CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 27Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

One-year real-world benefits of Tandem Control-IQ technology on glucose management and person-reported outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: a prospective observational cohort study

Open access
De Meulemeester, Jolien, Keymeulen, Bart, De Block, Christophe, Van Huffel, Liesbeth, Taes, Youri, Ballaux, Dominique, Spincemaille, Katrien, Lapauw, Bruno +9 more·2025·Diabetologia
DOI 10.1007/s00125-025-06366-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis This multicentre prospective observational cohort study aimed to evaluate real-world changes in glycaemic and person-reported outcomes after 1 year's use of Control-IQ technology in adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods Adults who started with Control-IQ between December 2021 and December 2022 were consecutively recruited in 13 Belgian diabetes centres. Data were collected at start and after 4, 8 and 12 months. The primary endpoint was the evolution of time in range (TIR; glucose levels of 3.9-10.0 mmol/l). Data are reported as mean ± SD or least-squares mean (95% CI). Results A total of 473 adults were included, with a mean age of 38.5 ± 13.1 years and of whom 57.3% were female. TIR increased from 58.8% (95% CI 56.7, 60.9) at start to 70.9% (69.1, 72.8) at 12 months (p 1c decreased from 57.3 mmol/mol (56.1, 58.5) (7.4% [7.3, 7.5]) to 49.5 mmol/mol (48.5, 50.6) (6.7% [6.6, 6.8]) and time Conclusions/interpretation One-year use of Control-IQ was associated with better glucose management, improved diabetes-related quality of life, more treatment satisfaction, less severe hypoglycaemia and less work absenteeism in adults with type 1 diabetes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04414280.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-025-06366-x

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The observed results are similar to earlier AID clinical investigations, demonstrating comparable performance in percent time in range to Control-IQ (70.9%), Omnipod 5 (67.8%), and Medtronic 780G (71.2% ≤15 years/73.9% >15 years).

    “Despite the small cohort, our findings are similar to earlier AID clinical investigations, demonstrating comparable performance in %TIR observed in prospective and retrospective observation trials of other systems, such as Control-IQ (70.9%),15 Omnipod 5 (67.8%),16 and Medtronic 780G (71.2% (≤15 years)/73.9% (>15 years)).17”

    From Clinical utility of the twiist Automated Insulin Delivery System: first study with twiist (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
De Meulemeester, J., Keymeulen, B., De Block, C., Van Huffel, L., Taes, Y., Ballaux, D., Spincemaille, K., Lapauw, B., Vanhaverbeke, G., Lowyck, I., Vercammen, C., Colin, I. M., Preumont, V., Charleer, S., Fieuws, S., Mathieu, C., & Gillard, P.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • AZ Sint-Jan (BE)
  • AZ Delta (BE)
  • Ghent University Hospital (BE)
  • AZ Groeninge (BE)
  • Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (BE)
  • Imelda Hospital (BE)
  • Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (BE)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Hasselt University (BE)
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Gillard, Pieter
ORCID
Venue
Diabetologia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-02-11
Volume
68
Issue
5
Pages
948-960
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
DOI
10.1007/s00125-025-06366-x
OpenAlex
W4407356268
Cited by
27
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 10
FWCI
18.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Document Server@UHasselt (UHasselt) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Tandem Diabetes Care (Research grant)
  • Dexcom (Research grant)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, Control-IQ, artificial pancreas, continuous glucose monitoring, time in range, glycemic control, hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, fear of hypoglycemia, diabetes-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction, absenteeism, adults with type 1 diabetes, real-world outcomes, diabetes technology adoption, hypoglycemia awareness
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Glycemic Control, Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review