The lack of head-to-head randomised trials and the consequences for patients and national health service: The case of non-small cell lung cancer.

Introduction: To introduce a drug to the market, it's not mandatory for it to be more effective and safer than the current treatment for the same condition. Consequently, head-to-head studies between the two best treatments for the same condition are not required, and this could result in a lack of information for patients, clinicians, and decision-makers. This study aims to evaluate the presence of head-to-head studies among the drugs used for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Taking into account the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines updated to 2022, which list all available treatments for each NSCLC subtype, the search engine Pubmed and the platform clinicaltrials.gov were consulted to find all completed and ongoing head-to-head studies among various treatments for NSCLC. Results: Among the anti-EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) drugs, 7 studies were found, with 6 completed and 5 registrational for drug commercialisation. No completed study to date has compared osimertinib and afatinib. For anti-ALK (anaplastic lymphoma kinase) drugs, 7 studies were found, with 5 completed. Alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib have no completed comparison studies, but all were compared with crizotinib. Among various immunotherapy-based regimens, 5 studies were found, with only 1 completed. Therapeutic regimens based on pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, or the combination of nivolumab/ipilimumab have not been compared in studies published to date. Conclusion: There are few head-to-head studies comparing treatments for NSCLC; there are no such studies between the latest generation of drugs. Consequently, ambiguous areas exist due to the lack of comparative studies among the available evidence, preventing the clinician's choice of the most effective treatment and risking the patient receiving suboptimal therapy. Simultaneously, the price of the drug cannot be determined correctly, relying only on indirect evaluations from different trials. To dispel this uncertainty, it would be desirable to initiate a process that brings together the demands derived from clinical practice and clinical research to provide clinicians and patients with the best possible evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]