ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04804072INTEGRAUpdated Jun 10, 2026Results posted

INTEGRA: A Vanguard Study of Health Service Delivery in a Mobile Health Delivery Unit

An interventional study of Medication for opioid-use disorder (MOUD) for opioid-use disorder (OUD) and HIV testing in HIV Infections, Drug Use and Opioid Use, sponsored by HIV Prevention Trials Network. Completed at 5 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-06-10.

Sponsored by HIV Prevention Trials Network · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
447
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of using a mobile health delivery unit ("mobile unit") to deliver "one stop" integrated health services - particularly medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and medication for HIV treatment and prevention - to people who inject drugs (PWID) with opioid use disorder (OUD) to improve uptake and use of MOUD, and uptake and use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Read the detailed description

The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of using a mobile health delivery unit ("mobile unit") to deliver "one stop" integrated health services - particularly medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and medication for HIV treatment and prevention - to people who inject drugs (PWID) with opioid use disorder (OUD) to improve uptake and use of MOUD, and uptake and use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The intervention arm receiving health services in the mobile unit will be supported by peer navigation. An active control arm will receive peer navigation to health services available at community-based agencies. Impact (cost-effectiveness, mathematical modeling) and implementation factors (mixed methods to identify barriers and facilitators of the interventions) will contextualize findings from the efficacy analysis. The impact of the COVID-19 epidemic in the study population will also be assessed.

02

Conditions studied

  • HIV Infections
  • Drug Use
  • Opioid Use
  • Opioid-use Disorder

Keywords

  • PrEP
  • MOUD
  • PWID
  • HIV
  • ART
  • Opioid Use Disorder
03

In context

HIV Infections

4,734 studies on the registry are indexed under HIV Infections; 244 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 447 is above the median of 80 across 3,489 interventional studies indexed under HIV Infections.

Browse HIV Infections studies →

Lead sponsor

HIV Prevention Trials Network is the lead sponsor of 24 studies on the registry; 4 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • At least 18 years of age
  • Urine test positive for recent opioid use and with evidence of recent injection drug use ("track marks")
  • Diagnosed with OUD per (DSM)-5
  • Able and willing to give
  • Willing to start MOUD treatment
  • Able to successfully complete an Assessment of Understanding
  • Self-reported sharing injection equipment and/or condomless sex in the last three months with partners of -positive or unknown status
  • Able to provide adequate locator information
  • Confirmed HIV status, as defined in the HPTN 094 Study Specific Procedures Manual

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Urine testing that is not negative for methadone within 30 days prior to Enrollment is exclusionary, unless verified hospital records show methadone received as a medication for hospitalization only during the screening period. A volunteer may provide a sample for urine testing more than once during the screening period in order to achieve a negative result. If this criterion cannot be met within 30 days from the start of screening, the individual will be considered a screen failure and the volunteer has up to two more screening chances to successfully complete the screening process again.
  • Received MOUD in the 30 days prior to enrollment by self-report
  • Co-enrollment in any other interventional study unless approved by the Clinical Management Committee (CMC)
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

DSM diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association’s manual of mental health diagnoses. DSM-5 (2013, revised as DSM-5-TR in 2022) replaced DSM-IV, and some studies still name the older edition. “Meets DSM criteria for …” means diagnosed by that edition’s diagnostic criteria, usually by a clinician in an interview.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

HIV

The human immunodeficiency virus, which weakens the immune system.

Many studies now accept people whose HIV is controlled on treatment, judged by the viral load and the CD4 count. Check the limits this study sets.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
447 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit and peer navigation

    Participants in the intervention arm will be provided integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit and peer navigation for 26 weeks.

    Drug: Medication for opioid-use disorder (MOUD) for opioid-use disorder (OUD) · Diagnostic Test: HIV testing · Drug: HIV treatment for participants living with HIV not already in care · Drug: PrEP for participants without HIV · Diagnostic Test: Testing and referral for vaccination or treatment for hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) · Diagnostic Test: Testing and referral for treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) · Diagnostic Test: Sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and treatment · Other: Primary care · Behavioral: Harm reduction services · Behavioral: Peer navigation · Diagnostic Test: COVID-19 testing and referral for further evaluation, care and/or treatment

  • Active comparator
    Peer navigation to connect them to health services available at community-based agencies

    Participants in the active control arm will be provided 26 weeks of peer navigation to connect them to health services available at community-based agencies.

    Diagnostic Test: HIV testing · Diagnostic Test: Testing and referral for vaccination or treatment for hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) · Diagnostic Test: Testing and referral for treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) · Diagnostic Test: Sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and treatment · Behavioral: Harm reduction services · Behavioral: Peer navigation · Diagnostic Test: COVID-19 testing and referral for further evaluation, care and/or treatment

Interventions

  • DrugMedication for opioid-use disorder (MOUD) for opioid-use disorder (OUD)

    MOUD for OUD

  • Diagnostic testHIV testing

    HIV testing

  • DrugHIV treatment for participants living with HIV not already in care

    HIV treatment for participants living with HIV not already in care

  • DrugPrEP for participants without HIV

    PrEP for participants without HIV

  • Diagnostic testTesting and referral for vaccination or treatment for hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV)

    Testing and referral for vaccination or treatment for HAV and HBV

  • Diagnostic testTesting and referral for treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV)

    Testing and referral for treatment for HCV

  • Diagnostic testSexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and treatment

    STI testing and treatment

  • OtherPrimary care

    Primary care

  • BehavioralHarm reduction services

    Harm reduction services

  • BehavioralPeer navigation

    Peer navigation

  • Diagnostic testCOVID-19 testing and referral for further evaluation, care and/or treatment

