Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3361073

NIDA’s Clinical Trials Network: An Opportunity for HIV Research in Community Substance Abuse Treatment Programs

Susan Tross, Ph.D.,1 Aimee N. C. Campbell, Ph.D.,2 Donald A. Calsyn, Ph.D.,3 Lisa R. Metsch, Ph.D.,4 James L. Sorensen, Ph.D.,5 Steven Shoptaw, Ph.D.,6 Louise Haynes, M.S.W.,7 George E. Woody, M.D.,8 Robert M. Malow, Ph.D.,9 Lawrence S. Brown, Jr., M.D., M.P.H.,10 Daniel J. Feaster, Ph.D.,4 Robert E. Booth, Ph.D.,11 Raul N. Mandler, M.D.,12 Carmen Masson, Ph.D.,5 Beverly W. Holmes, M.S.W.,7 Grant Colfax, M.D.,13 Audrey J. Brooks, Ph.D.,14 Denise A. Hien, Ph.D.,15 Bruce R. Schackman, Ph.D.,16 P. Todd Korthuis, M.D., M.P.H.,17 Gloria M. Miele, Ph.D.,18 and Clinical Trials Network HIV Special Interest Group



HIV continues to be a significant problem among substance users and their sexual partners in the United States. The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) offers a national platform for effectiveness trials of HIV interventions in community substance abuse treatment programs. This article presents the HIV activities of the CTN during its first 10 years.


While emphasizing CTN HIV protocols, this article reviews the (1) HIV context for this work; (2) the collaborative process among providers, researchers, and National Institute on Drug Abuse CTN staff, on which CTN HIV work was based; (3) results of CTN HIV protocols and HIV secondary analyses in CTN non-HIV protocols; and (4) implications for future HIV intervention effectiveness research in community substance abuse treatment programs.


While the feasibility of engaging frontline providers in this research is highlighted, the limitations of small to medium effect sizes and weak adoption and sustainability in everyday practice are also discussed.

Keywords: Clinical Trials Network, effectiveness research, HIV/AIDS, substance abuse


The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) (1) was a response to the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) (2) 1998 call for infrastructure to increase effectiveness research to facilitate widespread adoption of efficacious treatments into community-based treatment programs. Now in its 11th year, the CTN is a national network of partnerships between researchers and providers delivering substance abuse treatment – described in a 2010 Anniversary issue in the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (3).

The past decade spans a dynamic period in HIV epidemiology, prevention, testing, and treatment in which the CTN has been an active participant. This article summarizes the HIV context and describes HIV-related research within the CTN in terms of collaborative process, HIV protocols, HIV-related secondary analyses, limitations, and implications for future HIV effectiveness research.


Over the past 10 years, HIV has continued to be a significant problem among substance users. In 2006, substance use was a likely factor in 51.1% of infections due to heterosexual contact with a high-risk partner (often a drug user; 27.6%), injection drug use (IDU) (18.5%), or male-to-male sexual contact and IDU (5%) (4). There is potential non-injection substance use involved in another 48.1% of infections in men-who-have-sex-with-men. In substance abuse treatment programs, HIV prevalence ranges from 1% to 28% (5,6).

Significant progress has been made in educating substance abusers about the risks of sharing needles and injection paraphernalia. This is partly due to the growth and effectiveness of syringe exchanges (7,8) and harm reduction messages about needle-sharing and needle hygiene (9,10). Substance abuse treatment has also had a significant role in reducing drug use and HIV IDU risk behavior (1114). However, sexual risk behavior has been slower to change. Unprotected sex, often under the influence of drugs, and especially stimulants (1517), has become increasingly important in HIV transmission (18). Meta-analyses and reviews of controlled trials of HIV risk reduction interventions among substance users (1922) suggest that HIV safer sex interventions with certain core features can be effective: gender-specificity; intensity of at least four sessions; and focus on skills building (23), compared to brief, informational sessions that are often standard-of-care (24). Without an HIV vaccine, substance abuse treatment and HIV behavioral intervention are the primary approaches for reducing HIV transmission among substance users.

The past decade has been a period of marked progress. The HIV prevention and treatment fields have become more integrated, for example, and embraced the “Seek, Test, Treat and Retain” paradigm (2529). This paradigm involves reaching out to vulnerable and hidden populations such as substance users (seek), offering them HIV testing so they will become aware of their HIV status (test), then if confirmed HIV-positive linking them to HIV primary care so they can begin antiretroviral therapy (ART) (treat), and finally examining strategies to retain them in HIV medical treatment including ways to address their substance use (retain). One important component of this approach and national recommendation is that healthcare settings, including substance use treatment programs, offer HIV testing to their patients (30) and then have available linkage services to primary medical care when a person tests positive for HIV. However, surveys have shown that only about one-half of treatment programs provide HIV testing services, either on-site or outsourced (3134). Additionally, significant obstacles complicate ART effectiveness, especially among substance users. They are late testers (35), have poorer access to HIV care (36,37), and may have difficulty maintaining high adherence required for ART (3841). This is concerning as it has been shown that substance users, if started on ART, can achieve the same clinical outcomes (e.g., increased survival) of their non-substance-using counterparts (42). Studies have also demonstrated the value of integrating substance use treatment into HIV primary care (43,44).

