AzTrials
AzTrials

Methamphetamine AbuseSTAR-OMNCT04706624

Screen, Treat and Retain Meth-using People With Opioid Use Disorders at Methadone Clinics

A study testing Contingency management (12 weeks), Contingency management (6 weeks) and SMS reminders in people with Methamphetamine Abuse and Opioid-use Disorder, run by Hanoi Medical University at 4 sites in Vietnam.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The investigators propose to develop and evaluate optimal combinations of evidence-based interventions to improve HIV outcomes and reduce methamphetamine use (hereafter: meth use) among people with opioid use disorder who are in methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) in Vietnam. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 16 years and older
What is being tested?
Contingency management (12 weeks), Contingency management (6 weeks) and SMS reminders
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
667 participants
Where
4 sitesVietnam
Study dates
29 Jun 2021to 31 Mar 2025
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

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 16 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • ASSIST scores from 10+ for methamphetamine use OR Confirmed methamphetamine use with urine analysis;
  • Willing to provide at least three pieces of contact information;
  • Having a cell phone to receive texts.

Who cannot join

  • Psychosis or other interfering problems;
  • Cannot understand study procedures as judged by research assistants.

Trial locations and contacts

4 sites in 1 country.

Vietnam4 sites
  • Hai Ba Trung methadone clinic

    Hanoi, Hanoi, 100000

  • Long Bien methadone clinic

    Hanoi, Hanoi, 100000

  • Nam Tu Liem Methadone clinic

    Hanoi, Hanoi, 100000

  • District 4 Methadone clinic

    Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, 728000

Other trials in Vietnam

About this study

The investigators propose to develop and evaluate optimal combinations of evidence-based interventions to improve HIV outcomes and reduce methamphetamine use (hereafter: meth use) among people with opioid use disorder who are in methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) in Vietnam. Over the past decade, the expansion of MMT has contributed to stemming both HIV and opioid epidemics. However, rising meth use threatens these achievements.

Evidence-based interventions such as Motivational Enhancement Therapy, Contingency Management, Matrix Model, and SMS reminders are effective in reducing meth use. The study will be conducted in the two largest cities in Vietnam, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), where there are the highest number of MMT patients and the highest burden of HIV cases. Building on the pilot work of the research team in Hanoi, through collaborative work with local MMT providers and patients, the investigators will first further refine adapted EBIs to develop adaptive strategies. The adaptive design includes: (1) Two frontline interventions: 6 weeks of contingency management then 6 weeks of weekly group educational sessions and 12 weeks of contingency management; (2) One (short-term) tailoring outcome: urine tests negative with meth metabolites in both week 11 and 12 are considered responsive to frontline interventions; (3) Three alternative interventions: those with positive outcomes will move to 12-week maintenance stage and receive two daily SMS reminders plus one weekly self-monitoring assessment messages. Non-responders will move to 12-week enhanced treatment stage and are randomly assigned to either Matrix group counseling only or Matrix group counseling plus contingency management.

The full randomization trial will be conducted with 200 HIV-positive and 400 HIV-negative MMT patients who report moderate- and high-risk meth use on self-screening with ASSIST or have urine positive with meth metabolites. In each location, the study will stratify participants by HIV status before randomizing them to one of two frontline interventions. Primary outcomes - including HIV viral suppression, HIV risk behaviors, and meth use (reported and urine tests) - will be assessed at 12, 24 and 48 weeks. The study team also conducts ethnographic observations and in-depth interviews with MMT clinic managers, clinical staff and MMT patients to explore implementation barriers and facilitators.

Read the detailed description
  1. To develop adaptive interventions, including two frontline interventions and four adaptive strategies, through collaborative processes (Aim 1): During Month 3 - 9, the investigators refine the EBIs to develop adaptive interventions.

1a) Assessment: The team conducts 4 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with MMT patients on local taxonomy and patterns of meth use, trigger situations, motivations for seeking treatment, motivations and barriers for participating in different EBIs, inputs/advice on proposed adaptive design, and barriers and facilitators for retention of participants in each of the adaptive steps.

