Feasibility for rare disease clinical trials is not just a preliminary check. It is a strategic driver that shapes trial outcomes. With small patient populations, strict inclusion criteria, and limited site expertise, feasibility must be grounded in reality from the start.

In rare disease research, every early decision carries weight. Misjudging patient availability, site readiness, or regulatory complexity can slow progress, increase costs, or compromise data integrity. Success often depends on how well feasibility insights inform protocol design, site selection, and operational planning.

Early insights are not optional. They are essential for building trials that work. In this article, we explore the unique feasibility challenges in rare disease trials and why early insights are essential to getting it right. From patient availability and site readiness to real-world data, regional considerations, and strategic partnerships, each section highlights what it takes to design and execute rare disease studies with confidence.

Rare disease-specific feasibility complexities

Feasibility for rare disease clinical trials requires precision. Ultra-small patient pools, dispersed sites, and diagnostic delays demand early, data-driven strategies to ensure operational and scientific success. The following factors highlight key complexities sponsors must address.

Feasibility for rare disease clinical trials requires a focused and informed approach 

These trials often face challenges that are less common in more prevalent therapeutic areas, and overlooking them can jeopardize the study.

Patient populations are extremely small and geographically spread out

Identifying and enrolling eligible participants becomes difficult when patients are located far from study sites or have limited access to specialized care.

Many sites and investigators have limited experience in rare diseases

Without prior exposure, they may find it harder to follow complex protocols or manage specific patient needs, which can affect data quality and trial timelines.

Diagnostic delays and misidentification are frequent

Patients often spend years without an accurate diagnosis. This limits the pool of eligible participants and requires sponsors to work with referral networks or patient advocacy groups to improve recruitment.

There is growing competition for the same patient pool

As more sponsors invest in rare disease research, overlapping trials in the same regions increase the burden on sites and slow down enrollment efforts. 

These challenges show why feasibility for rare disease clinical trials must be built on real-world insights. Early, detailed assessment helps avoid unrealistic expectations and supports smarter trial planning. This leads directly to our next focus, the importance of integrating early feasibility insights into trial design for stronger, more adaptable study frameworks. Now let’s consider data sources & tools for deep feasibility

Data sources and tools for deep feasibility

Once the key indicators are defined, the next step is accessing the right data to support decision-making. In rare disease clinical trials, where assumptions can be risky, data-driven feasibility offers a stronger foundation for trial planning and execution.

Real-world data (RWD) and claims databases:

These sources provide valuable insights into disease prevalence, patient demographics, treatment pathways, and diagnosis timelines. For rare diseases, where published data may be limited, RWD helps uncover patterns that guide country and site selection more accurately.

Feasibility platforms and digital questionnaires:

Modern feasibility platforms make it easier to collect site-level information quickly and consistently. Digital questionnaires can be tailored to rare disease protocols, helping assess site readiness, investigator interest, and past experience with similar trials.

KOL consultations and patient advocacy input:

Subject matter experts and advocacy groups can provide insights that data alone may miss. KOLs can help validate assumptions around diagnosis and treatment, while advocacy groups often have a deep understanding of the patient journey, access barriers, and support networks.

Use of AI or predictive analytics for site and country scoring:

Advanced tools can now analyze multiple feasibility variables at once to identify high-potential sites or regions. Predictive scoring models help prioritize options based on historical performance, recruitment potential, regulatory timelines, and more.

Using a mix of these sources ensures that feasibility is not only fast but also deeply informed. Now, consider the next point: how applying best practices can turn these insights into real, operational advantages in rare disease trial planning and execution.

Best practices for rare disease trial feasibility

Rare disease trials require a proactive and structured approach to feasibility. Given the challenges of small patient populations, limited site expertise, and complex regulatory pathways, applying strong feasibility practices from the beginning can directly improve the likelihood of success.