Within this context, CTN HIV partners set out to build a program of HIV research. Mindful of staffing, resources, and priorities of community drug treatment programs, these studies focused on needs assessment, prevention, testing, and linkage to HIV treatment, while targeting sustainable practices.


CTN HIV Protocols

Since 2000, five HIV protocols have been implemented in the CTN. All shared defining features, intrinsic to community research networks, like the CTN. They were (1) national in scope; (2) program-diverse; (3) large-scale; (4) developed in ongoing partnerships between providers and researchers; (5) implemented through national training; (6) focused on real-world utility; and (7) conducted by frontline program providers and monitored by program supervisors – suggesting feasibility and the potential for sustainability. Below, the collaborative processes that supported the CTN HIV protocols are described.

Collaborative Processes for CTN HIV Protocols

Following the IOM’s (2) charge, CTN HIV protocol development and implementation was the result of shared decision-making among researchers, service providers, and NIDA CTN staff. This process covered every aspect of research, including crafting study aims, methods, and procedures; implementing the protocol; interpreting and drafting results; and presenting and publishing findings. For example, frontline providers advised researchers about how to adjust research tasks to fit within the daily schedule of core substance abuse treatment activities. Providers advised researchers about how to introduce new and candid HIV sexual risk reduction interventions to busy substance abuse treatment counselors who might feel awkward, or even judgmental, about sexual material. In a study exploring HIV rapid testing, researchers and providers problem-solved potential needs for crisis intervention and fast linkage to HIV primary care that might arise. After protocols were completed, debriefing about results and process took place between providers and treatment program staff. Activities included offering strategies for HIV risk assessment, demonstrating risk reduction interventions to clinicians who did not directly participate in study intervention delivery, and presenting and dialoguing about study outcomes and lessons learned. An article in Counselor Magazine, “Addressing Sexual Issues,” was authored jointly by a community program director and the principal investigators of the men’s and women’s risk reduction trials (45).

The collaborative process was supported by a CTN-wide HIV Special Interest Group. This volunteer partnership was a central voice for HIV priorities within the CTN. It served as a venue for (1) CTN-wide networking and strategizing among HIV-concerned providers and researchers; (2) conducting a CTN-wide HIV needs assessment survey (24); (3) helping launch CTN HIV protocols; (4) developing other (e.g., R01) HIV risk reduction studies using the CTN platform; and (5) choosing an HIV risk behavior assessment for use in CTN studies (i.e., Risk Behavior Survey) (46).

It should be emphasized that in implementing this work CTN HIV investigators joined a well-established tradition of researchers and community partners collaborating in large-scale networks to rapidly conduct HIV research. Indeed, the seven HIV/AIDS CTNs of NIAID (e.g., HIV Prevention Trials Network, AIDS Clinical Trials Group, etc.; see have contributed groundbreaking advances in HIV prevention and treatment. However, the CTN differs from these networks because it is not HIV-dedicated. Rather, the CTN HIV research experience more closely parallels the HIV work of the NIDA-supported Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies Network (CJ-DATS). Over the first wave of CJ-DATS, from 2002 to 2008, it was comprised of nine research centers and criminal justice partner agencies that carried out 13 protocols testing integrated approaches for the treatment of offenders with substance use disorders. Of these, three were HIV protocols. Unlike the CTN HIV work, CJ-DATS protocols targeted populations within or transitioning from the criminal justice system (47).

The five CTN HIV protocols are presented in Table 1. Their major features, results, and significance are described below.

NIDA Clinical Trials Network protocols with HIV/HCV outcomes.

CTN0012: Characteristics of Screening, Evaluation, and Treatment of HIV/AIDS, HCV Infection, and STI in Substance Abuse Treatment Programs

CTN0012 was a health services research study using standardized surveys completed by program administrators, program clinicians, and state administrators to determine current availability of HIV, HCV, and STI services, and related program and patient characteristics. Findings showed an array of infectious disease-related services provided in substance abuse treatment programs, but with great variability. While about half of programs reported providing HIV testing, this was as likely to be off-site referral as to be on-site testing (31,48). Services also varied by type of setting, type of addiction treatment, and patient medical characteristics (48). Administrators and clinicians reported lack of funding or health insurance, lack of patient acceptance, and state regulations as barriers (49). Treatment programs in states with specific policy about infectious disease services did have more explicit service guidelines than programs in states without them (50) and programs with addiction treatment tailored to African American and Latino racial/ethnic subgroups also were more likely to offer these services (51).

CTN0017: Reducing HIV-Related Risk Behaviors among IDUs in Residential Detoxification

CTN0017 was a trial of three interventions for injection and sexual risk reduction for IDUs in detoxification: (1) two-session HIV/HCV counseling and education, from the NIDA Cooperative Agreement model for out-of-treatment substance users (52), plus treatment as usual (TAU); (2) single-session Therapeutic Alliance intervention (53), plus TAU; and (3) TAU alone. Among 632 IDUs in 8 residential detoxification centers, rates of entry into ongoing treatment were higher for Therapeutic Alliance, versus TAU, and entry into treatment was faster in Therapeutic Alliance versus TAU (54). In all three interventions, detoxification significantly decreased injection and sexual risk behavior over 6 months; there were no differences between interventions (55). Participation in treatment 2 months post-detoxification was associated with reduction in injection risk behavior (55).

