Context The usual treatment for opioid-addicted youth is detoxification and counseling. Extended medication-assisted therapy may be more helpful. Objective To evaluate the efficacy of continuing buprenorphine-naloxone for 12 weeks vs detoxification for opioid-addicted youth. Design, Setting, and Patients Clinical trial at 6 community programs from July 2003 to December 2006 including 152 patients aged 15 to 21 years who were randomized to 12 weeks of buprenorphine-naloxone or a 14-day taper (detox). Interventions Patients in the 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone group were prescribed up to 24 mg per day for 9 weeks and then tapered to week 12; patients in the detox group were prescribed up to 14 mg per day and then tapered to day 14. All were offered weekly individual and group counseling. Main Outcome Measure Opioid-positive urine test result at weeks 4, 8, and 12. Results The number of patients younger than 18 years was too small to analyze separately, but overall, patients in the detox group had higher proportions of opioid-positive urine test results at weeks 4 and 8 but not at week 12 ( χ22 = 4.93, P = .09). At week 4, 59 detox patients had positive results (61%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 47%-75%) vs 58 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone patients (26%; 95% CI = 14%-38%). At week 8, 53 detox patients had positive results (54%; 95% CI = 38%-70%) vs 52 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone patients (23%; 95% CI = 11%-35%). At week 12, 53 detox patients had positive results (51%; 95% CI = 35%-67%) vs 49 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone patients (43%; 95% CI = 29%-57%). By week 12, 16 of 78 detox patients (20.5%) remained in treatment vs 52 of 74 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone patients (70%; χ12 = 32.90, P < .001). During weeks 1 through 12, patients in the 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone group reported less opioid use ( χ12 = 18.45, P < .001), less injecting ( χ12 = 6.00, P = .01), and less nonstudy addiction treatment ( χ12 = 25.82, P < .001). High levels of opioid use occurred in both groups at follow-up. Four of 83 patients who tested negative for hepatitis C at baseline were positive for hepatitis C at week 12. Conclusions Continuing treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone improved outcome compared with short-term detoxification. Further research is necessary to assess the efficacy and safety of longer-term treatment with buprenorphine for young individuals with opioid dependence.

There is a high in-hospital mortality rate when CS develops as a result of VSR. Ventricular septal rupture may occur early after infarction, and women and the elderly may be more susceptible. Although the prognosis is poor, surgery remains the best therapeutic option in this setting.

Historically, addiction treatments have been delivered and evaluated under an acute-care format. Fixed amounts or durations of treatment have been provided and their effects evaluated 6-12 months after completion of care. The explicit expectation of treatment has been enduring reductions in substance use, improved personal health and social function, generally referred to as 'recovery'. In contrast, treatments for chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension and asthma have been provided for indeterminate periods and their effects evaluated during the course of those treatments. Here the expectations are for most of the same results, but only during the course of continuing care and monitoring. The many similarities between addiction and mainstream chronic illnesses stand in contrast to the differences in the ways addiction is conceptualized, treated and evaluated. This paper builds upon established methods of during-treatment evaluation developed for the treatment of other chronic illnesses and suggests a parallel evaluation system for out-patient, continuing-care forms of addiction treatment. The suggested system retains traditional patient-level, behavioral outcome measures of recovery, but suggests that these outcomes should be collected and reported immediately and regularly by clinicians at the beginning of addiction treatment sessions, as a way of evaluating recovery progress and making decisions about continuing care. We refer to this paradigm as 'concurrent recovery monitoring' and discuss its potential for producing more timely, efficient, clinically relevant and accountable evaluations.