Start early, ideally before protocol development begins

In rare disease research, feasibility should guide the process from the earliest stages. Conducting assessments before finalizing the protocol allows real-world data to guide eligibility criteria, recruitment goals, endpoint selection, and overall study design, ensuring the trial is scientifically robust and operationally feasible.

Would you like to learn more about early engagement strategies in clinical trials that drive site commitment & enrollment? Click here.

Engage stakeholders across clinical, regulatory, and commercial functions

Feasibility is not just a clinical responsibility. Clinical operations bring operational knowledge, regulatory teams provide insight into approval pathways, and commercial teams offer a view of future market access challenges. When all perspectives are included early, feasibility becomes a strategic tool that balances science with execution.

Use scenario planning and regional comparison frameworks

Each region presents a different combination of timelines, infrastructure, regulatory complexity, and patient access. Scenario planning and comparison models allow teams to evaluate these variables side by side and make informed decisions about where and how to run the trial. This avoids the risks of relying solely on past experience or assumptions.

Combine quantitative data with local qualitative insights

Structured data from feasibility platforms is valuable, but it is not complete on its own. Local input from investigators, regional experts, and patient communities adds important context. It can uncover issues like referral patterns, diagnostic behavior, or site readiness that are not visible in standard datasets.

When applied together, these best practices create a feasibility process that is informed, balanced, and grounded in reality. In the rare disease space, where every detail matters, this approach leads to more reliable planning, stronger trial designs, and better outcomes.

Important considerations for feasibility in rare disease clinical trials 

Choosing the right countries for a rare disease clinical trial goes beyond site availability or patient numbers. Regional differences in infrastructure, regulations, and data acceptance can significantly impact trial timelines, quality, and long-term value. Understanding these cross-regional considerations is essential for making informed feasibility decisions.

High-income and low-to-middle-income regions offer different trade-offs

High-income countries often provide faster site activation, more experienced investigators, and well-established regulatory systems. However, these advantages come at a cost, higher operational expenses, intense competition for patients, and limited flexibility at overburdened sites.

In contrast, low- and middle-income countries may offer lower costs, faster enrollment due to untapped patient pools, and growing clinical infrastructure. But challenges such as limited diagnostic capacity, inconsistent regulatory timelines, and varying GCP enforcement require careful evaluation.

Operational readiness can vary significantly by country

Even within the same region, countries differ in how quickly sites can be activated, how efficiently they manage ethics approvals, and how well-equipped they are for complex protocols. Understanding these differences early helps avoid delays in startup and ensures that selected sites can meet trial demands.

Data acceptance and regulatory harmonization must also be considered

In some regions, data from trials conducted elsewhere may not be fully accepted. Ethnic, clinical, or procedural differences often drive this. For example, Japan’s PMDA frequently requires local data or bridging studies. Sponsors should assess where a trial can be executed efficiently.
They must also confirm that regulators will accept the data for submissions and approvals.

Cross-regional feasibility is not about choosing the easiest path. It is about balancing regulatory certainty, operational capacity, cost, and long-term data utility. A regionally informed feasibility strategy ensures that rare disease trials are both efficient in execution and valuable in the broader development lifecycle.

Conclusion

Feasibility for rare disease clinical trials is not just an early task. It is a strategic step that shapes the trial’s direction and outcome. In studies where patients are few, timelines are tight, and the stakes are high, early insights become critical.

By addressing patient access, site readiness, regulatory pathways, and regional differences early, sponsors can avoid costly delays and design trials that are realistic and effective. Real-world data, local insights, and cross-functional collaboration bring depth to feasibility planning and support smarter decisions.

In rare disease research, success begins with how well feasibility is understood and applied. Early, informed planning builds trials that are not only possible to run but positioned to succeed.

---

Have questions about feasibility in rare disease trials and how early insights can shape study success?

Planning a rare disease clinical trial and uncertain about feasibility? You’re not alone. From site selection and patient availability to regional strategy, early insights can make all the difference. Complete the form below, and our team will gladly assist you.

---

---