CTN0018: HIV/STD Safer Sex Skills Groups for Men and CTN0019: HIV/STD Safer Sex Skills Groups for Women, in Methadone Maintenance or Psychosocial Outpatient Treatment Programs

Two gender-specific protocols were developed as companion trials with a single protocol development team, combined training of research staff, and parallel design, assessments, procedures, and interventions. They incorporated features of successful HIV sexual prevention programs (e.g., gender specificity, sufficient intensity, and skills training) (56) and included psychosocial outpatient treatment programs, typically underrepresented in HIV clinical trials.

CTN0018’s Real Men Are Safe (REMAS) intervention adapted materials from the NIMH Multisite HIV Prevention Trial Group’s Project Light (57) and Bartholomew and Simpson’s Time Out for Men (58). REMAS was a five-session group intervention targeting HIV/STI transmission and prevention information, risk assessment, male and female condom use, safer sex negotiation, and the interplay between substance use and sexual behavior, a primary factor in men’s sexual risk (59,60). Single-session HIV education (HIV-Ed) served as a standardized TAU control condition. Among 590 men in 7 methadone and 7 outpatient psychosocial programs, REMAS participants had significantly fewer unprotected sexual occasions than HIV-Ed participants at both 3-month (effect size = .10) and 6-month post-treatment (effect size =.17, p < .001) (61). This effect was heightened for REMAS completers (attending the majority of sessions) compared to HIV-Ed completers (3-month effect size = .21; 6-month effect size =.34). At 3-month follow-up, sex under the influence decreased in REMAS men, but increased in HIV-Ed men (60).

CTN0019 adapted a safer sex skills building (SSSB) intervention for women in methadone maintenance, shown to be efficacious by El-Bassel and colleagues (62,63). SSSB was a five-session group intervention consisting of HIV risk assessment, HIV safer sex problem-solving, condom use practice, and safer sex decision-making and negotiation skill-building, with additional focus on gender role constraints in sexual relationships, a primary factor in women’s sexual risk (56). SSSB was enhanced with risk assessment and safety planning for potential partner abuse. Among 515 women in 7 methadone maintenance and 5 psychosocial outpatient treatment programs, a significant difference in number of unprotected vaginal/anal sexual occasions was obtained between SSSB and HIV-Ed over time (effect size =.42, p < .001). At 3-month post-treatment follow-up, significant decreases were observed in both interventions. At 6-month follow-up, while SSSB women maintained this decrease, those in HIV-Ed returned to baseline levels of unprotected sex. The effect of SSSB was enhanced by intervention completion, increasing the effect size to .62 (64).

CTN0032: HIV Rapid Testing in Drug Treatment Programs in the United States

CTN0032 rolled out newly available, rapid HIV testing in community substance abuse treatment programs to evaluate the utility of recent CDC guidelines to forego pre-test HIV risk reduction counseling (65). CTN0032 compares three strategies: (1) referral to off-site testing (TAU), (2) on-site rapid testing, and (c) on-site rapid testing with evidence-based RESPECT counseling (from CDC STD clinic trials) (66,67). The primary outcomes are rates of HIV testing and HIV sexual risk behavior change. The trial also includes an ancillary economic study to determine cost and cost-effectiveness (68). In 12 outpatient, inpatient, or methadone treatment programs, 1281 participants were randomized. Primary analysis and publications are forthcoming.

HIV Secondary Analyses in CTN Non-HIV Protocols

Mindful of the HIV vulnerability of substance users, the CTN included HIV risk behavior measures in the Common Assessment Battery for all protocols. A CTN cross-protocol database (at presented the opportunity to identify predictors of HIV risk behavior and needs for future HIV interventions targeting subgroups. Examples of secondary analyses from these non-HIV protocols are given below.

CTN0015: Women’s Treatment for Trauma and Substance Use Disorders

CTN0015 (69) examined whether a trauma-focused intervention reduced HIV sexual risk behavior among women with posttraumatic stress and substance use disorders. The study compared 12 sessions of Seeking Safety, a cognitive behavioral trauma-focused treatment (70), to a women’s health education control condition. Seeking Safety focuses on safe coping skills, communication and boundary setting, and identifying and reducing unsafe behavior, including sexual behavior. Among 353 women attending 7 outpatient psychosocial treatment programs, those with higher sexual risk and who were in Seeking Safety showed greater decrements in HIV sexual risk behavior than those with higher risk in health education at the 12-month post-treatment follow-up (p = .04) (71).

CTN0010: Buprenorphine/Naloxone-Facilitated Rehabilitation for Opioid-Dependent Adolescents/Young Adults

Opioid dependence is a serious, increasing problem among adolescents and young adults (72). CTN0010 (73) evaluated two buprenorphine/naloxone outpatient regimens in addition to standard, weekly substance abuse counseling: (1) extended treatment consisting of 12 weeks of tapered treatment; and (2) short-term detoxification over 14 days. Participants were 152 patients from 2 adolescent programs and 4 methadone programs, aged 15–21 years. Primary outcome analysis at week 12 showed that BUP patients had fewer opioid-positive urine screens (p < .001), reported less injection behavior (p < .02), and had better retention in substance abuse treatment (p < .001). However, after cessation of medication, high rates of opioid-positive urine screens were obtained across the entire sample. HCV prevalence of 18% and HCV seroconversion in 4 of 83 patients by 12-week follow-up highlighted the threat of HCV, HIV, and other infections. Findings suggested that prompt and careful use of buprenorphine/naloxone, for a potentially extended period, could be an effective deterrent to HCV and HIV infection.