    COVID-19 testing and referral for further evaluation, care and/or treatment

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Number and Percentage of Participants With Documented Current Use of MOUD at Week 26 by Site

    Documented current use of MOUD. At the Week 26 visit: 1. Alive 2. Retained 3. Biological evidence of MOUD (any detectable Methadone or Buprenorphine) 4. A MOUD prescription current at the week 26 visit or proof of current receipt of MOUD from a clinic that does not provide individual MOUD prescriptions (e.g., methadone clinics)

    Time frame: 26 weeks

  2. Number and Percentage of Participants With Documented Current Use of PrEP at Week 26 by Site

    Evaluate whether the intervention increases use of PrEP among people without HIV, as measured at 26 weeks, by assessing the following endpoint: • Among participants who were without HIV at enrollment: alive, retained, without HIV, with detectable PrEP drugs (Truvada or Descovy) in dried blood spot (DBS) samples, or (Cabotegravir) in plasma samples, at the Week 26 visit

    Time frame: 26 weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. Number and Percentage of Participants With Documented Current Use of MOUD at Week 52 by Site

    • Documented use of MOUD: alive, retained, with biological evidence of MOUD (as defined above) at the week 52 visit and a MOUD prescription at 52 weeks after enrollment or proof of current receipt of MOUD from a clinic that does not provide individual MOUD prescriptions (e.g., methadone clinics) at the week 52 visit

    Time frame: 52 weeks

  2. Number and Percentage of Participants With Viral Suppression Among People Enrolled Living With HIV, at 26 and 52 Weeks by Site

    • Among participants living with HIV at enrollment: alive, retained, and virally suppressed (VL \<200 copies/mL) at the week 26 and 52 visits, separately.

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  3. Number and Percentage of Participants With Documented Use of PrEP Among Participants Living Without HIV at Enrollment by Site at Week 26 and 52

    Evaluate whether the intervention increases use of PrEP among participants without HIV at enrollment, compared to the active control condition, by assessing the following endpoint(s): * Among participants without HIV at enrollment: alive, retained, HIV negative, with detectable PrEP drugs in DBS at the week 52 visit * Among participants without HIV at enrollment: alive, retained, HIV negative, with protective levels of PrEP drugs in DBS samples at the week 26 and 52 visits A protective level of oral PrEP is defined as: TFV-DP concentrations ≥ 800 fmol/punch in DBS among those tested for Truvada (TDF-FTC) TFV-DP concentrations ≥ 950 fmol/punch in DBS among those tested for Descovy (TAF-FTC)

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  4. Number and Percentage of Participants With Opioid and Polysubstance Use at 26 and 52 Weeks

    * Opioid Use: Opioids (natural or synthetic) detected in urine samples for those retained at the week 26 and 52 visits (visits analyzed separately). Opioid use is defined as fentanyl use, and/or opiates and synthetic opioids use detected in urine samples at baseline, week 26 and week 52. Tests were performed at central lab. * Polysubstance use: Opioids (natural or synthetic) detected, along with stimulants (methamphetamine, cocaine), xylazine and/or benzodiazepines detected in urine samples at the week 26 and 52 visits (visits analyzed separately). Polysubstance use is defined as opioid use, along with stimulant, benzodiazepine, cocaine and/or xylazine use, as detected in urine samples at baseline, week 26 and week 52. Tests were performed at central lab.

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  5. Number and Percentage of Participants With Bacterial STIs at Enrollment, Week 26 and Week 52

    Gonorrhea, chlamydia, or new or prevalent syphilis infection detected via local labs for those retained at the week 26 and 52 visits (visits analyzed separately). This objective will be analyzed only in those giving a specimen and having a valid test result at the respective visit (week 26 or week 52).

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  6. Incidence Rate and CI for All Cause and Fatal Overdose Mortality at 26 and 52 Weeks

    * All Cause Mortality : All cause death, collected on or before 26- and on or before 52-week visits, separately. * Overdose-Related Mortality: Death, with overdose as cause, collected on or before 26- and on or before 52-week visits, separately.

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  7. Incidence Rate for Self-reported Non-fatal Overdose Events by 26 and 52 Weeks

    Self-report of non-fatal overdose, collected the last 30 days of the visits separately. Incidence rates reflect the number of events per 100 person years. Each participant reports the number of overdoses within the last 30 days, so each participant contributes 30 days of person time at each of enrollment, week 26 and week 52.

    Time frame: Enrollment, 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  8. Number and Percentage of Participants With Undetectable HCV RNA Among Those With Chronic HCV Infection at Enrollment

    Undetectable HCV RNA at the week 26 and 52 visits (visits analyzed separately) among participants with chronic HCV at enrollment. No formal statistical test is performed for Week 26 and Week 52 separately.

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  9. Incidence Rate and CI for HCV Incidence

    HCV antibody positive at the week 52 visit among participants who are HCV antibody negative at enrollment. Person time is defined as the number of days/year between enrollment and (a) HCV infection - for participants who became HCV infected, and (b) date of the most recent negative HCV test result - for participants who do not have HCV. HCV incidence will be modeled using Poisson regression (GLM with log link), with treatment arm and site as covariates and person years as an offset.

    Time frame: 52 weeks

  10. Number and Percentage of Participants in the Intervention Arm for Documented MOUD Use at Week 26 and 52

    In the intervention arm, change over time in the use of MOUD during the study, comparing documented use of MOUD (biological evidence of MOUD - any detectable medications - and a current MOUD prescription) or proof of current receipt of MOUD from a clinic that does not provide individual MOUD prescriptions (e.g., methadone clinics)) at 26 and 52 weeks to documented use of MOUD at enrollment. MOUD use is assumed to be zero at enrollment due to study exclusion criteria. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and having documented MOUD use.

