The George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC 20052, USA.
The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Nutrients. 2018 Mar 13;10(3):347. doi: 10.3390/nu10030347.
History has shown that without explicit and enforced guidelines, even well-intentioned researchers can fail to adequately examine the ethical pros and cons of study design choices. One area in which consensus does not yet exist is the use of placebo groups in vitamin supplementation studies. As a prime example, we focus on vitamin D research. We aim to provide an overview of the ethical issues in placebo-controlled studies and guide future discussion about the ethical use of placebo groups. Research in the field of vitamin D shows variation in how placebo groups are used. We outline four types of control groups in use: active-control, placebo-control with restrictions on supplementation, placebo-control without supplementation restrictions, and placebo-control with rescue repletion therapy. The first two types highlight discrete ethical issues: active-control trials limit the ability to detect a difference; placebo-control trials that restrict supplementation potentially place subjects at risk of undue harm. The final two, placebo-control without supplementation restrictions or with rescue repletion therapy, offer potential solutions to these ethical challenges. Building on this, guidelines should be established and enforced on the use of placebo in supplementation studies. Furthermore, the field of vitamin D research has the potential to set an example worthy of emulation.
历史表明,即使是出于善意的研究人员,如果没有明确和强制执行的指导方针,也可能无法充分考虑研究设计选择的伦理利弊。在共识尚未达成的一个领域是在维生素补充研究中使用安慰剂组。作为一个主要的例子,我们专注于维生素 D 研究。我们旨在提供一个关于安慰剂对照研究中的伦理问题的概述,并指导未来关于安慰剂组的伦理使用的讨论。维生素 D 领域的研究表明,安慰剂组的使用存在差异。我们概述了四种正在使用的对照组:活性对照组、有补充限制的安慰剂对照组、无补充限制的安慰剂对照组和有救援补充治疗的安慰剂对照组。前两种类型突出了离散的伦理问题:活性对照组试验限制了检测差异的能力;限制补充的安慰剂对照试验可能使受试者面临不必要的伤害风险。最后两种,无补充限制或有救援补充治疗的安慰剂对照组,为这些伦理挑战提供了潜在的解决方案。在此基础上,应制定并执行关于补充研究中使用安慰剂的准则。此外,维生素 D 研究领域有可能树立一个值得效仿的榜样。