Gender Differences in Rates and Correlates of HIV Risk Behaviors among Drug-Dependent Individuals

Using data from five studies (N = 1429 substance users; 45% women), this study obtained different rates of risk behavior and identified different predictors of risk behavior by gender. Women exceeded men in sex with multiple partners, unprotected sex with regular partners, and overall high-risk sexual behavior. Men exceeded women in IDU. Among women, sexual risk behavior was positively associated with alcohol use and psychiatric problem severity. Among men, sexual risk behavior was negatively associated with impairment in social function. Among both men and women, sexual risk behavior was associated with sexual abuse history, drug use severity, and legal system involvement (74).

HIV Studies Using the CTN as a Platform

Three studies are using the CTN as a platform for multisite HIV research. One study is piloting a novel, multilevel Directly Administered AntiRetroviral Treatment intervention to improve long-term ART medication adherence and reduce HIV-1 RNA viral load in methadone maintenance patients (75). Another study is testing the efficacy of an on-site HIV and Hepatitis Care Coordination intervention to increase hepatitis vaccination and attendance at HIV and/or HCV medical care intake (76,77). The third study is testing a novel, low-cost, brief audio computer-assisted HIV risk assessment and prevention intervention for substance abuse treatment programs, including parallel client risk behavior feedback reports and counselor reports (78).


HIV, HCV, and other infections present a widespread and serious threat to the health of substance users; it is imperative to bring proven HIV behavioral interventions to community substance abuse treatment programs. However, these interventions can only be useful if they are acceptable, feasible, and effective within the daily operations of programs. Over the past decade, within the CTN framework, five large-scale, multisite HIV/HCV protocols, conducted in community treatment programs have addressed questions about effectiveness and feasibility of HIV behavioral interventions. One protocol provided a national profile of existing HIV and HCV services and regulations from which to make strategic plans. Two protocols focused on sexual risk reduction in outpatient programs. One protocol focused on HIV testing, risk reduction, and linkage to ongoing treatment for IDUs in inpatient detoxification. Aided by the inclusion of HIV risk behavior assessments in every CTN protocol, other CTN investigators have tracked the effects of their non-HIV-centered interventions on HIV risk behavior.

A few conclusions should be emphasized from the CTN HIV experience. First, with focused training and support, brief evidence-based HIV interventions can be integrated into the daily substance abuse treatment work of frontline providers. All interventions were delivered by frontline providers. It is noteworthy that, in all three HIV protocols (i.e., CTN0017, CTN0018, CTN0019), rates of frontline counselor adherence to the intervention exceeded 80%. However, participant attendance was problematic. For example, in the HIV/STD Safer Sex Skills trials, intervention completion rates were slightly above 50% (men) and slightly below 50% (women). Second, within the CTN multisite trial infrastructure, the effectiveness of HIV interventions can be tested to address the question of whether results from community effectiveness trials can be as robust as those from original single site efficacy studies, an important empirical issue. For the women’s Safer Sex Skills trial, it was possible to compare the effect size obtained for SSSB in this community trial with that of the original efficacy study. The CTN effect size (d = .42) was very similar to that (d = .46) of the original efficacy study (63), as reported in Prendergast and colleagues’ meta-analysis (19). It is relevant that in both the SSSB and men’s REMAS trials effect sizes exceeded those reported for sexual risk behavior by Prendergast et al. (19). However, these effect sizes are still only considered small to medium. Third, within the large and diverse samples of these trials, compelling clinical and/or scientific questions can be answered in secondary analyses. Fourth, while some trials demonstrated superiority of enhanced HIV interventions, other trials obtained equal effects for TAU and enhanced conditions. These mixed results raise questions about the durability of enhanced interventions in community programs, already facing resource and funding constraints.

The question of whether CTN HIV effectiveness research interventions became part of daily practice in community substance abuse programs, especially those in which the research was conducted, is a crucial one. Multiple dissemination efforts of CTN HIV research findings, interventions, and materials have been made to providers in the CTN and general community. Dissemination efforts have included traditional methods such as publications in academic journals and presentations at national and international professional conferences and meetings. It has also included a publication in a trade journal that is popular among substance abuse treatment counselors (45). Representation on websites has also enhanced visibility and promoted dissemination. The REMAS and SSSB interventions were identified as promising, evidence-based HIV prevention interventions by the CDC, and listed on the CDC Diffusion of Effective Behavioral Interventions website (see An online course is now being developed with these two interventions that will enable substance abuse treatment providers to earn continuing education credits free of charge.

The CTN also supports a web-based dissemination library ( As of January 2011 there have been 574 visits to the REMAS manual webpage, 674 visits to the SSSB manual web-page, 247 visits to the Therapeutic Alliance Intervention manual webpage, and 128 visits to the HIV and HCV Counseling and Education manual webpage. SSSB is now being tailored for use with other community treatment populations, including pregnant women (79) and adolescent girls (80).