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  11. Number and Percentage of Participants in the Control Arm With Documented MOUD Use at Week 26 and 52

    In the active control arm, change over time in the use of MOUD during the study, comparing documented use of MOUD (biological evidence of MOUD - any detectable medications - and a current MOUD prescription) or proof of current receipt of MOUD from a clinic that does not provide individual MOUD prescriptions (e.g., methadone clinics)) at 26 and 52 weeks to documented MOUD use at enrollment. MOUD use is assumed to be zero at enrollment due to study exclusion criteria. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and having documented MOUD use.

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  12. Number and Percentage of Participants in the Intervention Arm for Viral Suppression at 26 and 52 Weeks

    Among participants living with HIV at enrollment: change over time in the percentage of people with viral suppression (VL\<200 copies/mL), comparing 26 and 52 weeks to enrollment. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and virally suppressed.

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  13. Number and Percentage of Participants in the Control Arm for Viral Suppression at 26 and 52 Weeks

    Among participants living with HIV at enrollment: change over time in the percentage of people with viral suppression (VL\<200 copies/mL), comparing 26 and 52 weeks to enrollment. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and virally suppressed.

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  14. Number and Percentage of Participants in the Intervention Arm With Documented Use of PrEP at 26 and 52 Weeks

    Among participants who were without HIV at enrollment: change over time in the percentage of people with detectable PrEP drugs in DBS at 26 and 52 weeks compared to enrollment. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and having detectable PrEP.

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  15. Number and Percentage of Participants in the Control Arm With Documented Use of PrEP at 26 and 52 Weeks

    Among participants who were without HIV at enrollment: change over time in the percentage of people with detectable PrEP drugs in DBS at 26 and 52 weeks compared to enrollment. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and having detectable PrEP.

    Time frame: 26 weeks and 52 weeks

  16. Number and Percentage of Participants With SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity at Baseline, 26 and 52 Weeks by Arm

    Count of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity at baseline, 26 and 52 weeks by arm, the following endpoint will be assessed: • Laboratory evidence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2

    Time frame: Baseline, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks

  17. Number and Percentage of Self-reported Subjective Experiences Linked to COVID-19 by Site

    Self-reported impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on substance use and services by Site: Substance Use increased reasons included: boredom/isolation, trauma from losing someone to COVID, nothing else to spend money on, increased availability of drugs. Substance Use decreased reasons included: isolation from drug-using community, reduced availability of drugs, increased cost of drugs, desire to improve health after having had COVID. Services more available reasons included: convenience of virtual health services. Services less available reasons included: service centers/offices closed, COVID vaccine requirements to get services, longer wait times, fear of people who had COVID.

    Time frame: 52 Weeks

07

Results

Posted Feb 20, 2026

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Started224223
Week 26180176
Completed179167
Not completed4556
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up3531
Withdrew: Death415
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject02
Withdrew: Participant is either incarcerated or unable to schedule within the visit window68

Outcome measures

PrimaryNumber and Percentage of Participants With Documented Current Use of MOUD at Week 26 by Site

Documented current use of MOUD. At the Week 26 visit: 1. Alive 2. Retained 3. Biological evidence of MOUD (any detectable Methadone or Buprenorphine) 4. A MOUD prescription current at the week 26 visit or proof of current receipt of MOUD from a clinic that does not provide individual MOUD prescriptions (e.g., methadone clinics)

Time frame:
26 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants With Documented Current Use of MOUD at Week 26 by Site
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
All Sites3022
New York - Bronx Prevention64
Los Angeles - Vine Street47
Washington DC - Washington Circle51
Houston AIDS Research Team CRS136
Philadelphia24
Statistical analysis
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = 0.213 · Difference in percent: 4.1 · 95% CI -2.35 to 10.55Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
PrimaryNumber and Percentage of Participants With Documented Current Use of PrEP at Week 26 by Site

Evaluate whether the intervention increases use of PrEP among people without HIV, as measured at 26 weeks, by assessing the following endpoint: • Among participants who were without HIV at enrollment: alive, retained, without HIV, with detectable PrEP drugs (Truvada or Descovy) in dried blood spot (DBS) samples, or (Cabotegravir) in plasma samples, at the Week 26 visit

Time frame:
26 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants With Documented Current Use of PrEP at Week 26 by Site
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
All Sites116
New York - Bronx Prevention20
Los Angeles - Vine Street51
Washington DC - Washington Circle02
Houston AIDS Research Team CRS21
Philadelphia22
Statistical analysis
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = .204 · Difference in percent: 2.51 · 95% CI -1.36 to 6.38Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants With Documented Current Use of MOUD at Week 52 by Site

• Documented use of MOUD: alive, retained, with biological evidence of MOUD (as defined above) at the week 52 visit and a MOUD prescription at 52 weeks after enrollment or proof of current receipt of MOUD from a clinic that does not provide individual MOUD prescriptions (e.g., methadone clinics) at the week 52 visit

Time frame:
52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants With Documented Current Use of MOUD at Week 52 by Site
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
All Sites2729
New York - Bronx56
Los Angeles - Vine Street37
Washington DC - Washington Circle20
Houston AIDS64
Philadelphia1112
Statistical analysis
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = 0.819 · Difference in percent: -0.78 · 95% CI -7.44 to 5.88Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants With Viral Suppression Among People Enrolled Living With HIV, at 26 and 52 Weeks by Site

• Among participants living with HIV at enrollment: alive, retained, and virally suppressed (VL \<200 copies/mL) at the week 26 and 52 visits, separately.