1b) Decision: The team organizes a workgroup that involves MMT clinical staff, representatives of CBOs working with people who use drugs, social workers working with MMT patients, and MMT patients themselves to review the contents of FGDs in the Assessment step, experiences of pilot intervention in Hanoi, the conceptual and empirical evidence of EBIs to make recommendations on core contents of each EBI.

Contingency management is a 12-week or 6-week low-value escalating schedule. Participants give urine twice a week. Matrix group counseling involves twice weekly group sessions that last for about 60 to 90 minutes each. Group counseling focuses on relapse prevention. SMS-text: Participants receive automated, unidirectional, scripted, theory-based and culturally responsive text reminders twice daily plus a weekly self-monitoring assessment messages. The text messages are scripted across: 1) drug use, sexual risk reduction, physical health and HIV care (for HIV+ participants); and, 2) the theoretical construct of cognitive-behavioral therapy including understanding external and internal triggers; relapse prevention and relapse analysis and goal setting.

1c) Administration: At the end of the Decision step, the workgroup put together a framework for the adaptive design that include different interventions, sequence, decision rule and contents of interventions. This framework is presented and discussed in a second round of FGDs with target populations in each city.

  1. Pilot implementation of adaptive interventions (Aim 1): During Month 3 - 9, the study team chooses one MMT clinic in each city for piloting the adaptive design. The pilot implementation, which lasts 12 weeks, aims to identify issues that need to be addressed before the full implementation. The pilot recruits 40 meth-using MMT patients (20 from each city, at least 10 HIV positive) and over-recruits women. Inclusion criteria for the pilot sample include: 1) 16 years old or older; 2) score of 4-26 (moderate risk) or 27+ (high risk) on ASSIST regarding meth use OR urine screen positive for metabolite of meth; 4) having a cell phone able to receive texts; (5) and willing to participate in treatment. These participants are excluded from the full implementation.

2a) Pilot Monitoring and Evaluation: The study team in each city monitors the overall operation of the pilot to ensure that interventions are carried out as planned. For each intervention session, a Master Behavioral Counselor and an ethnographer observe the implementation regarding content integrity, flow, location, message clarity, interventionist-participant interaction, participant attendance, engagement, and responsiveness. Second, after each phase of intervention implementation (self-screening, frontline interventions, decision stage, maintenance, enhanced treatment), a FGD is organized for all intervention facilitators and another with patients to understand their experiences and to gather feedback regarding potential modifications.

2b) Intervention modification and assessment finalization: The evaluation data helps to identify factors that may affect implementation and outcomes. Modifications to intervention characteristics to ensure the relevance of the intervention for target settings and populations are completed at this stage. This phase gives an opportunity to finalize the recruitment and retention strategies as well as assessment tools.

  1. Full implementation of SMART design to compare effectiveness of two frontline interventions and four adaptive strategies (Aim 1) 3a) Selection of clinical settings to become intervention sites: Criteria for selecting clinics are established. Existing statistics are viewed and clinics that meet criteria are shortlisted. 20 MMT clinics are selected randomly from the shortlisted candidates (10 from Hanoi, 10 from HCMC).

3b) Intervention facilitator recruitment and training: The intervention team in each city includes one Master Behavioral Counselor with Master-level training in clinical psychology and two intervention coaches with bachelor degrees in social work, psychology or public health to support and ensure quality of implementation of the EBIs by MMT clinical staff. Both Master Counselor and intervention coaches are also facilitators for Matrix group counseling where MMT clinical staff will not be able to carry out themselves.

Once MMT clinics are selected, managers of these clinics nominate a physician, two counselors and one nurse to participate in the study as intervention facilitators. Before the start of intervention, all intervention staff at MMT clinics (1) receive didactic training on the theory behind the approach; (2) pass a knowledge test to evaluate their grasp of the concepts within and behind the approach; (3) watch a video of a Master Behavioral Counselor conducting intervention sessions and discuss the details of the session, and (4) conduct at least two pilot EBIs, which are recorded and observed by the HMU/UMP intervention team and the PIs. All subsequent interventions are audio recorded and coded to ensure the presence of essential elements of the intervention. Intervention staffs who have lower levels of intervention integrity or who have significant drift are provided detailed feedback and supervision.