Despite these promising dissemination activities, uptake of CTN HIV protocol interventions in community treatment programs remains mixed and a crucial limitation of the work. In CTN0010 alone, uptake was robust; four of the five participating clinics are using buprenorphine/naloxone for opioid-dependent youth. However, for other CTN protocols, there is limited evidence of intervention uptake, wholesale, into host community treatment programs after the end of the research. A survey study conducted with host programs that participated in the Safer Sex Skills trials explored the issues of uptake, and barriers to and promoters of sustainability. While clinicians and administrators rated the interventions very favorably (81), none of the programs had adopted either intervention in entirety (82). However, a few programs reported using a subset of the modules that make up the interventions. The primary reasons given for low uptake were “lack of staff time,” “competing treatment priorities,” and “inadequate mechanism for reimbursement.” While lack of uptake is an important limitation of the work, it is an ongoing challenge to HIV researcher and provider partners to develop strategies that will enhance adoption of research interventions as an integral part of their research program from the outset (83).

Taken together, the limitations of low-intervention completion rates, modest effect sizes, and lack of adoption would seem to beg for cost-effective, less-cumbersome intervention delivery methods in future HIV intervention effectiveness research. Thus, technologically innovative interventions, using computers or cell phones as delivery platforms, and minimizing provider resource burden, might improve upon these findings (84). In addition, important gaps in the CTN HIV portfolio also press for future projects, in priority areas identified by the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States (, at the intersection of HIV and substance use. Future research is needed to (1) reduce new HIV transmission through tailored HIV risk reduction interventions with HIV high-risk populations, including stimulant-using men-who-have-sex-with-men, racial/ethnic minority substance users, and substance-using adolescents; (2) reduce new transmission through tailored HIV risk reduction interventions with HIV seropositive substance users; (3) reduce new transmission by implementing pre-and/or post-exposure medication among HIV high-risk populations; (4) improve health outcomes for people living with HIV by integrating substance abuse treatment into HIV primary care settings and integrating HCV, STI, and other infectious disease services into substance abuse treatment programs; and (5) reduce HIV health disparities by tailoring HIV risk reduction, outreach and linkage, and adherence programs to the racial/ethnic groups disproportionately impacted by the epidemic.


Support was provided by the NIDA CTN grants: U10 DA13035 (Edward Nunes, PI), U10 DA13714 (Dennis Donovan, PI), U10 DA13043 (George Woody, PI), U10 DA13727 (Kathleen Brady, PI), U10 DA013720 (Jose Szapocznik, PI), U10 DA015815 (James Sorensen, PI), U10 DA013046 (John Rotrosen, PI), U10 DA013036 (Dennis McCarty, PI), U10 DA13045 (Walter Ling, PI). The authors also acknowledge the support of the HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies, New York State Psychiatric Institute.


Declaration of Interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.