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants With Viral Suppression Among People Enrolled Living With HIV, at 26 and 52 Weeks by Site
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Week 26 : All Sites87
Week 26 : New York - Bronx Prevention11
Week 26: Los Angeles - Vine Street11
Week 26: Washington DC - Washington Circle31
Week 26: Houston AIDS Research Team CRS12
Week 26: Philadelphia22
Week 52: All Sites47
Week 52: New York - Bronx Prevention01
Week 52: Los Angeles - Vine Street01
Week 52: Washington DC - Washington Circle21
Week 52: Houston AIDS Research Team CRS12
Week 52: Philadelphia12
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants With Documented Use of PrEP Among Participants Living Without HIV at Enrollment by Site at Week 26 and 52

Evaluate whether the intervention increases use of PrEP among participants without HIV at enrollment, compared to the active control condition, by assessing the following endpoint(s): * Among participants without HIV at enrollment: alive, retained, HIV negative, with detectable PrEP drugs in DBS at the week 52 visit * Among participants without HIV at enrollment: alive, retained, HIV negative, with protective levels of PrEP drugs in DBS samples at the week 26 and 52 visits A protective level of oral PrEP is defined as: TFV-DP concentrations ≥ 800 fmol/punch in DBS among those tested for Truvada (TDF-FTC) TFV-DP concentrations ≥ 950 fmol/punch in DBS among those tested for Descovy (TAF-FTC)

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants With Documented Use of PrEP Among Participants Living Without HIV at Enrollment by Site at Week 26 and 52
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Week 52 PrEP drugs in DBS: All Sites44
Week 52 PrEP drugs in DBS: New York - Bronx Prevention00
Week 52 PrEP drugs in DBS: Los Angeles - Vine Street20
Week 52 PrEP drugs in DBS: Washington DC - Washington Circle01
Week 52 PrEP drugs in DBS: Houston AIDS Research Team CRS11
Week 52 PrEP drugs in DBS: Philadelphia12
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 26: All Sites01
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 26: New York - Bronx Prevention00
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 26: Los Angeles - Vine Street00
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 26: Washington DC - Washington Circle00
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 26: Houston AIDS Research Team CRS00
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 26: Philadelphia01
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 52: All Sites11
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 52: New York - Bronx Prevention00
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 52: Los Angeles - Vine Street00
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 52: Washington DC - Washington Circle00
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 52: Houston AIDS Research Team CRS00
Protective Levels of PrEP Week 52: Philadelphia11
Statistical analysis
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = 0.983 · Difference in percent: 0.03 · 95% CI -2.66 to 2.71Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = 0.321 · Difference in percent: -0.48 · 95% CI -1.44 to 0.47Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = 0.992 · Difference in percent: 0.01 · 95% CI -1.34 to 1.36Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants With Opioid and Polysubstance Use at 26 and 52 Weeks

* Opioid Use: Opioids (natural or synthetic) detected in urine samples for those retained at the week 26 and 52 visits (visits analyzed separately). Opioid use is defined as fentanyl use, and/or opiates and synthetic opioids use detected in urine samples at baseline, week 26 and week 52. Tests were performed at central lab. * Polysubstance use: Opioids (natural or synthetic) detected, along with stimulants (methamphetamine, cocaine), xylazine and/or benzodiazepines detected in urine samples at the week 26 and 52 visits (visits analyzed separately). Polysubstance use is defined as opioid use, along with stimulant, benzodiazepine, cocaine and/or xylazine use, as detected in urine samples at baseline, week 26 and week 52. Tests were performed at central lab.

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants With Opioid and Polysubstance Use at 26 and 52 Weeks
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Opioid use: Enrollment221214
Opioid use: Week 26156152
Opioid use: Week 52148132
Polysubstance use: Enrollment218203
Polysubstance use: Week 26151147
Polysubstance use: Week 52147125
Statistical analysis
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = .954 · Difference in percent: -0.21 · 95% CI -7.16 to 6.75Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = 0.696 · Difference in percent: 1.59 · 95% CI -6.40 to 9.58Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = 0.974 · Difference in percent: -0.13 · 95% CI -7.69 to 7.44Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = 0.210 · Difference in percent: 5.40 · 95% CI -3.03 to 13.83Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants With Bacterial STIs at Enrollment, Week 26 and Week 52

Gonorrhea, chlamydia, or new or prevalent syphilis infection detected via local labs for those retained at the week 26 and 52 visits (visits analyzed separately). This objective will be analyzed only in those giving a specimen and having a valid test result at the respective visit (week 26 or week 52).

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants With Bacterial STIs at Enrollment, Week 26 and Week 52
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Enrollment249
Week 261311
Week 521113
Statistical analysis
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = 0.747 · Difference in percent: 0.86 · 95% CI -4.38 to 6.11Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Generalized Linear Model (GLM) · p = 0.512 · Difference in percent: -1.80 · 95% CI -7.19 to 3.58Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated health services delivered in the mobile unit) compared to Active Control Arm (Health services available at community-based agencies). The value of estimate is in percentage.
SecondaryIncidence Rate and CI for All Cause and Fatal Overdose Mortality at 26 and 52 Weeks

* All Cause Mortality : All cause death, collected on or before 26- and on or before 52-week visits, separately. * Overdose-Related Mortality: Death, with overdose as cause, collected on or before 26- and on or before 52-week visits, separately.