3c) Participant recruitment and randomization: The 20 selected clinics are randomly assigned into 5 clusters (4 clusters of 4 clinics from the same city and 1 cluster of 4 clinics from two cities). In each cluster, CBO members and health care staff distribute flyers and CBO members working in each MMT clinic approach patients when patients come daily for their MMT dosages to invite them to participate in self-screening with tablet-based ASSIST as well as urine drug test and Quick HIV tests. Once agreed, CBO assist with self-screening processes. Individuals who participate in self-screening give verbal agreement to participate and receive compensation for their time. Those with low-risk scores and urine negative with meth metabolites are offered a Brief Intervention by trained CBO members. Those with reactive Quick HIV tests are referred to HIV care facilities if these participants have not done so.

Recruiting participants for adaptive interventions:

CBO members invite those who are at moderate-risk and high-risk scores for meth or have urine positive with meth metabolites to participate in the study. Those who express interest and provide contact information are referred to research assistants (RA) who then makes appointment to screen for eligibility. At each clinic, RA conduct a brief survey and collect urine sample to confirm recent meth use. The study over-recruits women as the majority of MMT patients in Vietnam are men. The study aims to recruit 200 HIV+ and 400 HIV-. Those who sign informed consent are enrolled in baseline assessment and electronically fingerprinted to create unique ID. Participants receive compensation for their participation in baseline assessment. Eligible participants at each clinic are first stratified by HIV status, and then randomized to low vs. high intensity frontline interventions.

  1. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions (Aim 2) 4a) The cost-effectiveness analysis has two goals: 1) to determine whether any additional improvement in outcomes associated with interventions of different intensity and expense is worth the additional cost; and 2) to provide guidance to the Vietnam Ministry of Health on the cost of scaling-up and implementing the interventions. This analysis measures the increment in cost between contrasted interventions divided by the increment in outcomes. Effectiveness of each intervention for HIV+ and HIV- groups is measured by the estimated outcome probabilities for each outcome of interest, as in Aim 1.

4b) Costs are assessed from the point of view of the public health agency. The second analysis will include social costs. Implementation costs are calculated based on costs for each arm incurred by health care providers, including costs of implementing the intervention, mental health and drug treatment services used. An activity-based costing approach is used to estimate the cost of fielding the interventions in 20 MMT clinics. A template is used to collect data on salaries for personnel and consultants, physical resources, clinical supplies and miscellaneous charges that are required to deliver each intervention type. Data is collected from participants on medical visits and involvement with the criminal justice system. These differences are costed out using local pricing data. Per capita costs for each intervention are calculated by dividing the total cost for each site/arm by the number of participants in each arm at that site.

  1. Ethnographic evaluation to identify the structural, provider, and patient-level factors that influence adoption and scale-up of interventions in MMT clinics. (Aim 3).

5a) Ethnographic interviews: Two ethnographic researchers conduct pre-post intervention in-depth interviews with 12 individuals in each cluster of clinics. Participants include MMT manager, MMT clinical staff, CBO members and patients who participate in interventions. In each cluster, at least 6 patients are selected. In-depth ethnographic interviews with these individuals take place immediately before enrollment and immediately after maintenance or enhanced treatments end.

With CBO and MMT staff, pre-intervention interviews explore experiences with current work; experiences with meth users, expectations of whether and how the interventions would work. Post-intervention interviews explore actual experiences with delivering interventions as well as perceived barriers and facilitators for adoption and scale-up.

With participants: first interviews explore family of origin, childhood and coming of age; histories of sexual and affective relations; histories of drug use and patterns of meth use; current social support; broader life goals; motivations to participate in the study, and expectations of how the interventions would work. Second interviews explore actual experiences and outcomes as well as motivations to stay in the interventions.

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research is used in all interviews to probe participant perceptions of the characteristics of the STAR-OM interventions, of outer settings, inner settings, provider characteristics and the implementation process.

5b) Ethnographic Observation: Two kinds of observations take place. The first, carried out with in-depth interviews of participants who consent to participate in this additional form of data collection, involves having two ethnographers spend time with them to observe activities such as individual meetings, group activities and other daily activities in the clinical and/or community settings. The second element of observation involve Master Counselors to observe randomly selected sessions of interventions in CM and CBT period and keep a logbook of SMS messages that are sent out to each participant in the study. A checklist is used to assess the fidelity of interventions contents and delivery. Master Counselors also assess other contextual information that is useful to determine whether interventions are effectively delivered. All observation periods are recorded with detailed field notes.