1. Hanson GR, Leshner AI, Tai B. Putting drug research to use in real-life settings. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2002;23(2):69–70. [PubMed]
2. Institute of Medicine. Bridging the Gap between Practice and Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998.
3. Tai B, Straus MM, Liu D, Sparenborg S, Jackson R, McCarty D. The first decade of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network: Bridging the gap between research and practice to improve drug abuse treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;38(S1):S4–S13. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV prevalence estimates – United States 2006. MMWR. 2006;57(39):1073–1076. [PubMed]
5. Murrill CS, Prevots DR, Miller MS, Linley LA, Royalty JE, Gwinn M. Incidence of HIV among injection drug users entering drug treatment programs in four U.S. cities. J Urban Health. 2001;78:152–161. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
6. Sorensen JL, Masson CL, Perlman DC. HIV/hepatitis prevention in substance abuse treatment programs: Guidance from research. NIDA Sci Pract Perspect. 2002;1:4–11. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Tempalski B, Cooper HL, Friedman SR, Des Jarlais DC, Brady J, Gostnell K. Correlates of syringe coverage for heroin injection in 35 large metropolitan areas in the US in which heroin is the dominant injected drug. Int J Drug Policy. 2008;19:S47–S58. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Wodak A, Cooney A. Effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programmes. Int J Drug Policy. 2005;16:S31–S44.
9. Booth RE, Kwaitkowski CF, Stephens RC. Effectiveness of HIV/AIDS interventions on drug use and needle risk behaviors for out-of-treatment injection drug users. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1998;30(3):269–278. [PubMed]
10. Des Jarlais DC, Semaan S. HIV prevention for injecting drug users: The first 25 years and counting. Psychosom Med. 2008;70:606–611. [PubMed]
11. Metzger D, Navaline H, Woody G. Drug abuse treatment is AIDS prevention. Public Health Rep. 1998;113(S1):97–106. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
12. Sorensen J, Copeland A. Drug abuse treatment as an AIDS prevention strategy: A review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;59:17–31. [PubMed]
13. Metzger DS, Woody GE, O’Brien CP. Drug treatment as HIV prevention: A research update. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55:S32–S36. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Gowing L, Farrell M, Bornemann R, Sullivan L, Ali R. Substitution treatment of injecting opioid users for prevention of HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;2:CD004145. [PubMed]
15. Colfax G, Shoptaw S. The methamphetamine epidemic: Implications for HIV prevention and treatment. Current HIV/AIDS Rep. 2005;2(4):194–199. [PubMed]
16. Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, Telang F, Jayne M, Wong C. Stimulant-induced enhanced sexual desire as a potential contributing factor in HIV transmission. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164:157–160. [PubMed]
17. Colfax G, Santos GM, Chu P, Vittinghoff E, Pluddermann A, Kumar S, Hart C. Amphetamine-group substances and HIV. Lancet. 2010;376(9739):458–474. [PubMed]
18. Des Jarlais DC, Arasteh K, Perlis T, Hagan H, Abdul-Quader A, Heckathorn DD, McKnight C, Bramson H, Nemeth C, Torian LV, Friedman SR. Convergence of HIV seroprevalence among injecting and non-injecting drug users in New York City. AIDS. 2007;21(2):231–235. [PubMed]
19. Prendergast M, Urada D, Podus D. Meta-analysis of HIV risk-reduction interventions within drug abuse treatment programs. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2001;69:389–405. [PubMed]
20. Semaan S, Des Jarlais D, Sogolow E, Johnson WD, Hedges LV, Ramirez G, Flores SA, Norman L, Sweat MD, Needle R. A meta-analysis of the effect of HIV prevention interventions on the sex behaviors of drug users in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30:S73–S93. [PubMed]
21. Copenhaver M, Johnson B, Lee I, Harman J, Carey M. the SHARP Research Team. Behavioral HIV risk reduction among people who inject drugs: Meta-analytic evidence of efficacy. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;31:163–171. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Meader N, Li R, Des Jarlais DC, Pilling S. Psychosocial interventions for reducing injection and sexual risk behavior for preventing HIV in drug users. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1:CD007192. [PubMed]
23. Exner T, Seal D, Ehrhardt A. A review of HIV interventions for at-risk women. AIDS Behav. 1997;2:93–124.
24. Shoptaw S, Tross S, Stephens M, Tai B. the NIDA CTN HIV/AIDS Workgroup. A snapshot of HIV/AIDS-related services in the clinical treatment providers for NIDA’s Clinical Trials Network. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;66:S163.
25. Dieffenbach CW, Fauci AS. Universal voluntary testing and treatment for prevention of HIV transmission. J Am Med Assoc. 2009;301(22):2380–2382. [PubMed]
26. Granich RM, Gilks CF, Dye C, De Cock KM, Williams BG. Universal voluntary HIV testing with immediate antiretroviral therapy as a strategy for elimination of HIV transmission: A mathematical model. Lancet. 2009;373(9657):48–57. [PubMed]
27. Montaner JS, Hogg R, Wood E, Kerr T, Tyndall M, Levy AR, Harrigan PR. The case for expanding access to highly active antiretroviral therapy to curb the growth of the HIV epidemic. Lancet. 2006;368(9534):531–536. [PubMed]
28. Volkow ND, Montaner J. Enhanced HIV testing, treatment, and support for HIV-infected substance users. J Am Med Assoc. 2010;303(14):1423–1424. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29. Lambert EY, Normand JL, Volkow ND. Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS among drug-using populations: A global perspective. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55:S1–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Branson BM, Handsfield HH, Lampe MA, Janssen RS, Taylor AW, Lyss SB, Clark JE. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR. 2006;55(RR-14):1–17. [PubMed]
31. Brown LS, Jr, Kritz SA, Goldsmith RJ, Bini EJ, Rotrosen J, Baker S, Robinson J, McAuliffe P. Characteristics of substance abuse treatment programs providing services for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C virus infection, and sexually transmitted infections: The national drug abuse treatment Clinical Trials Network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;30(4):315–321. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