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Number · events per 100 person years
Incidence Rate and CI for All Cause and Fatal Overdose Mortality at 26 and 52 Weeks
events per 100 person yearsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
All Cause Mortality: Week 26 (Incidence Rate)2.8 (0.6 to 8.1)9.7 (4.7 to 17.8)
All Cause Mortality: Week 52 (Incidence Rate cumulative)1.9 (0.5 to 5.0)7.8 (4.4 to 12.9)
Overdose-Related Mortality: Week 26 (Incidence Rate)1.8 (0.2 to 6.7)4.9 (1.6 to 11.3)
Overdose-Related Mortality: Week 52 (Incidence Rate cumulative)1.5 (0.3 to 4.3)3.7 (1.5 to 7.5)
Statistical analysis
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Regression, Cox · p = 0.066 · Cox proportional hazard: 0.30 · 95% CI 0.08 to 1.08
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Regression, Cox · p = 0.013 · Cox proportional hazard: 0.25 · 95% CI 0.08 to 0.75
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Regression, Cox · p = 0.270 · Cox proportional hazard: 0.40 · 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Regression, Cox · p = 0.200 · Cox proportional hazard: 0.41 · 95% CI 0.11 to 1.60
SecondaryIncidence Rate for Self-reported Non-fatal Overdose Events by 26 and 52 Weeks

Self-report of non-fatal overdose, collected the last 30 days of the visits separately. Incidence rates reflect the number of events per 100 person years. Each participant reports the number of overdoses within the last 30 days, so each participant contributes 30 days of person time at each of enrollment, week 26 and week 52.

Time frame:
Enrollment, 26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Number · events per 100 person years
Incidence Rate for Self-reported Non-fatal Overdose Events by 26 and 52 Weeks
events per 100 person yearsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Enrollment179.4208.4
Week 2688.4117.6
Week 52190.494.8
Statistical analysis
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Negative binomial regression · p = 0.693 · Risk ratio (rr): 0.79 · 95% CI 0.25 to 2.51
  • Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit) vs Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies) · Negative binomial regression · p = 0.309 · Risk ratio (rr): 1.69 · 95% CI 0.62 to 4.62
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants With Undetectable HCV RNA Among Those With Chronic HCV Infection at Enrollment

Undetectable HCV RNA at the week 26 and 52 visits (visits analyzed separately) among participants with chronic HCV at enrollment. No formal statistical test is performed for Week 26 and Week 52 separately.

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants With Undetectable HCV RNA Among Those With Chronic HCV Infection at Enrollment
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Participants with Undetectable HCV RNA at Week 261915
Participants with Undetectable HCV RNA at Week 522212
SecondaryIncidence Rate and CI for HCV Incidence

HCV antibody positive at the week 52 visit among participants who are HCV antibody negative at enrollment. Person time is defined as the number of days/year between enrollment and (a) HCV infection - for participants who became HCV infected, and (b) date of the most recent negative HCV test result - for participants who do not have HCV. HCV incidence will be modeled using Poisson regression (GLM with log link), with treatment arm and site as covariates and person years as an offset.

Time frame:
52 weeks
Reported as:
Number · New infections per 100 Person years
Incidence Rate and CI for HCV Incidence
New infections per 100 Person yearsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Incidence Rate and CI for HCV Incidence11.30 (4.15 to 24.60)8.32 (2.70 to 19.42)
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants in the Intervention Arm for Documented MOUD Use at Week 26 and 52

In the intervention arm, change over time in the use of MOUD during the study, comparing documented use of MOUD (biological evidence of MOUD - any detectable medications - and a current MOUD prescription) or proof of current receipt of MOUD from a clinic that does not provide individual MOUD prescriptions (e.g., methadone clinics)) at 26 and 52 weeks to documented use of MOUD at enrollment. MOUD use is assumed to be zero at enrollment due to study exclusion criteria. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and having documented MOUD use.

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants in the Intervention Arm for Documented MOUD Use at Week 26 and 52
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)
Week 2630
Week 5227
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants in the Control Arm With Documented MOUD Use at Week 26 and 52

In the active control arm, change over time in the use of MOUD during the study, comparing documented use of MOUD (biological evidence of MOUD - any detectable medications - and a current MOUD prescription) or proof of current receipt of MOUD from a clinic that does not provide individual MOUD prescriptions (e.g., methadone clinics)) at 26 and 52 weeks to documented MOUD use at enrollment. MOUD use is assumed to be zero at enrollment due to study exclusion criteria. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and having documented MOUD use.

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants in the Control Arm With Documented MOUD Use at Week 26 and 52
ParticipantsActive Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Week 2622
Week 5229
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants in the Intervention Arm for Viral Suppression at 26 and 52 Weeks

Among participants living with HIV at enrollment: change over time in the percentage of people with viral suppression (VL\<200 copies/mL), comparing 26 and 52 weeks to enrollment. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and virally suppressed.

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants in the Intervention Arm for Viral Suppression at 26 and 52 Weeks
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)
Enrollment6
Week 268
Week 524
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants in the Control Arm for Viral Suppression at 26 and 52 Weeks

Among participants living with HIV at enrollment: change over time in the percentage of people with viral suppression (VL\<200 copies/mL), comparing 26 and 52 weeks to enrollment. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and virally suppressed.

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants in the Control Arm for Viral Suppression at 26 and 52 Weeks
ParticipantsActive Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Enrollment6
Week 267
Week 527
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants in the Intervention Arm With Documented Use of PrEP at 26 and 52 Weeks

Among participants who were without HIV at enrollment: change over time in the percentage of people with detectable PrEP drugs in DBS at 26 and 52 weeks compared to enrollment. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and having detectable PrEP.

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants in the Intervention Arm With Documented Use of PrEP at 26 and 52 Weeks
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)
Week 2611
Week 524
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants in the Control Arm With Documented Use of PrEP at 26 and 52 Weeks

Among participants who were without HIV at enrollment: change over time in the percentage of people with detectable PrEP drugs in DBS at 26 and 52 weeks compared to enrollment. Follow-up endpoints will be defined as alive, retained, and having detectable PrEP.

