Dataset Information

Phase I trial compensation: How much do healthy volunteers actually earn from clinical trial enrollment?

ABSTRACT:

Background/aims

Financial compensation for research participation is a major focus of ethical concern regarding human subject recruitment. Phase I trials are sometimes considered to be a lucrative source of income for healthy volunteers, encouraging some people to become "professional guinea pigs." Yet, little is known about how much these clinical trials actually pay and how much healthy volunteers earn from them.

Methods

As part of a mixed-methods, longitudinal study of healthy volunteers, we required participants to complete clinical trial diaries, or surveys that captured detailed information about screening and enrollment in Phase I trials. Over a 3-year period, participants provided information online or via telephone about each clinical trial for which they screened (e.g. the clinic name, the study's therapeutic area, the length of the trial, the number of nights spent in the clinic, and the study compensation), and whether they qualified for trial inclusion. Clinical trial diaries generated data about whether participants continued to screen for and enroll in clinical trials and how much money they earned from their participation.

Results

131 participants routinely completed clinical trial diaries or confirmed that they had not screened for any new clinical trials. Together, these participants screened for 1001 clinical trials at 73 research facilities during a 3-year period. Overall, the median clinical trial compensation was US$3070 (range = US$150-US$13,000). Participants seeking new healthy volunteer trials tended to screen for three studies per year, participate in one or two studies, and earn roughly US$4000 annually. Participants who were unemployed earned the most income from clinical trials compared to those with full-time or part-time jobs, and those individuals whom we label "occupational" participants because of their persistent pursuit of clinical trials earned more than people who screened occasionally. Notably, the median annual trial compensation was well below US$10,000 for all employment groups, and most occupational healthy volunteers also earned less than US$10,000 each year. The 10% of participants who earned the most had a median annual income of US$18,885 from clinical trials, and there was significant volatility in these individuals' earnings from year to year.

Conclusion

Despite the perception that Phase I enrollment can generate significant earnings, it was exceedingly rare for anyone in this study to make more than US$20,000 in a single year, and unusual to earn even between US$10,000 and US$20,000. From an ethics perspective, individual trials might appear to unduly induce enrollment by offering significant sums of money, but given our findings, the larger problem for low-income participants may be the unrealistic perception that clinical trials alone could be a way of earning a living.

SUBMITTER: Fisher JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8290991 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTraditionally, early phase clinical trials in oncology have been performed in patients based on safety risk-benefit assessment. Therapeutic transition to immuno-oncology may open new opportunities for studies in healthy volunteers, which are conducted faster and are less susceptible to confounders. Aim of this study was to investigate to what extent this approach is utilized and whether pharmacodynamic endpoints are evaluated in these early phase trials. We conducted a comprehensive review of clinical trials with healthy volunteers using immunotherapies potentially relevant for oncology.MethodsLiterature searches according to PRISMA guidelines and after registration in PROSPERO were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases with the cut-off date 20 October 2020, using search terms of relevant targets in immuno-oncology. Articles describing clinical trials with immunotherapeutics in healthy volunteers with a mechanism relevant for oncology were included. "Immunotherapeutic" was defined as compounds exhibiting effects through immunological targets. Data including study design and endpoints were extracted, with specific attention to pharmacodynamic endpoints and safety.ResultsIn total, we found 38 relevant immunotherapeutic compounds tested in HVs, with 86% of studies investigating safety, 82% investigating the pharmacokinetics (PK) and 57% including at least one pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoint. Most of the observed adverse events (AEs) were Grade 1 and 2, consisting mostly of gastrointestinal, cutaneous and flu-like symptoms. Severe AEs were leukopenia, asthenia, syncope, headache, flu-like reaction and liver enzymes increase. PD endpoints investigated comprised of cytokines, immune and inflammatory biomarkers, cell counts, phenotyping circulating immune cells and ex vivo challenge assays.DiscussionHealthy volunteer studies with immuno-oncology compounds have been performed, although not to a large extent. The integration of healthy volunteers in well-designed proof-of-mechanism oriented drug development programs has advantages and could be pursued more in the future, since integrative clinical trial protocols may facilitate early dose selection and prevent cancer patients to be exposed to non-therapeutic dosing regimens.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=210861, identifier CRD42020210861.

Project description:Existing treatments are inadequate for patients at high risk of coronary heart disease caused by elevated levels of plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Bambuterol is a prodrug of ?2-agonist commonly used for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with the advantage of once daily dosing and favorable side effect profile. The potential lipid-lowering effects of bambuterol were unclear, possibly due to the racemic bambuterol (rac-bambuterol) that was used in previous studies.The lipid-lowering effects of R-bambuterol were examined in a randomized phase I trial in 48 healthy Chinese volunteers aged 18-45 years. Participants were randomly assigned to five groups to receive a single dose (2.5 mg, 5 mg or 10 mg) or multiple doses (5 mg) of oral medications of R-bambuterol, or a single dose of rac-bambuterol (10 mg). Plasma lipid levels were measured at baseline, time to peak concentration (Tmax) and 24 h after the treatment.Administration of a single-dose of R-bambuterol resulted in dose-dependent reductions in the levels of plasma LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and apolipoprotein A1 (ApoA1) at Tmax. Levels of LDL-C exhibited the most reductions, which were statistically significant in all three single-dose R-bambuterol groups (all P values < 0.05). R-bambuterol was more potent in LDL-C lowering compared to rac-bambuterol at Tmax (P = 0.08). At 24 h after dosing, the significant lipid lowering effects of R-bambuterol sustained for LDL-C (P = 0.01), ApoB (P = 0.001) and ApoA1 (P = 0.03), but not for HDL-C. The ratio of ApoA1/ApoB was marginally increased (P = 0.06). In the multiple-dose group, LDL-C levels again were significantly reduced (all P values < 0.05), whereas the ratios of ApoA1/ApoB were marginally increased.R-bambuterol can lower the plasma levels of LDL-C, and marginally raise the ratio of ApoA1/ApoB (indicator of HDL-C/LDL-C) with both a single dose and multiple doses. R-bambuterol was more potent in LDL-C lowering than rac-bambuterol.