32. Oser CB, Tindall MS, Leukefeld CG. HIV testing in correctional agencies and community treatment programs: The impact of internal organizational structure. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32(3):301–310. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Strauss SM, Des Jarlais DC, Astone J, Vassilev ZP. On-site HIV testing in residential drug treatment units: Results of a nationwide survey. Pub Health Rep. 2003;118(1):37–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Pollack HA, D’Aunno T. HIV testing and counseling in the nation’s outpatient substance abuse treatment system, 1995–2005. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;38(4):307–316. [PubMed]
35. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Late HIV Testing – 34 states, 1996–2005. MMWR. 2009;58(24):661–665. [PubMed]
36. Metsch LR, Bell C, Pereyra M, Cardenas G, Sullivan T, Rodriguez A, Gooden L, Khoury N, Kuper T, Brewer T, del Rio C. Hospitalized HIV-infected patients in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Am J Pub Health. 2009;99(6):1045–1049. [PubMed]
37. Turner BJ, Fleishman JA, Wenger N, London AS, Burnam MA, Shapiro MF, Bing EG, Stein MD, Longshore D, Bozzette SA. Effects of drug abuse and mental disorders on use and type of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected persons. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):639–641. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
38. Arnsten JH, Demas PA, Grant RW, Gourevitch MN, Farzadegan H, Howard AA, Schoenbaum EE. Impact of active drug use on antiretroviral therapy adherence and viral suppression in HIV-infected drug users. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:377–381. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
39. Lucas GM, Chaisson RE, Moore RD. Highly active antiretroviral therapy in a large urban clinic: Risk factors for virologic failure and adverse drug reactions. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131(2):81–87. [PubMed]
40. Lucas GM. Substance abuse, adherence with antiretroviral therapy, and clinical outcomes among HIV-infected individuals. Life Sci. 2011;88(21–22):948–952. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
41. Mugavero M, Ostermann J, Whetten K, Leserman J, Swartz M, Stangl D, Thielman N. Barriers to antiretroviral adherence: The importance of depression, abuse, and other traumatic events. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2006;20(6):418–428. [PubMed]
42. Wood E, Hogg RS, Lima VD, Kerr T, Yip B, Marshall BD, Montaner JS. Highly active antiretroviral therapy and survival in HIV-infected injection drug users. J Am Med Assoc. 2008;300(5):550–554. [PubMed]
43. Lucas GM, Chaudhry A, Hsu J, Woodson T, Lau B, Olsen Y, Keruly JC, Fiellin DA, Finkelstein R, Barditch-Crovo P, Cook K, Moore RD. Clinic-based treatment of opioid-dependent HIV-infected patients versus referral to an opioid treatment program: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(11):704–711. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
44. Sullivan LE, Barry D, Moore BA, Chawarski MC, Tetrault JM, Pantalon MV, O’Connor PG, Schottenfeld RS, Fiellin DA. A trial of integrated buprenorphine/naloxone and HIV clinical care. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43(S4):S184–90. [PubMed]
45. Haynes LF, Calsyn DA, Tross S. Addressing sexual issues in addictions treatment. Counselor. 2008;9(4):28–36.
46. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Risk Behavior Survey. 3. Rockville, MD: Community Research Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1993.
47. Wexler HK, Fletcher BW. National Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) overview. Prison J. 2007;87(1):9–24.
48. Brown LS, Kritz SA, Goldsmith RJ, Bini EJ, Robinson J, Alderson D, Rotrosen J. Health services for HIV/AIDS, HCV, and sexually transmitted infections in substance abuse treatment programs. Public Health Rep. 2007;122:441–451. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
49. Kritz SA, Brown LS, Goldsmith RJ, Bini EJ, Robinson J, Alderson D, Novo P, Rotrosen J. States and substance abuse treatment programs: Funding and guidelines for infection-related services. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:824–826. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
50. Brown LS, Kritz SA, Muhammad A, Bini EJ, Goldsmith RJ, Robinson J, Alderson D, Hasin DS, Rotrosen J. Disparities in health services for HIVAIDS, hepatitis C virus, and sexually transmitted infections: Role of substance abuse treatment programs. J Addict Med. 2009;3:95–102. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
51. Carroll KM, Rosa C, Brown LS, Daw R, Magruder KM, Beatty L. Addressing ethnic disparities in drug abuse treatment in the Clinical Trials Network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;90:101–106.
52. Coyle SL. The NIDA HIV Counseling and Education Intervention Model: Intervention Manual. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1993.
53. Stark MJ, Kane BJ. General and specific psychotherapy role induction with substance-abusing clients. Int J Addict. 1985;20(8):1135–1141. [PubMed]
54. Campbell BK, Fuller BE, Lee ES, Tillotson C, Woelfel T, Jenkins L, Robinson J, Booth RE, McCarty D. Facilitating outpatient treatment entry following detoxification for injection drug use: A multisite test of three interventions. Psychol Addict Behav. 2009;23:260–270. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
55. Booth RE, Campbell BK, Mikulich-Gilbertson SK, Tillotson CJ, Choi D, Robinson J, Calsyn DA, Mandler RN, Jenkins LM, Thompson LL, Dempsey CL, Liepman MR, McCarty D. Reducing HIV-related risk behaviors among injection drug users in residential detoxification. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(1):30–44. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
56. Logan TK, Cole J, Leukefeld C. Women, sex, and HIV: Social and contextual factors, meta-analysis of published interventions, and implications for practice and research. Psychol Bull. 2002;128(6):851–885. [PubMed]
57. The NIMH Multisite HIV Prevention Trial Group. The NIMH Multisite HIV Prevention Trial: Reducing HIV sexual behavior risk. Science. 1998;280:1889–1894. [PubMed]
58. Bartholomew NG, Simpson DD. Time Out! For Men: A Communication Skills and Sexuality Workshop for Men. Fort Worth, TX: Institute for Behavioral Research, Texas Christian University; 1996.
59. Calsyn DA, Wells EA, Saxon AJ, Jackson R, Heiman JR. Sexual activity under the influence of drugs is common among methadone clients. In: Harris LS, editor. Problems of Drug Dependence 1999. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2000. p. 315. NIH Pub. No. 00–4773.
