Substance AbuseJPO-CMNCT03015805
Teen Success Project
A study testing Contingency Management and Probation as Usual in people with Substance Abuse, run by Chestnut Health Systems at 14 sites in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs) delivering Contingency Management (CM) to teens on their caseload who have problems with drug use. CM has already been shown to be effective at helping teens with drug problems but CM has never been delivered by JPOs. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 12 to 18 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Substance Abuse
- What is being tested?
- Contingency Management and Probation as Usual
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 310 participants
- Where
- 14 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2017to 5 Jun 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 12 to 18 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult
Who may be able to join
- Employed as a juvenile probation officer within one of the participating counties
- Serving clients aged 12-18 years old with a substance abuse problem
- Newly opened probation case (can have previous cases)
- 12-18 years old
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5) substance use disorder
Who cannot join
- Not employed as a juvenile probation officer within one of the participating counties
- Not serving clients aged 12-18 years old with a substance abuse problem
- Juvenile probation officers solely assigned to a specialized caseload (e.g., sexual offense or gang unit) were excluded if they were the only one in their county with that assignment because randomization would be precluded
- Pervasive intellectual or developmental disorder
- Active psychotic disorder
- Youth actively involved in a Drug Court Program at time of study recruitment
Show all 9Show fewer
- Ages Eligible for Study
- Youth: 12 Years to 18 Years
- JPOs: Any age
Trial locations and contacts
14 sites in 1 country.
14 sites in 1 country
United States14 sites
Deschutes County Juvenile Probation
Bend, Oregon, 97701
Cassia County Juvenile Probation
Burley, Idaho, 83318
Canyon County Juvenile Probation
Caldwell, Idaho, 83605
Carson City Juvenile Probation
Carson City, Nevada, 89701
Gooding County Juvenile Probation
Gooding, Idaho, 83330
Blaine County Juvenile Probation
Hailey, Idaho, 83333
Jerome County Juvenile Probation
Jerome, Idaho, 83338
Umatilla County Juvenile Probation
Pendleton, Oregon, 97801
Washoe County Juvenile Probation
Reno, Nevada, 89512
Minidoka Juvenile Probation
Rupert, Idaho, 83350
Marion County Juvenile Probation
Salem, Oregon, 97301
Lincoln County Juvenile Probation
Shoshone, Idaho, 83352
Wasco County Juvenile Probation
The Dalles, Oregon, 97058
Twin Falls County Juvenile Probation
Twin Falls, Idaho, 83301
About this study
Official title: Improving Access to Substance Abuse Evidence-Based Practices for Youth in the Justice System: Strategies Used by JPOs
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs) delivering Contingency Management (CM) to teens on their caseload who have problems with drug use. CM has already been shown to be effective at helping teens with drug problems but CM has never been delivered by JPOs. This study will test how well it works to have JPOs deliver CM during their regular meetings with teens.
Read the detailed description
Alcohol and other drug (AOD) use issues among adolescents are a major public health problem resulting in significant negative outcomes and extraordinary long-term costs. The rates of AOD use issues among youth in the justice system are twice the rates among youth without justice involvement. Further, youth with AOD issues engage in more severe delinquency and continue offending as adults, and their rate of engagement in HIV/STI sexual risk behaviors is alarming. Therefore, widespread access and delivery of effective AOD interventions to juvenile offenders is of considerable importance. Unfortunately, significant challenges exist for meeting the treatment needs of justice-involved youth. Although these youth are routinely referred to community-based providers for treatment, less than 1 in 5 are able to obtain such treatment. Further, for youth and families who are able to overcome barriers and engage with service providers, it is unlikely that they will receive an intervention that is evidence-based. In light of this context, innovative strategies clearly are needed to improve access to evidence-based practices for AOD abuse among youth in the juvenile justice system. Thus, the overriding purpose of the proposed study is to increase the access to such an evidence-based practice (Contingency Management [CM]) among youth in the juvenile justice system. This study leverages and extends the investigative team's work in CM efficacy, delivery, and technology transfer in juvenile justice settings, as well as 30+ years of collaboration with juvenile justice. We posit that juvenile probation officers (JPOs) are in an ideal position to deliver an AOD evidence-based practice to youth because of their intensive involvement and frequent contact with the youth offenders under their supervision. Further, CM is ideal for JPOs to learn and implement because it is highly specified and low in complexity relative to other AOD evidence-based practices for youth. Also, JPOs regularly monitor their probationers' substance use via frequent biological screens and implement consequences based on results, making CM consistent with JPOs' work. The proposed research randomizes JPOs to 2 conditions: CM versus control (usual JPO services), and then randomizes adolescent probationers with AOD disorders across those 2 conditions. This research would provide (1) evidence for the feasibility of JPOs to deliver an AOD abuse intervention, (2) initial evidence of clinical efficacy for JPOs as service delivery providers [to address clinical public health outcomes of AOD use, criminal activity, and HIV/STI sexual risk behaviors], and (3) identify any barriers that would need to be addressed for JPOs to deliver such services. The primary motivation for this application is the clear public health need for improving and expanding delivery of AOD interventions in the juvenile justice system. The ultimate outcome would be decreased AOD use and other public health-related behaviors (i.e., criminal behaviors, HIV/STI sexual risk behaviors) among these high-risk adolescents.