Being tested
Contingency management (12 weeks), Contingency management (6 weeks), SMS reminders, Matrix only, Matrix + Contingency management
Keywords
methamphetamine use, opioid use disorders, methadone, HIV
Medical subject headings
Opioid-Related Disorders, HIV Seropositivity

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Contingency management (12 weeks)Behavioural

    Participants receive 12 weeks of contingency management.

  • Contingency management (6 weeks)Behavioural

    Participants receive 6 weeks of contingency management.

  • SMS remindersBehavioural

    Participants receive two daily SMS reminders plus one weekly self-monitoring assessment.

  • Matrix onlyBehavioural

    Participants attend 12 weekly Matrix group counseling sessions.

  • Matrix + Contingency managementBehavioural

    Participants attend 12 weekly Matrix group counseling sessions plus 12 weeks of contingency management.

  • Group education (6 weeks)Behavioural

    6 weeks of group education

Study groups in NCT04706624
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
High intensity frontline interventionExperimentalParticipants who are assigned to the 12-week contingency management arm.
Receives: Behavioral: Contingency management (12 weeks); Behavioral: SMS reminders; Behavioral: Matrix only; Behavioral: Matrix + Contingency management
Low intensity frontline interventionExperimentalParticipants who are assigned to the 6-week contingency management plus 6-week group education arm.
Receives: Behavioral: Contingency management (6 weeks); Behavioral: SMS reminders; Behavioral: Matrix only; Behavioral: Matrix + Contingency management; Behavioral: Group education (6 weeks)

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Increase in HIV Viral Suppression for HIV-positive Participants: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With SMS in Stage 2

    HIV viral load was assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 13, and Week 24 after enrollment. Viral load was categorized as: ≥200 copies/mL; ≥20 to <200 copies/mL; or undetectable (<20 copies/mL). This outcome measure reports viral suppression status at baseline (Week 0) and Week 24 in order to evaluate change in viral suppression following completion of the full intervention period.

    Measured: Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of Stage 2)

  2. Increase in HIV Viral Suppression for HIV-positive Participants: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With Matrix/Matrix + CM in Stage 2

    HIV viral load was assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 13, and Week 24 after enrollment. Viral load was categorized as: ≥200 copies/mL; ≥20 to <200 copies/mL; or undetectable (<20 copies/mL). This outcome measure reports viral suppression status at baseline (Week 0) and Week 24 in order to evaluate the change in viral suppression following completion of the full intervention period.

    Measured: Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of Stage 2)

  3. Reduction in HIV Risk Behaviors for Both HIV-positive and HIV-negative Participants: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With SMS in Stage 2

    Structured questionnaires will collect self-reported data at baseline and week 24 after enrolment.

    HIV risk behaviors were grouped into two types:

    1. sexual risk behaviors, such as having sex with partners who were HIV-positive or whose status was unknown, having sex while using drugs or alcohol, or using methamphetamine to find partners or enhance sex
    2. needle/syringe risk behaviors, such as reusing needles or syringes that had already been used by others (even if cleaned) or reusing their own needles or syringes multiple times.

    Measured: Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of Stage 2)

  4. Reduction in HIV Risk Behaviors for Both HIV-positive and HIV-negative Participants: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With Matrix/Matrix + CM in Stage 2

    Structured questionnaires will collect self-reported data at baseline and 24 weeks after enrolment.

    HIV risk behaviors were grouped into two types:

    1. sexual risk behaviors, such as having sex with partners who were HIV-positive or whose status was unknown, having sex while using drugs or alcohol, or using methamphetamine to find partners or enhance sex.
    2. needle/syringe risk behaviors, such as reusing needles or syringes that had already been used by others (even if cleaned) or reusing their own needles or syringes multiple times.

    Measured: Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of Stage 2)

  5. Reduction in Methamphetamine Use: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention

    Methamphetamine use was measured using twice-weekly urine drug tests. Treatment response is defined as testing methamphetamine-negative in 4 out of a possible 4 urine tests during Weeks 11-12 and during Weeks 24-25.