60. Calsyn DA, Crits-Christoph P, Hatch-Maillette M, Doyle SR, Song YS, Coyer S, Pelta S. Reducing sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol for patients in substance abuse treatment. Addiction. 2010;105:100–108. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
61. Calsyn DA, Hatch-Maillette M, Tross S, Doyle SR, Crits-Christoph P, Song YS, Harrer JM, Lalos G, Berns SB. Motivational and skills training HIV/STI sexual risk reduction groups for men. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;37(2):138–150. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
62. El-Bassel N, Schilling R. 15-Month follow-up of women methadone patients taught skills to reduce heterosexual HIV transmission. Public Health Rep. 1992;107:500–504. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
63. Schilling R, El-Bassel N, Schinke S, Gordon K, Nichols S. Building skills of recovering women drug users to reduce heterosexual AIDS transmission. Public Health Rep. 1991;106(3):297–304. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
64. Tross S, Campbell ANC, Cohen LR, Calsyn D, Pavlicova M, Miele GM, Hu MC, Haynes L, Nugent N, Gan W, Hatch-Maillette M, Mandler R, McLaughlin P, El-Bassel N, Crits-Christoph P, Nunes EV. Effectiveness of HIV/STD sexual risk reduction groups for women in substance abuse treatment programs: Results of a NIDA Clinical Trials Network trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008;48(5):581–589. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
65. Metsch LR. HIV Testing in Drug Abuse Treatment: New Paradigms. Presentation at the NIDA Blending Conference; Cincinnati, OH. June, 2008.
66. Kamb ML, Fishbein M, Douglas JM, Jr, Rhodes F, Rogers J, Bolan G, Zenilman J, Hoxworth T, Malotte CK, Iatesta M, Kent C, Lentz A, Graziano S, Byers RH, Peterman TA. Efficacy of risk-reduction counseling to prevent human immunodeficiency virus and sexually transmitted diseases: A randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:1161–1167. [PubMed]
67. Metcalf CA, Douglas JM, Jr, Malotte CK, Cross H, Dillon BA, Paul SM, Padilla SM, Brookes LC, Lindsey CA, Byers RH, Peterman TA. the RESPECT-2 Study Group. Relative efficacy of prevention counseling with rapid and standard HIV testing: A randomized controlled trial (RESPECT-2) Sex Transm Dis. 2005;32(2):130–138. [PubMed]
68. Schackman B. [Last accessed on August 31, 2010];Economic Analysis of Rapid HIV and HCV Testing in Drug Abuse Treatment Programs. Available at Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools
69. Hien DA, Wells EA, Jiang H, Suarez-Morales L, Campbell ANC, Cohen LR, Miele GM, Killeen T, Brigham GS, Zhang Y, Hansen C, Hodgkins C, Hatch-Maillette M, Brown C, Kulaga A, Kristman-Valente A, Chu M, Sage R, Robinson JA, Liu D, Nunes EV. Multisite randomized trial of behavioral interventions for women with co-occurring PTSD and substance use disorders: Primary outcomes from the NIDA Clinical Trials Network “Women and Trauma” multi-site randomized control trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009;77(4):607–619. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
70. Najavits LM. Seeking Safety: A Treatment Manual for PTSD and Substance Abuse. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2002.
71. Hien DA, Campbell ANC, Killeen T, Hu M, Hansen C, Jiang H, Hatch-Maillette M, Miele GM, Cohen LR, Gan W, Resko SM, DiBono M, Wells EA, Nunes EV. The impact of trauma-focused group therapy upon HIV risk behaviors in the NIDA Clinical Trials Network “Women and Trauma” multi-site study. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(2):421–430. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
72. Hopfer CJ, Mikulich SK, Crowley TJ. Heroin use among adolescents in treatment for substance use disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;39(10):1316–1323. [PubMed]
73. Woody GE, Poole SA, Subramaniam G, Dugosh K, Bogenschutz M, Abbott P, Patkar A, Publicker M, McCain K, Potter JS, Forman R, Vetter V, McNicholas L, Blaine J, Lynch KG, Fudala P. Extended vs short-term buprenorphine-naloxone for treatment of opioid-addicted youth: A randomized trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2008;300(17):2003–2011. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
74. Brooks AJ, Meade CS, Potter JS, Lokhnygina Y, Calsyn DA, Greenfield SF. Gender differences in rates and correlates of HIV risk behaviors among drug dependent individuals. Subst Use Misuse. 2010;45(14):2444–2469. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
75. Sorensen JL. [Last accessed on August 31, 2010];Directly Administered Antiretroviral Therapy (DAART+) as a Structural HIV Intervention in Methadone Maintenance. Available at Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools
76. Masson CM. [Last accessed on August 31, 2010];Hepatitis Care Coordination in Methadone Treatment. Available at Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools
77. Perlman D. [Last accessed on August 31, 2010];HIV and Hepatitis Care Coordination in Methadone Treatment. Available at Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools
78. Calsyn DA. [Last accessed on August 31, 2010];Computerized Assistance for Treatment Professionals in Assessment of Sexual Risk. 2008 Available at Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools
79. Svikis D. [Last accessed on August 31, 2010];Reducing HIV: Safer Sex Skill Building in Pregnant, Drug-Abusing Women/Virginia Commonwealth University NIH P60 Health Disparities Center. Available at Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools
80. Gordon S. Targeted Capacity Expansion Program for Substance Abuse Treatment and HIV/AIDS Services. Seabrook, NJ: Seabrook House; 2008.
81. Campbell ANC, Hartzler B, Hatch-Maillette M, Calsyn DA, Miele GM, Tross S. Community providers’ impression of HIV prevention intervention research within NIDA’s. Clinical Trials Network J Drug Issues. (in press) [PMC free article] [PubMed]
82. Sterling RC. Barriers to Using the Real Men Are Safe Protocol in Methadone Maintenance Programs. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence; Chicago. IL. October 27, 2010.
83. Guydish J, Tajima B, Manser S, Jessup M. Strategies to encourage adoption in multi-site clinical trials. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32:177–188. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
84. Marsch LA, Bickel WK. Efficacy of computer-based HIV/AIDS education for injection drug users. Am J Health Behav. 2004;28(4):316–327. [PubMed]