- Conditions
- Substance Abuse
- Being tested
- Contingency Management, Probation as Usual
- Medical subject headings
- Substance-Related Disorders
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Contingency ManagementBehavioural
Contingency Management (CM) utilizes behavior modification \& cognitive behavioral strategies to target adolescent alcohol or other drug (AOD) use. Protocol components are as follows: (a) The provider introduces CM to the family and engages them in the intervention; (b) The provider conducts Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) assessments of the youth's AOD use with the youth and caregiver; (c) Based on the results of the ABC assessments, self-management planning and drug refusal skills training are implemented by the provider in collaboration with the caregiver; (d) Concurrently, a point and level system contract is filled in by the family, which provides rewards/privileges for negative drug and alcohol tests and disincentives (e.g., extra chores) for positive tests. Until continued abstinence is achieved, components "b" through "d" are repeated; (e) The provider collaborates with the family to develop plans for sustaining long-term abstinence. Typical duration of CM is 12-16 weeks.
Probation as UsualBehavioural
Standard services that a young person would receive while under probation supervision in the state.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Contingency Management | Experimental | This group will receive regular probation services but will also receive the Contingency Management program for substance abuse from their juvenile probation officer during regular meetings. Receives: Behavioral: Contingency Management |
| Probation as Usual | Active comparator | This group will receive regular services that are usually provided by juvenile probation officers. Receives: Behavioral: Probation as Usual |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-Baseline Urine Drug Screens (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
The number of positive drug screens from toxicology testing for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), synthetic THC, amphetamines, methamphetamines, opiates, phencyclidine (PCP), cocaine, benzodiazepines and alcohol metabolites (Ethyl glucuronide, Ethyl sulfate ).
Measured: Baseline to 9 months
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-Baseline Substance Use and Problems (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
Frequency of substance use and substance-related problems self-reported on the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs.
Measured: Baseline to 9 months
Secondary outcomes (9)
Changes in number and severity of criminal charges in official records in the 18 months pre-Baseline compared with 18 months post-Baseline.
Changes from 18 months pre-Baseline in offending, measured in the number and severity of offenses in official arrest records compared to 18 months post-Baseline.
Measured: 18 months pre-Baseline to 18 months post-Baseline.
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-Baseline Delinquent Behaviors (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
Delinquent behaviors self-reported using the Self-Report Delinquency Scale.
Measured: Baseline to 9 months.
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-Baseline Sexual Risk Behaviors (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
Sexual risk behaviors self-reported using the HIV Sexual Risk Behavior Scale.
Measured: Baseline to 9 months.
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-BaselineTreatment Usage (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
The number of courses of in-patient and out-patient treatment obtained by youth for substance abuse as measured by the Structured Adolescent Interview (conducted with youth and caregiver together).
Measured: Baseline to 9 months.
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-Baseline Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
The frequency of youth's internalizing and externalizing behaviors as measured using the Brief Problem Checklist (self- and parent-report).
Measured: Baseline to 9 months.
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 31 months post-Baseline Contingency Management (CM) Adherence (measured monthly for 31 months).
Adherence to CM practices by juvenile probation officers as measured using the CM-Therapist Adherence Measure (CM-TAM) (Self-report version, Tape Coding version and Youth/Caregiver versions).
Measured: Baseline to 31 months.
Changes from Baseline in Training Needs and Training Satisfaction scores compared to 31 months post-Baseline (measured at 0,16 and 31 months).
Scores in training needs and training satisfaction as measured by the Organizational Readiness for Change-Criminal Justice Version (completed by participating juvenile probation officers).
Measured: Baseline to 31 months.
Changes from Baseline in attitudes towards using rewards in substance abuse treatment compared to 31 months post-Baseline (measured at 0,16 and 31 months).
Ratings on attitudes towards using rewards in substance use treatment as measured by the Provider Survey of Incentives (completed by participating juvenile probation officers).
Measured: Baseline to 31 months.
Changes from Baseline in attitudes towards Contingency Management (CM) compared to 31 months post-Baseline (measured at 0,16 and 31 months).
Ratings on attitudes towards Contingency Management as measured by qualitative ratings of audio-taped and transcribed focus groups (focus groups involve participating juvenile probation officers).
Measured: Baseline to 31 months.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Jan 2017 (estimated)
- Study start1 Oct 2017
- Primary completion14 Sep 2022
- Study completion5 Jun 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Substance AbuseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 310 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Chestnut Health Systems
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- George Mason University, Oregon Social Learning Center
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Ashli Sheidow, Chestnut Health Systems
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03015805
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- R01DA041434-01
- Acronym
- JPO-CM
- Status last verified
- May 2024
- First submitted
- 6 Jan 2017
- Last updated
- 21 Oct 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Sheidow AJ, Drazdowski TK, Chapman JE, McCart MR. Legal outcomes of task-shifting contingency management for youth substance use to rural probation officers: Secondary results from a randomized clinical trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2026 Mar;94(3):151-158. doi: 10.1037/ccp0001002.
PubMed 41926192
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Oct 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Improving Access to Substance Abuse Evidence-Based Practices for Youth in the Justice System: Strategies Used by JPOs
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03015805
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- JPO-CM / R01DA041434-01
- Conditions
- Substance Abuse
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 310 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Chestnut Health SystemsUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- George Mason University, Oregon Social Learning Center
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 14 Sep 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 5 Jun 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Jan 2017 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs) delivering Contingency Management (CM) to teens on their caseload who have problems with drug use. CM has already been shown to be effective at helping teens with drug problems but CM has never been delivered by JPOs. This study will test how well it works to have JPOs deliver CM during their regular meetings with teens.
Detailed description
Alcohol and other drug (AOD) use issues among adolescents are a major public health problem resulting in significant negative outcomes and extraordinary long-term costs. The rates of AOD use issues among youth in the justice system are twice the rates among youth without justice involvement. Further, youth with AOD issues engage in more severe delinquency and continue offending as adults, and their rate of engagement in HIV/STI sexual risk behaviors is alarming. Therefore, widespread access and delivery of effective AOD interventions to juvenile offenders is of considerable importance. Unfortunately, significant challenges exist for meeting the treatment needs of justice-involved youth. Although these youth are routinely referred to community-based providers for treatment, less than 1 in 5 are able to obtain such treatment. Further, for youth and families who are able to overcome barriers and engage with service providers, it is unlikely that they will receive an intervention that is evidence-based. In light of this context, innovative strategies clearly are needed to improve access to evidence-based practices for AOD abuse among youth in the juvenile justice system. Thus, the overriding purpose of the proposed study is to increase the access to such an evidence-based practice (Contingency Management [CM]) among youth in the juvenile justice system. This study leverages and extends the investigative team's work in CM efficacy, delivery, and technology transfer in juvenile justice settings, as well as 30+ years of collaboration with juvenile justice. We posit that juvenile probation officers (JPOs) are in an ideal position to deliver an AOD evidence-based practice to youth because of their intensive involvement and frequent contact with the youth offenders under their supervision. Further, CM is ideal for JPOs to learn and implement because it is highly specified and low in complexity relative to other AOD evidence-based practices for youth. Also, JPOs regularly monitor their probationers' substance use via frequent biological screens and implement consequences based on results, making CM consistent with JPOs' work. The proposed research randomizes JPOs to 2 conditions: CM versus control (usual JPO services), and then randomizes adolescent probationers with AOD disorders across those 2 conditions. This research would provide (1) evidence for the feasibility of JPOs to deliver an AOD abuse intervention, (2) initial evidence of clinical efficacy for JPOs as service delivery providers [to address clinical public health outcomes of AOD use, criminal activity, and HIV/STI sexual risk behaviors], and (3) identify any barriers that would need to be addressed for JPOs to deliver such services. The primary motivation for this application is the clear public health need for improving and expanding delivery of AOD interventions in the juvenile justice system. The ultimate outcome would be decreased AOD use and other public health-related behaviors (i.e., criminal behaviors, HIV/STI sexual risk behaviors) among these high-risk adolescents.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Contingency Management | Experimental | Behavioral: Contingency ManagementThis group will receive regular probation services but will also receive the Contingency Management program for substance abuse from their juvenile probation officer during regular meetings. |
| Probation as Usual | Active comparator | Behavioral: Probation as UsualThis group will receive regular services that are usually provided by juvenile probation officers. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 12 to 18 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Employed as a juvenile probation officer within one of the participating counties
- Serving clients aged 12-18 years old with a substance abuse problem
- Newly opened probation case (can have previous cases)
- 12-18 years old
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5) substance use disorder
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Not employed as a juvenile probation officer within one of the participating counties
- Not serving clients aged 12-18 years old with a substance abuse problem
- Juvenile probation officers solely assigned to a specialized caseload (e.g., sexual offense or gang unit) were excluded if they were the only one in their county with that assignment because randomization would be precluded
- Pervasive intellectual or developmental disorder
- Active psychotic disorder
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Contingency ManagementContingency Management (CM) utilizes behavior modification \& cognitive behavioral strategies to target adolescent alcohol or other drug (AOD) use. Protocol components are as follows: (a) The provider introduces CM to the family and engages them in the intervention; (b) The provider conducts Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) assessments of the youth's AOD use with the youth and caregiver; (c) Based on the results of the ABC assessments, self-management planning and drug refusal skills training are implemented by the provider in collaboration with the caregiver; (d) Concurrently, a point and level system contract is filled in by the family, which provides rewards/privileges for negative drug and alcohol tests and disincentives (e.g., extra chores) for positive tests. Until continued abstinence is achieved, components "b" through "d" are repeated; (e) The provider collaborates with the family to develop plans for sustaining long-term abstinence. Typical duration of CM is 12-16 weeks. | Behavioural | Contingency Management |
| Probation as UsualStandard services that a young person would receive while under probation supervision in the state. | Behavioural | Probation as Usual |
Primary outcome
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-Baseline Urine Drug Screens (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
Time frame: Baseline to 9 months
The number of positive drug screens from toxicology testing for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), synthetic THC, amphetamines, methamphetamines, opiates, phencyclidine (PCP), cocaine, benzodiazepines and alcohol metabolites (Ethyl glucuronide, Ethyl sulfate ).
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-Baseline Substance Use and Problems (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
Time frame: Baseline to 9 months
Frequency of substance use and substance-related problems self-reported on the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs.
9 secondary outcomes
Changes in number and severity of criminal charges in official records in the 18 months pre-Baseline compared with 18 months post-Baseline.
Time frame: 18 months pre-Baseline to 18 months post-Baseline.
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-Baseline Delinquent Behaviors (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
Time frame: Baseline to 9 months.
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-Baseline Sexual Risk Behaviors (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
Time frame: Baseline to 9 months.
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-BaselineTreatment Usage (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
Time frame: Baseline to 9 months.
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-Baseline Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months).
Time frame: Baseline to 9 months.
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 31 months post-Baseline Contingency Management (CM) Adherence (measured monthly for 31 months).
Time frame: Baseline to 31 months.
Changes from Baseline in Training Needs and Training Satisfaction scores compared to 31 months post-Baseline (measured at 0,16 and 31 months).
Time frame: Baseline to 31 months.
Changes from Baseline in attitudes towards using rewards in substance abuse treatment compared to 31 months post-Baseline (measured at 0,16 and 31 months).
Time frame: Baseline to 31 months.
Changes from Baseline in attitudes towards Contingency Management (CM) compared to 31 months post-Baseline (measured at 0,16 and 31 months).
Time frame: Baseline to 31 months.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 21 Oct 2025.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41926192Sheidow AJ, Drazdowski TK, Chapman JE, McCart MR. Legal outcomes of task-shifting contingency management for youth substance use to rural probation officers: Secondary results from a randomized clinical trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2026 Mar;94(3):151-158. doi: 10.1037/ccp0001002.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Substance Abuse
RecruitingPhase 1
Acute Effects of Cannabis on Cognition and Affect
Cannabis Use
Not yet recruiting
QAIAx - SGI/SI Smart Health Cities: Microcity Enclave Program (Quantum SI/AGI Agency a/k/a AI City Hall Project - UPSTO App Nos. 64/074,526, 64/063,557, 64/105,164, 63/903,181, 63/729,428, 64/125,360; USPTO EO 9424 Assignment ID: 2101042 / ARN: REEL/FRAME: 76481/0026 - OUSD-R&E, Department of War)
Asperger's Disorder, Asperger Disorder
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Lemborexant vs Clonidine vs Sedatives to Treat Insomnia in Chronic Pain Patients
Chronic Insomnia, Chronic Pain
RecruitingObservational study
Treatment Outcomes Under a Standardized Treatment Protocol in Patients Suffered Substance Abuse Related Voiding Dysfunction
Voiding Dysfunction, Substance Abuse
Recruiting
Safety and Effectiveness of the BrainsWay Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (Deep TMS) for Treatment and Reduction of Heavy Drinking in Individuals With of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD)
Alcohol Use Disorder, Alcoholism
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
14 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Contingency Management and Probation as Usual in people with Substance Abuse, run by Chestnut Health Systems at 14 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Oct 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 14 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Changes from Baseline scores compared to 9 months post-Baseline Urine Drug Screens (measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months). (time frame: Baseline to 9 months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03015805, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Oct 2025.