    Measured: Weeks 11-12 (end of Stage 1) and week 24-25 (end of Stage 2)

  6. Reduction in Methamphetamine Use: Matrix vs. Matrix + CM Adaptive Intervention

    Treatment response is defined as testing methamphetamine-negative in 4 out of a possible 4 urine tests during Weeks 24-25.

    Measured: Week 24-25 (end of stage 2)

Secondary outcomes (10)
  1. Heroin-negative Test: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention

    Heroin use was measured using twice-weekly urine drug tests. Participants were classified as heroin-negative if all four urine drug tests conducted during Weeks 11-12 and during Weeks 24-25 were negative for heroin.

    Measured: Weeks 11-12 (end of Stage 1) and Weeks 24-25 (end of Stage 2)

  2. Heroin-negative Test: Matrix vs. Matrix + CM Adaptive Intervention

    Heroin use was measured using twice-weekly urine drug tests. Participants were classified as heroin-negative if all four urine drug tests conducted during Weeks 24-25 were negative for heroin.

    Measured: Week 24-25 (end of Stage 2)

  3. Adherence to ART if HIV-positive: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With SMS in Stage 2

    This information will be collected using the study questionnaire at baseline, weeks 12th, and 24th.

    People who adhered to ART was defined as currently on ART and either (1) within 4 days they never forgot to take HIV medication or (2) never took HIV medication later 2 hours than required or (3) forgot to take their HIV medication at the weekend. This outcome measure reports ART adherence at baseline (Week 0) and Week 24 in order to evaluate change in ART adherence following completion of the full intervention period.

    Measured: Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of Stage 2)

  4. Adherence to ART if HIV-positive: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With Matrix/Matrix + CM in Stage 2

    This information will be collected using the study questionnaire at baseline, weeks 12th and 24th.

    People who adhered to ART was defined as currently on ART and either (1) within 4 days they never forgot to take HIV medication or (2) never took HIV medication later 2 hours than required or (3) forgot to take their HIV medication at the weekend. This outcome measure reports ART adherence at baseline (Week 0) and Week 24 in order to evaluate change in ART adherence following completion of the full intervention period.

    Measured: Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of Stage 2)

  5. Frequency of HIV Testing if HIV-negative: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With SMS in Stage 2

    HIV testing will be assessed based on whether HIV-negative participants received HIV testing services at each assessment point

    Measured: Week 12 (end of Stage 1) and Week 24 (end of Stage 2)

  6. Frequency of HIV Testing if HIV-negative: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With Matrix/Matrix + CM in Stage 2

    HIV testing will be assessed based on whether HIV-negative participants received HIV testing services at each assessment point

    Measured: Week 12 (end of Stage 1) and Week 24 (end of Stage 2)

  7. Frequency of Opioid Overdose: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With SMS in Stage 2

    Opioid overdose will be assessed in the past 3 months through participant self-report using the question: "In the past 3 months, how many times have you had an opioid/heroin overdose?". Overdose is defined as an acute event due to heroin or other opioid use that required assistance from another person to recover (e.g., ambulance call, resuscitation, being awakened by others). This definition excludes episodes where the participant "just slept it off." Both non-fatal and fatal overdoses are included, and intentional overdoses (suicidal attempts) are also counted. For analysis, participants reporting at least one overdose in the past 3 months will be categorized as "Yes" for having experienced an overdose.

    Measured: Week 12 (end of Stage 1) and Week 24 (end of Stage 2)

  8. Frequency of Opioid Overdose: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With Matrix/Matrix + CM in Stage 2

    Opioid overdose will be assessed in the past 3 months through participant self-report using the question: "In the past 3 months, how many times have you had an opioid/heroin overdose?". Overdose is defined as an acute event due to heroin or other opioid use that required assistance from another person to recover (e.g., ambulance call, resuscitation, being awakened by others). This definition excludes episodes where the participant "just slept it off." Both non-fatal and fatal overdoses are included, and intentional overdoses (suicidal attempts) are also counted. For analysis, participants reporting at least one overdose in the past 3 months will be categorized as "Yes" for having experienced an overdose.

