this rule

  1. 1Your work
  2. 2Your details
  3. 3Send
What do you need?

Material you send is held under signed confidentiality, with access limited to the assigned team and encrypted transfer. It is not used to train anything and is not passed to third-party tools. Ask for the agreement before you send anything you would rather cover first.