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.
Ruggero LasalaAlessia RomagnoliFiorenzo SantoleriValentina IsgròCorrado ConfalonieriAlberto CostantiniFiorenza EnricoGianluca RussoPiera PolidoriAlessandra Di PaoloFrancesco MalorgioGiordano BerettaFelice MusiccoPublished in: European journal of clinical pharmacology (2024)
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.
Keyphrases
- optic nerve
- clinical practice
- end stage renal disease
- case control
- clinical trial
- newly diagnosed
- small cell lung cancer
- ejection fraction
- chronic kidney disease
- randomized controlled trial
- stem cells
- emergency department
- open label
- bone marrow
- quality improvement
- study protocol
- drug induced
- mesenchymal stem cells
- double blind
- advanced non small cell lung cancer
- decision making
- adverse drug
- cell therapy