    Measured: Week 12 (end of Stage 1) and Week 24 (end of Stage 2)

  9. Changes in Quality of Life: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With SMS in Stage 2

    Quality of life will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5L instrument, which includes five health dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression), each with five levels of severity. Responses will be converted into a single utility index score using the Vietnamese value set (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02469-7), ranging from 0-1, where higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life. In addition, participants will rate their overall health on the EQ Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 ("worst imaginable health") to 100 ("best imaginable health"), with higher scores reflecting better perceived health. Both the EQ-5D-5L utility index and the VAS score will be analyzed as continuous outcomes.

    Measured: Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of Stage 2)

  10. Changes in Quality of Life: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With Matrix/Matrix + CM in Stage 2

    Quality of life will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5L instrument, which includes five health dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression), each with five levels of severity. Responses will be converted into a single utility index score using the Vietnamese value set (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02469-7) ranging from 0-1, where higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life. In addition, participants will rate their overall health on the EQ Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 ("worst imaginable health") to 100 ("best imaginable health"), with higher scores reflecting better perceived health. Both the EQ-5D-5L utility index and the VAS score will be analyzed as continuous outcomes.

    Measured: Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of Stage 2)

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted13 Jan 2021
  2. Study start29 Jun 2021
  3. Primary completion30 Jun 2024
  4. Study completion31 Mar 2025

Resources

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
Sequential
Model description
Two frontline interventions: contingency management (CM) throughout 12 weeks (high intensity CM); and CM in 6 weeks followed by 6 weeks of weekly group educational sessions (low intensity CM); Consecutive urine tests negative with methamphetamine at week 11 and week 12 (two urine tests per week) are considered as responsive to frontline interventions; any positive with one of the urine tests during week 11 and 12 or failure to provide urine are considered non-responsive; Three treatment alternatives: Responders to frontline interventions will receive two daily automatic unidirectional scripted SMS reminder plus one weekly self-monitoring assessment message over 12 weeks (maintenance treatment); non-responders will be randomized to either Matrix group counseling alone or Matrix group counseling with CM over 12 weeks.
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
667 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04706624
Sponsor's protocol ID
HanoiMU
Other IDs
R01DA050486
Acronym
STAR-OM
Status last verified
Jan 2026
First submitted
4 Jan 2021
Last updated
23 Jan 2026
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes

Publications

  • Nguyen TT, Nguyen LT, Pham MD, Vu HH, Mulvey KP. Methadone maintenance therapy in Vietnam: an overview and scaling-up plan. Adv Prev Med. 2012;2012:732484. doi: 10.1155/2012/732484. Epub 2012 Nov 25.

    PubMed 23227351
  • Des Jarlais DC, Thi Huong D, Thi Hai Oanh K, Khue Pham M, Thi Giang H, Thi Tuyet Thanh N, Arasteh K, Feelemyer J, Hammett T, Peries M, Michel L, Vu Hai V, Roustide MJ, Moles JP, Laureillard D, Nagot N; DRIVE Study Team. Prospects for ending the HIV epidemic among persons who inject drugs in Haiphong, Vietnam. Int J Drug Policy. 2016 Jun;32:50-6. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.02.021. Epub 2016 Feb 27.

    PubMed 27006257
  • Giang L, Thuy D, Trang N, Okafor CN, Li M, Shoptaw S. Severity of methamphetamine use among methadone patients in Vietnam: Prevalence and correlates (Poster presentation at CPDD 81st Annual Scientific Meeting). San Antonio, Texas; 2019

  • Vietnam Ministry of Health. Báo cáo Đánh giá và tổng kết 10 năm triển khai chương trình điều trị nghiện các chất dạng thuốc phiện bằng thuốc Methadone (Assessment and Review of 10 Years of Methadone Maintenance Therapy in Vietnam: Report to the Prime Minister) (DRAFT). Vietnam Ministry of Health; n.d.

