Old data can transform the future of health care

Patient preference studies (research into what patients value in their treatment) are increasingly used to inform drug development and regulatory approval decisions. But these studies are expensive and time-consuming to conduct. Yet, their results are rarely used beyond their original purpose. Researchers from the University of Twente, in collaboration with international colleagues, identified opportunities to reuse findings from existing studies, thereby improving resource usage during patient-focused drug development.

The study, published in Value in Health, analyzed research trends across 777 published patient preference studies. The team found that in areas such as type 2 diabetes, many studies use the same methods and have a similar clinical focus, making it possible to combine results across studies.

This opens the door to “benefit transfer”: statistically synthesizing preference evidence from multiple studies to predict preferences in a new decision context. In other disease areas, such as cancer, psoriasis, and multiple sclerosis, the picture is more fragmented, but the researchers still see opportunities for benefit transfers.

Making use of what we know

The findings show that smarter use of existing data can make research along the medical product lifecycle more sustainable. This not only saves resources but also ensures that patient voices continue to shape new treatments and policies long after the original study.

“This is about making smarter use of what we already know,” says Michael Bui, author from UT’s Department of Health Technology and Services Research.

“By reusing existing patient preference data, we can speed up decision-making and contribute to the sustainability of past academic efforts. Benefit transfers are particularly valuable in settings where new preference studies are infeasible to conduct, as they offer an alternative means to incorporate the patient perspective in drug development.”

The review also highlights areas where improvement is needed, such as better reporting and common definitions of clinical endpoints. With clearer guidelines, more areas could benefit from this approach. “Nevertheless, our findings should not be interpreted as a call to fully stop conducting preference research. If the existing evidence base is not sufficiently fit for purpose, new studies remain a crucial source of information.”