16 and older, any sex, with Methamphetamine Abuse or Opioid-use Disorder. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.
Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov
Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.
Increase in HIV Viral Suppression for HIV-positive Participants: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With SMS in Stage 2Primary· Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of 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.
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
31
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
35
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
6
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
3
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
3
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
5
Week 24
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
33
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
39
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
3
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
1
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
4
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
3
Increase in HIV Viral Suppression for HIV-positive Participants: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With Matrix/Matrix + CM in Stage 2Primary· Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of 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.
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
4
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
10
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
6
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
8
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
1
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
1
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
1
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
1
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
3
Week 24
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
5
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
9
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
4
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
9
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
1
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
1
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
2
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
1
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in 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 2Primary· Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of 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.
Baseline: Sexual risk behaviors
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
41
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
24
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
181
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
168
Week 24: Sexual risk behaviors
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
16
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
14
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
206
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
178
Baseline: HIV needle/syringe risk behaviors
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
3
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
222
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
189
Week 24: HIV needle/syringe risk behaviors
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
1
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
222
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
191
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 2Primary· Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of 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.
Baseline: Sexual risk behaviors
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
5
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
13
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
8
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
13
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
28
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
52
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
33
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
43
Week 24: Sexual risk behaviors
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
3
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
8
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
4
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
10
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
30
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
57
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
37
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
46
Baseline: HIV needle/syringe risk behaviors
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
1
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
1
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
33
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
64
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
41
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
55
Week 24: HIV needle/syringe risk behaviors
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
2
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
33
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
65
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
39
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
56
Heroin-negative Test: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline InterventionSecondary· Weeks 11-12 (end of Stage 1) and Weeks 24-25 (end of Stage 2)
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.
Week 12
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1
252
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1
237
Week 25
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1
238
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1
248
Heroin-negative Test: Matrix vs. Matrix + CM Adaptive InterventionSecondary· Week 24-25 (end of Stage 2)
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.
Group
Value
95% CI
Received Matrix in Stage 2
48
Received Matrix + Contingency Management in Stage 2
50
Adherence to ART if HIV-positive: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With SMS in Stage 2Secondary· Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of 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.
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
38
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
41
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
0
Week 24
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
37
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
37
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
1
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
4
Adherence to ART if HIV-positive: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With Matrix/Matrix + CM in Stage 2Secondary· Baseline (start of Stage 1) and week 24 (end of 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.
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
6
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
12
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
6
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
10
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
1
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
2
Week 24
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
7
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
11
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
6
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
12
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
1
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Frequency of HIV Testing if HIV-negative: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With SMS in Stage 2Secondary· Week 12 (end of Stage 1) and Week 24 (end of Stage 2)
HIV testing will be assessed based on whether HIV-negative participants received HIV testing services at each assessment point
Week 12
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
181
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
148
Week 24
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
179
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
149
Frequency of HIV Testing if HIV-negative: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With Matrix/Matrix + CM in Stage 2Secondary· Week 12 (end of Stage 1) and Week 24 (end of Stage 2)
HIV testing will be assessed based on whether HIV-negative participants received HIV testing services at each assessment point
Week 12
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
25
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
52
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
35
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
43
Week 24
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
26
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
52
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
35
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
44
Frequency of Opioid Overdose: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With SMS in Stage 2Secondary· Week 12 (end of Stage 1) and Week 24 (end of 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 repo
Week 12
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
1
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
0
Week 24
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and SMS in Stage 2
0
Frequency of Opioid Overdose: High- vs. Low-Intensity Frontline Intervention With Matrix/Matrix + CM in Stage 2Secondary· Week 12 (end of Stage 1) and Week 24 (end of 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 repo
Week 12
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
1
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Week 24
Group
Value
95% CI
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix in Stage 2
0
Received High Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Received Low Intensity Frontline Intervention in Stage 1 and Matrix + CM in Stage 2
0
Adverse events — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov
Time frame: Adverse event data were collected throughout the study period, from June 29, 2021, to April 27, 2024. For each participant, data were collected over a 48-week period, beginning at enrollment and continuing through the 48-week follow-up visit..
Reporting threshold: 0%.
Adverse-event reports describe events observed during the trial — not all are caused by the drug.
High Intensity Frontline Intervention
Serious: 7/328 (2%)
Deaths: 2/328
Low Intensity Frontline Intervention
Serious: 9/337 (3%)
Deaths: 1/337
High Intensity Frontline + SMS Reminders
Serious: 14/230 (6%)
Deaths: 1/230
High Intensity Frontline + Matrix Only
Serious: 6/40 (15%)
Deaths: 0/40
High Intensity Frontline + Matrix + Contingency Management
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.
Publications & conference data
6 peer-reviewed publications reference this trial (live from Europe PMC):
NCT06721494 — A Single-Dose Study to Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of CS-1103 in Participants Receiving a Single Dose of Methamphetamin
· Phase 2
· recruiting
NCT06496750 — Ketamine for Methamphetamine Use Disorder
· Phase 2
· recruiting
NCT06410196 — Mood and Decision-making in Methamphetamine Use Disorder
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06233799 — Trial of Naltrexone/Bupropion for the Treatment of Methamphetamine Use Disorder
· Phase 3
· recruiting
NCT05700994 — Peer Engagement in Methamphetamine Harm-Reduction With Contingency Management (PEER-CM)
· NA
· active not recruiting
Other Hanoi Medical University trials
Trials by the same sponsor.
NCT07514221 — Project Yes+ for Young MSM Living With HIV in Vietnam
· NA
· not yet recruiting
NCT07396558 — Intermittent Erector Spinae Plane Block Via Subcutaneous Port for Cancer Pain
· NA
· not yet recruiting
NCT07186985 — The Effectiveness of Combined Pelvic Floor Muscle Training and Vaginal Oestrogen Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With St
· NA
· not yet recruiting
NCT06789523 — Friendship Bench for Women Who Use Methamphetamine in Vietnam
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06984172 — Effectiveness of Remote Cardiac Rehab After Surgery for Acquired Heart Valve Disease
· NA
· not yet recruiting
Publications: Europe PMC API search by NCT ID, retrieved 10 June 2026
Drug + disease cross-links: matched in real time against Drug Landscape's normalised drug + company + condition tables
Sponsor: as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov by Hanoi Medical University
Last refreshed: 23 January 2026
Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT04706624.