9 ms·

> One volunteer did not recover within 4 years since his last injections. That's a really STEEP Price to Pay for an "experiment". Anyone know how much the part

> One volunteer did not recover within 4 years since his last injections. That's a really STEEP Price to Pay for an "experiment". Anyone know how much the participants were compensated for taking part in the study? No amount of money would make me do something like this. But that's just me.

milkytron 10y ago
To answer you question, I do not know what they were compensated. But I suppose if you already had the amount of children you wanted and were considering the ole snip snip, this might have been a considerable option. Maybe it's what they wanted? I do agree though that if this were a young man, I sincerely hope they made some frozen samples before committing to this study.
- evandijk70 10y ago
  There's also the risk that the drug is not as efficient as expected, and you end up with an unwanted pregnancy, so participating in this trial is never a no-brainer.
  - morsch 10y ago
    Presumably they were strongly advised to use a second method of birth control.
    - askmike 10y ago
      in that case they wouldn't really test whether it works or not..
      - tveita 10y ago
        It's supposed to lower sperm count, which you could easily verify with a sample.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        I don't think they were measuring the efficacy on the basis of whether or not the participants conceived - that measure is affected by too many variables. Sperm count is the more reliable metric with reasonable granularity for measuring the effect.
    - evandijk70 10y ago
      I looked up the study, and it seems that participants were not allowed to use a second method of birth control: "Couples enrolled in the efficacy phase were asked to rely only on these injections for contraception." And there were four pregnancies during the study (from the abstract of the study): During the efficacy phase of up to 56 weeks, 4 pregnancies occurred among the partners of the 266 male participants, with the rate of 1.57 per 100 continuing users (95% CI, 0.59 – 4.14)
      - morsch 10y ago
        Thanks for the correction.
- toredash 10y ago
  I -THINK- you didn't answer his question
  - pc86 10y ago
    > I -THINK- you didn't answer his question Q: Anyone know how much the participants were compensated for taking part in the study? A: To answer you question, I do not know what they were compensated. Yes they did.
    - lightbyte 10y ago
      "I do not know" is not normally acceptable as an answer. The OP still does not know whether the participants were compensated.
flukus 10y ago
I assume they would have at least flipped the bill for freezing sperm first.
Retra 10y ago
Four years of infertility is probably one of the easier things you should be able to do in life.
- flukus 10y ago
  It might be permanent infertility.
gnaritas 10y ago
Sounds better than a vasectomy for men who want that. Good drug, wrong market perhaps.
- kbart 10y ago
  I'm not sure that 1/320 probability of success is good for that either..
  - PakG1 10y ago
    Just gotta figure out how to increase the efficacy. :)
madaxe_again 10y ago
If this was a side effect their pool was almost certainly vasectomy candidates, and rather than there being compensation, they probably didn't need to pay for their treatment.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Vasectomy still allows for IFV at a later date, intertifility doesn't.
  - Benjamin_Dobell 10y ago
    > One volunteer did not recover within 4 years since his last injections. It didn't say his sperm count was actually zero. Generally IVF is still possible when the male is classified as "infertile" by traditional measures (i.e. extremely low sperm count or dysfunctional sperm).
at-fates-hands 10y ago
As someone who did Phrama testing in college to help pay my way through school, compensation would be determined by how long the study went on, which the article failed to say: "It was a pretty big study; they gave shots to 320 men every eight weeks, in different countries around the world." Every eight weeks, but for how long? In my experience, it would probably be in the neighborhood of a few thousand dollars, but not much more. For the participants, even that much money to take some pills over the course of say a few months would probably be seen as easy money. But then again, there's those pesky side effects. FYI: All the drugs I tested were already FDA approved and were not considered in a "trial" phase.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
...if it had anything to do with the study at all. What's the normal rate for infertility to develop in this demographic?
serge2k 10y ago
maybe they just picked guys who already had kids. If you are considering a vasectomy anyway then it's not nearly the same problem.

milkytron 10y ago

To answer you question, I do not know what they were compensated. But I suppose if you already had the amount of children you wanted and were considering the ole snip snip, this might have been a considerable option. Maybe it's what they wanted? I do agree though that if this were a young man, I sincerely hope they made some frozen samples before committing to this study.

evandijk70 10y ago
There's also the risk that the drug is not as efficient as expected, and you end up with an unwanted pregnancy, so participating in this trial is never a no-brainer.
- morsch 10y ago
  Presumably they were strongly advised to use a second method of birth control.
  - askmike 10y ago
    in that case they wouldn't really test whether it works or not..
    - tveita 10y ago
      It's supposed to lower sperm count, which you could easily verify with a sample.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      I don't think they were measuring the efficacy on the basis of whether or not the participants conceived - that measure is affected by too many variables. Sperm count is the more reliable metric with reasonable granularity for measuring the effect.
  - evandijk70 10y ago
    I looked up the study, and it seems that participants were not allowed to use a second method of birth control: "Couples enrolled in the efficacy phase were asked to rely only on these injections for contraception." And there were four pregnancies during the study (from the abstract of the study): During the efficacy phase of up to 56 weeks, 4 pregnancies occurred among the partners of the 266 male participants, with the rate of 1.57 per 100 continuing users (95% CI, 0.59 – 4.14)
    - morsch 10y ago
      Thanks for the correction.
toredash 10y ago
I -THINK- you didn't answer his question
- pc86 10y ago
  > I -THINK- you didn't answer his question Q: Anyone know how much the participants were compensated for taking part in the study? A: To answer you question, I do not know what they were compensated. Yes they did.
  - lightbyte 10y ago
    "I do not know" is not normally acceptable as an answer. The OP still does not know whether the participants were compensated.

flukus 10y ago

I assume they would have at least flipped the bill for freezing sperm first.

Retra 10y ago

Four years of infertility is probably one of the easier things you should be able to do in life.

flukus 10y ago
It might be permanent infertility.

gnaritas 10y ago

Sounds better than a vasectomy for men who want that. Good drug, wrong market perhaps.

kbart 10y ago
I'm not sure that 1/320 probability of success is good for that either..
- PakG1 10y ago
  Just gotta figure out how to increase the efficacy. :)

madaxe_again 10y ago

If this was a side effect their pool was almost certainly vasectomy candidates, and rather than there being compensation, they probably didn't need to pay for their treatment.

dogma1138 10y ago
Vasectomy still allows for IFV at a later date, intertifility doesn't.
- Benjamin_Dobell 10y ago
  > One volunteer did not recover within 4 years since his last injections. It didn't say his sperm count was actually zero. Generally IVF is still possible when the male is classified as "infertile" by traditional measures (i.e. extremely low sperm count or dysfunctional sperm).

at-fates-hands 10y ago

As someone who did Phrama testing in college to help pay my way through school, compensation would be determined by how long the study went on, which the article failed to say: "It was a pretty big study; they gave shots to 320 men every eight weeks, in different countries around the world." Every eight weeks, but for how long? In my experience, it would probably be in the neighborhood of a few thousand dollars, but not much more. For the participants, even that much money to take some pills over the course of say a few months would probably be seen as easy money. But then again, there's those pesky side effects. FYI: All the drugs I tested were already FDA approved and were not considered in a "trial" phase.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

...if it had anything to do with the study at all. What's the normal rate for infertility to develop in this demographic?

serge2k 10y ago

maybe they just picked guys who already had kids. If you are considering a vasectomy anyway then it's not nearly the same problem.