Federally Qualified Health Centers Can Expand Rural Access to Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder in Arizona.

Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) is recommended, but not always accessible to those who desire treatment. This study assessed the impact of expanding access to buprenorphine through federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Arizona. We calculated mean drive-times to Arizona opioid treatment (OTP) locations, office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) locations, and FQHCs clinics using January 2020 location data. FQHCs were designated as OBOT or non-OBOT clinics to explore opportunities to expand treatment access to non-OBOT clinics (potential OBOTs) to further reduce drive-times for rural and underserved populations. We found that OTPs had the largest mean drive times (16.4 minutes), followed by OBOTs (7.1 minutes) and potential OBOTs (6.1 minutes). Drive times were shortest in urban block groups for all treatment types and the largest differences existed between OTPs and OBOTs (50.6 minutes) in small rural and in isolated rural areas. OBOTs are essential points of care for opioid use disorder treatment. They reduce drive times by over 50% across all urban and rural areas. Expanding buprenorphine through rural potential OBOT sites may further reduce drive times to treatment and address a critical need among underserved populations.

Evening and overnight closed-loop control versus 24/7 continuous closed-loop control for type 1 diabetes: a randomised crossover trial.

Background: Automated closed-loop control (CLC), known as the "artificial pancreas" is emerging as a treatment option for Type 1 Diabetes (T1D), generally superior to sensor-augmented insulin pump (SAP) treatment. It is postulated that evening-night (E-N) CLC may account for most of the benefits of 24-7 CLC; however, a direct comparison has not been done. Methods: In this trial (NCT02679287), adults with T1D were randomised 1:1 to two groups, which followed different sequences of four 8-week sessions, resulting in two crossover designs comparing SAP vs E-N CLC and E-N CLC vs 24-7 CLC, respectively. Eligibility: T1D for at least 1 year, using an insulin pump for at least six months, ages 18 years or older. Primary hypothesis: E-N CLC compared to SAP will decrease percent time <70mg/dL (3.9mmol/L) measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) without deterioration in HbA1c. Secondary Hypotheses: 24-7 CLC compared to SAP will increase CGM-measured time in target range (TIR, 70-180mg/dL; 3.9-10mmol/L) and will reduce glucose variability during the day. Findings: Ninety-three participants were randomised and 80 were included in the analysis, ages 18-69 years; HbA1c levels 5.4-10.6%; 66% female. Compared to SAP, E-N CLC reduced overall time <70mg/dL from 4.0% to 2.2% () resulting in an absolute difference of 1.8% (95%CI: 1.2-2.4%), p<0.0001. This was accompanied by overall reduction in HbA1c from 7.4% at baseline to 7.1% at the end of study, resulting in an absolute difference of 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1-0.4%), p<0.0001. There were 5 severe hypoglycaemia adverse events attributed to user-directed boluses without malfunction of the investigational device, and no diabetic ketoacidosis events. Interpretation: In type 1 diabetes, evening-night closed-loop control was superior to sensor-augmented pump therapy, achieving most of the glycaemic benefits of 24-7 closed-loop.

Improving the Safety and Functionality of an Artificial Pancreas System for Use in Younger Children: Input from Parents and Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Artificial pancreas (AP) systems have initially been designed for and tested in teens and adults, but there is evidence that an AP system with additional support and safety systems could greatly benefit younger children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Five pediatric endocrinologists and 15 parents of children aged 5-8 years with T1D participated in a total of four focus groups. Focus groups investigated current diabetes technology use and acceptance, as well as possible modifications to the current adult AP system, which would allow for safe and successful use in younger children. Modifications discussed include child-specific functionality for input tasks, safety features, and monitoring capabilities. RESULTS: Participant suggestions included the following: passcodes for differential access to AP features by parents, ancillary caregivers, and the child; preset early, intermediate, and advanced child access categories; maximal customization for general and alarm settings; simplified meal screens utilizing the AP' corrective blood glucose (BG) ability; automated exercise mode; spoken and dictated messaging capabilities; emergency contacts; treatment instructions for the child and caregiver; remote monitoring website and application; animated continuous glucose monitor BG trace; gamification, such as rewarding diabetes-friendly behaviors; and comprehensive training of all individuals involved in the child's diabetes care. CONCLUSION: Parents and physicians were eager for AP applications to be available for younger children, but stressed that a modified system could better serve this group's needs for safety and improved diabetes-related communication. The diverse and emerging needs of 5-8-year olds require flexible and customizable systems for T1D management.