Time frame:
26 weeks and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants in the Control Arm With Documented Use of PrEP at 26 and 52 Weeks
ParticipantsActive Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Week 266
Week 524
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Participants With SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity at Baseline, 26 and 52 Weeks by Arm

Count of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity at baseline, 26 and 52 weeks by arm, the following endpoint will be assessed: • Laboratory evidence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2

Time frame:
Baseline, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Participants With SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity at Baseline, 26 and 52 Weeks by Arm
ParticipantsMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
Participants with specimens collected at Enrollment222214
SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity for participants at Enrollment6050
Participants with specimens collected at Week 26166156
SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity for participants at Week 264652
Participants with specimens collected at Week 52164151
SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity for participants at Week 524449
SecondaryNumber and Percentage of Self-reported Subjective Experiences Linked to COVID-19 by Site

Self-reported impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on substance use and services by Site: Substance Use increased reasons included: boredom/isolation, trauma from losing someone to COVID, nothing else to spend money on, increased availability of drugs. Substance Use decreased reasons included: isolation from drug-using community, reduced availability of drugs, increased cost of drugs, desire to improve health after having had COVID. Services more available reasons included: convenience of virtual health services. Services less available reasons included: service centers/offices closed, COVID vaccine requirements to get services, longer wait times, fear of people who had COVID.

Time frame:
52 Weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number and Percentage of Self-reported Subjective Experiences Linked to COVID-19 by Site
ParticipantsNew YorkWashington DCHoustonLos AngelesPhiladelphia
As a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Substance-use increased41832
As a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Substance-use reduced23420
As a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Services became more available10231
As a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Services became less available35777

Adverse events

Collected over The reporting period for all participants is from the time of enrollment through when a participant exits the study (Up to 52 weeks).. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)4/224 (1.8%)59/224 (26.3%)0/224 (0%)
Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)15/223 (6.7%)71/223 (31.8%)0/223 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Showing 10 of 129
Most frequent serious events
EventMobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)
OverdoseInjury, poisoning and procedural complications28/22422/223
PneumoniaInfections and infestations1/2248/223
CellulitisInfections and infestations1/2247/223
Abscess limbInfections and infestations2/2246/223
OsteomyelitisInfections and infestations2/2244/223
Staphylococcal bacteraemiaInfections and infestations1/2244/223
Suicidal ideationPsychiatric disorders4/2240/223
Arthritis bacterialInfections and infestations0/2243/223
BacteraemiaInfections and infestations0/2243/223
SepsisInfections and infestations0/2243/223

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)Total
Mean43.1 ± 10.841.8 ± 10.342.4 ± 10.6
Age, Customized
Age, Customized(Participants)Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)Total
Age Category — <30212849
Age Category — 30-49132138270
Age Category — 50-595349102
Age Category — 60+18826
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)Total
Female7171142
Male153152305
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)Total
Hispanic or Latino8066146
Not Hispanic or Latino144153297
Unknown or Not Reported044
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)Total
American Indian or Alaska Native121022
Asian000
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander022
Black or African American474895
White120121241
More than one race5611
Unknown or Not Reported403676
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)Total
United States224223447
Sexual Orientation
Sexual Orientation(Participants)Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)Total
STRAIGHT/HETEROSEXUAL196198394
BISEXUAL191736
GAY/LESBIAN/HOMOSEXUAL448
ADDITIONAL IDENTITY224
TWO SPIRIT011
PREFER NOT TO ANSWER314
Current Housing Status
Current Housing Status(Participants)Mobile Unit Care Arm (Integrated Health Services Delivered in the Mobile Unit)Active Control Arm (Health Services Available at Community-based Agencies)Total
Housed123115238
Unhoused97107204
Missing415
08

