Brody Baruch A, Dickey Nancy, Ellenberg Susan S, Heaney Robert P, Levine Robert J, O'Brien Richard L, Purtilo Ruth B, Weijer Charles
Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
J Bone Miner Res. 2003 Jun;18(6):1105-9. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.6.1105.
Substantial progress has been made in developing treatments that reduce the risk of fractures in osteoporosis. However, available treatments are only partially effective, they are not widely used, and there is need to search for more effective means of fracture prevention. Currently known effective means of reducing fractures were found using randomized placebo-controlled trials. The use of placebo controls in clinical trials has been a subject of significant controversy in recent years. The Declaration of Helsinki revision of October 2000 caused great concern among clinical investigators about the future use of placebo controls if known effective therapeutic agents are available. A working group of ethicists, clinical trial design experts, and clinical investigators examined the current state of knowledge of osteoporosis treatment and trials. They concluded that if placebo controls put subjects at substantial risk of serious outcomes, they are not ethically permissible. Placebo controls in osteoporosis trials with fracture as the measured outcome are permissible only under narrowly defined conditions. Placebo controls may be used if competent, well-informed patients refuse approved therapies for sound reasons, there is a reasonable basis for substantial disagreement or lack of consensus among professionals about whether approved treatments are better than placebos, or subjects are refractory to known effective agents. Active control trials are permissible and desirable if they can be designed and conducted in ways that overcome the interpretive difficulties often associated with such trials.
在开发降低骨质疏松症骨折风险的治疗方法方面已经取得了重大进展。然而,现有的治疗方法仅部分有效,未得到广泛应用,因此需要寻找更有效的预防骨折的方法。目前已知的降低骨折风险的有效方法是通过随机安慰剂对照试验发现的。近年来,在临床试验中使用安慰剂对照一直是一个备受争议的问题。2000年10月修订的《赫尔辛基宣言》引起了临床研究人员对在有已知有效治疗药物的情况下未来使用安慰剂对照的极大关注。一个由伦理学家、临床试验设计专家和临床研究人员组成的工作组研究了骨质疏松症治疗和试验的现有知识状况。他们得出结论,如果安慰剂对照使受试者面临严重后果的重大风险,那么从伦理上讲是不允许的。只有在严格定义的条件下,以骨折为测量结果的骨质疏松症试验中的安慰剂对照才是允许的。如果有能力、了解情况的患者出于合理原因拒绝批准的治疗方法,专业人员对于批准的治疗方法是否优于安慰剂存在重大分歧或缺乏共识,或者受试者对已知的有效药物无反应,那么可以使用安慰剂对照。如果活性对照试验能够以克服此类试验通常存在的解释困难的方式进行设计和实施,那么活性对照试验是允许的且是可取的。