ProSolution Plus for Premature Ejaculation: The Clinical Study

ProSolution Plus is one of the few supplements in this category backed by a real, published clinical study specifically on premature ejaculation. Understanding what the study actually measured helps separate the real findings from the marketing built around them.

Quick Solution

Know that this is one of the few products with a real published PE-specific study
Check the actual reported numbers against how they're marketed
Understand the study was funded by the manufacturer
Set expectations around a multi-week trial period, per the study's own timeline

What the Published Study Actually Involved

• A two-month, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study
• 148 men, ages 21-60, split between treatment and placebo groups
• Published in the American Journal of Therapeutics
• Measured premature ejaculation, erectile quality, and satisfaction
• Company-funded, as is standard across this supplement category

What Were the Actual Reported Results?

The study reported a 64% improvement in premature ejaculation symptoms in the treatment group, compared to a 25% improvement in the placebo group.

Additional reported findings included improvements in erectile quality and overall sexual satisfaction alongside the primary premature ejaculation outcome.

A meaningful placebo response (25%) was also observed, which is common in studies involving sexual function and worth factoring into how dramatic the real effect actually is.

The gap between the treatment and placebo groups is the more meaningful number here than the treatment group's raw percentage alone.

How Should You Interpret a Company-Funded Study?

A registered, published, triple-blind study is genuinely more rigorous than most supplement marketing claims, which typically cite no study at all.

That said, company funding is a relevant transparency factor — independent replication would strengthen confidence in these findings further.

The study's two-month duration suggests a fair trial period, consistent with the label's own guidance, matters for a realistic personal assessment.

Comparing the placebo-adjusted improvement, rather than the treatment group's number in isolation, gives a more accurate sense of the real effect size.

What Should Realistic Expectations Look Like?

Based on the published data, a meaningful — but not universal — improvement in premature ejaculation symptoms is a reasonable, evidence-based expectation.

Individual results vary significantly, as reflected in the study's own data showing not every participant in the treatment group responded.

For persistent or severe premature ejaculation, discussing prescription options and behavioral techniques with a doctor remains the more thoroughly evidenced path.

Approaching this supplement as a reasonably evidenced option, rather than a guaranteed fix, aligns with what the actual study data shows.

When Should You Talk to a Doctor Instead?

Supplements aren't automatically safe for everyone, even when ingredients are generally well-tolerated on their own.

It's worth checking with a healthcare provider first if:

You're currently taking prescription medication, especially for blood pressure or heart conditions
You have an existing heart, liver, or kidney condition
Persistent erectile difficulty is affecting your relationship or wellbeing
You've had adverse reactions to similar ingredients before

Solution Table

Problem

Possible Cause

Solution

Unsure if the clinical study is legitimate

Marketing sometimes overstates independently modest findings

Read the actual published study, not just marketing summaries

Considering it for severe, persistent PE

Supplement evidence is more modest than prescription options

Discuss more thoroughly evidenced options with a doctor

Confused by the reported percentages

Treatment group number cited without placebo comparison

Focus on the gap between treatment and placebo groups

Concerned about funding bias

Study was funded by the manufacturer

Weigh this as a relevant factor, not a disqualifier

No noticeable change after a few weeks

Study itself ran for two full months

Give it the same timeframe as the actual research

Common Mistakes When Evaluating This Study

A common mistake is citing the treatment group's raw percentage without accounting for the meaningful placebo response in the same study.

Another mistake is dismissing the study entirely because it was company-funded, when it's still more rigorous than most products in this category offer.

Expecting results before the study's own two-month timeline overlooks how the actual research was structured.

Assuming this level of evidence is equivalent to prescription treatment options overstates what one company-funded trial demonstrates.

If premature ejaculation is severe or persistent, treating a supplement as a first step rather than a complete solution is the more realistic approach.