Study locations

5 sites
  • UCLA Vine Street Clinic
    Los Angeles, California 90095, United States
  • George Washington University CRS
    Washington D.C., District of Columbia 20007, United States
  • Bronx Prevention Center CRS
    The Bronx, New York 10451, United States
  • Penn Prevention CRS
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, United States
  • Houston AIDS Research Team CRS
    Houston, Texas 77030, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Hedegaard H, Minino AM, Warner M. Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999-2018. NCHS Data Brief. 2020 Jan;(356):1-8. PubMed 32487285 ↗
  • Nicholson HL, Vincent J. Gender Differences in Prescription Opioid Misuse Among U.S. Black Adults. Subst Use Misuse. 2019;54(4):639-650. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2018.1531427. Epub 2018 Dec 13. PubMed 30541373 ↗
  • Allen B, Nolan ML, Kunins HV, Paone D. Racial Differences in Opioid Overdose Deaths in New York City, 2017. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1;179(4):576-578. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7700. PubMed 30742218 ↗
  • Hedegaard H, Minino AM, Warner M. Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999-2017. NCHS Data Brief. 2018 Nov;(329):1-8. PubMed 30500323 ↗
  • Ciccarone D. Fentanyl in the US heroin supply: A rapidly changing risk environment. Int J Drug Policy. 2017 Aug;46:107-111. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.06.010. Epub 2017 Jul 20. No abstract available. PubMed 28735776 ↗
  • Ciccarone D. The triple wave epidemic: Supply and demand drivers of the US opioid overdose crisis. Int J Drug Policy. 2019 Sep;71:183-188. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.01.010. Epub 2019 Feb 2. PubMed 30718120 ↗
  • Volkow ND, Frieden TR, Hyde PS, Cha SS. Medication-assisted therapies--tackling the opioid-overdose epidemic. N Engl J Med. 2014 May 29;370(22):2063-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1402780. Epub 2014 Apr 23. No abstract available. PubMed 24758595 ↗
  • Kolodny A, Courtwright DT, Hwang CS, Kreiner P, Eadie JL, Clark TW, Alexander GC. The prescription opioid and heroin crisis: a public health approach to an epidemic of addiction. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015 Mar 18;36:559-74. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122957. Epub 2015 Jan 12. PubMed 25581144 ↗
  • Compton WM, Jones CM, Baldwin GT. Relationship between Nonmedical Prescription-Opioid Use and Heroin Use. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan 14;374(2):154-63. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1508490. No abstract available. PubMed 26760086 ↗
  • Compton WM, Volkow ND, Throckmorton DC, Lurie P. Expanded access to opioid overdose intervention: research, practice, and policy needs. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Jan 1;158(1):65-6. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-1-201301010-00013. No abstract available. PubMed 23277902 ↗
  • Strathdee SA, Beyrer C. Threading the Needle--How to Stop the HIV Outbreak in Rural Indiana. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 30;373(5):397-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1507252. Epub 2015 Jun 24. No abstract available. PubMed 26106947 ↗
  • Platt L, Easterbrook P, Gower E, McDonald B, Sabin K, McGowan C, Yanny I, Razavi H, Vickerman P. Prevalence and burden of HCV co-infection in people living with HIV: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Jul;16(7):797-808. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00485-5. Epub 2016 Feb 25. PubMed 26922272 ↗
  • Blanco C, Volkow ND. Management of opioid use disorder in the USA: present status and future directions. Lancet. 2019 Apr 27;393(10182):1760-1772. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33078-2. Epub 2019 Mar 14. PubMed 30878228 ↗
  • Peters PJ, Pontones P, Hoover KW, Patel MR, Galang RR, Shields J, Blosser SJ, Spiller MW, Combs B, Switzer WM, Conrad C, Gentry J, Khudyakov Y, Waterhouse D, Owen SM, Chapman E, Roseberry JC, McCants V, Weidle PJ, Broz D, Samandari T, Mermin J, Walthall J, Brooks JT, Duwve JM; Indiana HIV Outbreak Investigation Team. HIV Infection Linked to Injection Use of Oxymorphone in Indiana, 2014-2015. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 21;375(3):229-39. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1515195. PubMed 27468059 ↗
  • Cranston K, Alpren C, John B, Dawson E, Roosevelt K, Burrage A, Bryant J, Switzer WM, Breen C, Peters PJ, Stiles T, Murray A, Fukuda HD, Adih W, Goldman L, Panneer N, Callis B, Campbell EM, Randall L, France AM, Klevens RM, Lyss S, Onofrey S, Agnew-Brune C, Goulart M, Jia H, Tumpney M, McClung P, Dasgupta S, Bixler D, Hampton K; Amy Board; Jaeger JL, Buchacz K, DeMaria A Jr. Notes from the Field: HIV Diagnoses Among Persons Who Inject Drugs - Northeastern Massachusetts, 2015-2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Mar 15;68(10):253-254. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6810a6. No abstract available. PubMed 30870405 ↗
  • Golden MR, Lechtenberg R, Glick SN, Dombrowski J, Duchin J, Reuer JR, Dhanireddy S, Neme S, Buskin SE. Outbreak of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection Among Heterosexual Persons Who Are Living Homeless and Inject Drugs - Seattle, Washington, 2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Apr 19;68(15):344-349. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6815a2. PubMed 30998671 ↗
  • Williams AR, Nunes EV, Bisaga A, Pincus HA, Johnson KA, Campbell AN, Remien RH, Crystal S, Friedmann PD, Levin FR, Olfson M. Developing an opioid use disorder treatment cascade: A review of quality measures. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018 Aug;91:57-68. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.06.001. Epub 2018 Jun 2. PubMed 29910015 ↗
  • Malta M, Magnanini MM, Strathdee SA, Bastos FI. Adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected drug users: a meta-analysis. AIDS Behav. 2010 Aug;14(4):731-47. doi: 10.1007/s10461-008-9489-7. Epub 2008 Nov 20. PubMed 19020970 ↗
  • Malta M, Ralil da Costa M, Bastos FI. The paradigm of universal access to HIV-treatment and human rights violation: how do we treat HIV-positive people who use drugs? Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2014 Mar;11(1):52-62. doi: 10.1007/s11904-013-0196-2. PubMed 24369409 ↗
  • Volkow ND, Wargo EM. Overdose Prevention Through Medical Treatment of Opioid Use Disorders. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Aug 7;169(3):190-192. doi: 10.7326/M18-1397. Epub 2018 Jun 19. No abstract available. PubMed 29913514 ↗