  • Feelemyer J, Duong Thi H, Khue Pham M, Hoang Thi G, Thi Tuyet Thanh N, Thi Hai Oanh K, Arasteh K, Moles JP, Vu Hai V, Vallo R, Quillet C, Rapoud D, Michel L, Hammett T, Laureillard D, Nagot N, Des Jarlais D; DRIVE Study Team. Increased Methamphetamine Use among Persons Who Inject Drugs in Hai Phong, Vietnam, and the Association with Injection and Sexual Risk Behaviors. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2018 Nov-Dec;50(5):382-389. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2018.1508790. Epub 2018 Sep 5.

    PubMed 30183558
  • Korthuis PT, Bart G, Kunkel LE, Diep NB, Brinkerhoff C, Giang LM. Buprenorphine versus Methadone impact on the HIV care continuum in Vietnam: BRAVCO study 6-month outcomes (Poster presentation at 79th CPDD Annual Scientific Meeting). San Diego, CA; 2018.

  • Ellis MS, Kasper ZA, Cicero TJ. Twin epidemics: The surging rise of methamphetamine use in chronic opioid users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018 Dec 1;193:14-20. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.08.029. Epub 2018 Oct 10.

    PubMed 30326396
  • Shariatirad S, Maarefvand M, Ekhtiari H. Methamphetamine use and methadone maintenance treatment: an emerging problem in the drug addiction treatment network in Iran. Int J Drug Policy. 2013 Nov;24(6):e115-6. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.05.003. Epub 2013 Jun 15. No abstract available.

    PubMed 23773684
  • Wang R, Ding Y, Bai H, Duan S, Ye R, Yang Y, Wang J, Tang R, Gao M, He N. Illicit Heroin and Methamphetamine Use among Methadone Maintenance Treatment Patients in Dehong Prefecture of Yunnan Province, China. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 21;10(7):e0133431. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133431. eCollection 2015.

    PubMed 26196394
  • Al-Tayyib A, Koester S, Langegger S, Raville L. Heroin and Methamphetamine Injection: An Emerging Drug Use Pattern. Subst Use Misuse. 2017 Jul 3;52(8):1051-1058. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2016.1271432. Epub 2017 Mar 21.

    PubMed 28323507
  • Parsons JT, John SA, Millar BM, Starks TJ. Testing the Efficacy of Combined Motivational Interviewing and Cognitive Behavioral Skills Training to Reduce Methamphetamine Use and Improve HIV Medication Adherence Among HIV-Positive Gay and Bisexual Men. AIDS Behav. 2018 Aug;22(8):2674-2686. doi: 10.1007/s10461-018-2086-5.

    PubMed 29536284
  • Huang YS, Tang TC, Lin CH, Yen CF. Effects of motivational enhancement therapy on readiness to change MDMA and methamphetamine use behaviors in Taiwanese adolescents. Subst Use Misuse. 2011;46(4):411-6. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2010.501664. Epub 2010 Aug 24.

    PubMed 20735217
  • Galloway GP, Polcin D, Kielstein A, Brown M, Mendelson J. A nine session manual of motivational enhancement therapy for methamphetamine dependence: adherence and efficacy. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2007 Nov;Suppl 4:393-400. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2007.10399900.

    PubMed 18286727
  • Lee NK, Rawson RA. A systematic review of cognitive and behavioural therapies for methamphetamine dependence. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2008 May;27(3):309-17. doi: 10.1080/09595230801919494.

    PubMed 18368613
  • Rajasingham R, Mimiaga MJ, White JM, Pinkston MM, Baden RP, Mitty JA. A systematic review of behavioral and treatment outcome studies among HIV-infected men who have sex with men who abuse crystal methamphetamine. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2012 Jan;26(1):36-52. doi: 10.1089/apc.2011.0153. Epub 2011 Nov 9.

    PubMed 22070609

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Contingency management (12 weeks), Contingency management (6 weeks) and SMS reminders in people with Methamphetamine Abuse and Opioid-use Disorder, run by Hanoi Medical University at 4 sites in Vietnam.

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 3 inclusion and 2 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 23 Jan 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 4 sites in Vietnam. 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?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 23 Jan 2026). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

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?

Increase in HIV Viral Suppression for HIV-positive Participants: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With SMS in Stage 2 (time frame: Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of Stage 2)). The study lists 6 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 NCT04706624, which also lists 167 linked publications.

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 23 Jan 2026.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in