  • Shoptaw S, Goodman-Meza D, Landovitz RJ. Collective Call to Action for HIV/AIDS Community-Based Collaborative Science in the Era of COVID-19. AIDS Behav. 2020 Jul;24(7):2013-2016. doi: 10.1007/s10461-020-02860-y. No abstract available. PubMed 32300993 ↗
  • Green TC, Bratberg J, Finnell DS. Opioid use disorder and the COVID 19 pandemic: A call to sustain regulatory easements and further expand access to treatment. Subst Abus. 2020;41(2):147-149. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2020.1752351. PubMed 32314951 ↗
  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on the Examination of the Integration of Opioid and Infectious Disease Prevention Efforts in Select Programs. Opportunities to Improve Opioid Use Disorder and Infectious Disease Services: Integrating Responses to a Dual Epidemic. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2020 Jan 23. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555809/ PubMed 32293827 ↗
  • Iyengar S, Kravietz A, Bartholomew TS, Forrest D, Tookes HE. Baseline differences in characteristics and risk behaviors among people who inject drugs by syringe exchange program modality: an analysis of the Miami IDEA syringe exchange. Harm Reduct J. 2019 Jan 23;16(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s12954-019-0280-z. PubMed 30674334 ↗
  • Allen ST, Ruiz MS, Jones J. Assessing Syringe Exchange Program Access among Persons Who Inject Drugs (PWID) in the District of Columbia. J Urban Health. 2016 Feb;93(1):131-40. doi: 10.1007/s11524-015-0018-5. PubMed 26786782 ↗
  • Degenhardt L, Peacock A, Colledge S, Leung J, Grebely J, Vickerman P, Stone J, Cunningham EB, Trickey A, Dumchev K, Lynskey M, Griffiths P, Mattick RP, Hickman M, Larney S. Global prevalence of injecting drug use and sociodemographic characteristics and prevalence of HIV, HBV, and HCV in people who inject drugs: a multistage systematic review. Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Dec;5(12):e1192-e1207. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30375-3. Epub 2017 Oct 23. PubMed 29074409 ↗
  • Ait-Daoud N, Blevins D, Khanna S, Sharma S, Holstege CP, Amin P. Women and Addiction: An Update. Med Clin North Am. 2019 Jul;103(4):699-711. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2019.03.002. PubMed 31078201 ↗
  • Palis H, Marchand K, Guh D, Brissette S, Lock K, MacDonald S, Harrison S, Anis AH, Krausz M, Marsh DC, Schechter MT, Oviedo-Joekes E. Men's and women's response to treatment and perceptions of outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of injectable opioid assisted treatment for severe opioid use disorder. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2017 May 19;12(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s13011-017-0110-9. PubMed 28526048 ↗
  • Wejnert C, Hess KL, Hall HI, Van Handel M, Hayes D, Fulton P Jr, An Q, Koenig LJ, Prejean J, Valleroy LA. Vital Signs: Trends in HIV Diagnoses, Risk Behaviors, and Prevention Among Persons Who Inject Drugs - United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Dec 2;65(47):1336-1342. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6547e1. PubMed 27906906 ↗
  • Lapham G, Boudreau DM, Johnson EA, Bobb JF, Matthews AG, McCormack J, Liu D, Samet JH, Saxon AJ, Campbell CI, Glass JE, Rossom RC, Murphy MT, Binswanger IA, Yarborough BJH, Bradley KA; PROUD Collaborative Investigators. Prevalence and treatment of opioid use disorders among primary care patients in six health systems. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020 Feb 1;207:107732. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107732. Epub 2019 Nov 15. PubMed 31835068 ↗
  • Yu SWY, Hill C, Ricks ML, Bennet J, Oriol NE. The scope and impact of mobile health clinics in the United States: a literature review. Int J Equity Health. 2017 Oct 5;16(1):178. doi: 10.1186/s12939-017-0671-2. PubMed 28982362 ↗
  • Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):217-26. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812. PubMed 22310560 ↗
  • Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008 Apr;34(4):228-43. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(08)34030-6. PubMed 18468362 ↗
  • Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322. PubMed 10474547 ↗
  • Miller WC, Hoffman IF, Hanscom BS, Ha TV, Dumchev K, Djoerban Z, Rose SM, Latkin CA, Metzger DS, Lancaster KE, Go VF, Dvoriak S, Mollan KR, Reifeis SA, Piwowar-Manning EM, Richardson P, Hudgens MG, Hamilton EL, Sugarman J, Eshleman SH, Susami H, Chu VA, Djauzi S, Kiriazova T, Bui DD, Strathdee SA, Burns DN. A scalable, integrated intervention to engage people who inject drugs in HIV care and medication-assisted treatment (HPTN 074): a randomised, controlled phase 3 feasibility and efficacy study. Lancet. 2018 Sep 1;392(10149):747-759. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31487-9. PubMed 30191830 ↗
  • Morgan JR, Schackman BR, Leff JA, Linas BP, Walley AY. Injectable naltrexone, oral naltrexone, and buprenorphine utilization and discontinuation among individuals treated for opioid use disorder in a United States commercially insured population. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018 Feb;85:90-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2017.07.001. Epub 2017 Jul 3. PubMed 28733097 ↗
  • Smith LR, Perez-Brumer A, Nicholls M, Harris J, Allen Q, Padilla A, Yates A, Samore E, Kennedy R, Kuo I, Lake JE, Denis C, Goodman-Meza D, Davidson P, Shoptaw S, El-Bassel N; HPTN 094 study protocol team. A data-driven approach to implementing the HPTN 094 complex intervention INTEGRA in local communities. Implement Sci. 2024 Jun 3;19(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01363-x. PubMed 38831415 ↗
  • Goodman-Meza D, Shoptaw S, Hanscom B, Smith LR, Andrew P, Kuo I, Lake JE, Metzger D, Morrison EAB, Cummings M, Fogel JM, Richardson P, Harris J, Heitner J, Stansfield S, El-Bassel N; HPTN 094 Study Team. Delivering integrated strategies from a mobile unit to address the intertwining epidemics of HIV and addiction in people who inject drugs: the HPTN 094 randomized controlled trial protocol (the INTEGRA Study). Trials. 2024 Feb 15;25(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07899-5. PubMed 38360750 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 10, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04804072
Lead sponsor
HIV Prevention Trials Network
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 18, 2021
Start date
Jun 2, 2021
Primary completion
Dec 17, 2024
Completion
Dec 17, 2024
Results posted
Feb 20, 2026
Last update
Jun 10, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion