Real-world evidence of automated insulin delivery system use
Open accessAbstract
Objective: Pivotal trials of automated insulin delivery (AID) closed-loop systems have demonstrated a consistent picture of glycemic benefit, supporting approval of multiple systems by the Food and Drug Administration or Conformité Européenne mark receipt. To assess how pivotal trial findings translate to commercial AID use, a systematic review of retrospective real-world studies was conducted. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles published after 2018 with more than five nonpregnant individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Data were screened/extracted in duplicate for sample size, AID system, glycemic outcomes, and time in automation. Results: Of 80 studies identified, 20 met inclusion criteria representing 171,209 individuals. Time in target range 70–180 mg/dL (3.9–10.0 mmol/L) was the primary outcome in 65% of studies, with the majority of reports (71%) demonstrating a >10% change with AID use. Change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was reported in nine studies (range 0.1%–0.9%), whereas four reported changes in glucose management indicator (GMI) with a 0.1%–0.4% reduction noted. A decrease in HbA1c or GMI of >0.2% was achieved in two-thirds of the studies describing change in HbA1c and 80% of articles where GMI was described. Time below range <70 mg/dL (<3.9 mmol/L) was reported in 16 studies, with all but 1 study showing stable or reduced levels. Most systems had >90% time in automation. Conclusion: With larger and more diverse populations, and follow-up periods of longer duration (∼9 months vs. 3–6 months for pivotal trials), real-world retrospective analyses confirm pivotal trial findings. Given the glycemic benefits demonstrated, AID is rapidly becoming the standard of care for all people living with T1D. Individuals should be informed of these systems and differences between them, have access to and coverage for these technologies, and receive support as they integrate this mode of insulin delivery into their lives.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
A recent systematic review of 20 AID real-world studies covering 171,209 individuals substantiated pivotal trial results and confirmed clinical benefits of AID in type 1 diabetes.
“A recent systematic review of AID real-world studies, with 20 studies representing 171,209 individuals, substantiated the results observed in the pivotal trials and have confirmed the clinical benefits of AID systems in people with type 1 diabetes.”
From 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [227]
Real-world AID studies include large numbers of users, sometimes 30-fold higher than pivotal trials.
“These studies include large numbers of users, at times even 30-fold higher than the number of people studied in AID pivotal trials (227).”
From 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [227]
Newer AID systems have shown increased time spent in automation.
“Newer systems have shown increased time spent in automation, and the real-world studies have retrospectively analyzed longer duration of system use compared with their respective pivotal trials, with most analyses occurring for more than 6 months and an average duration of 9 months (227).”
From 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [227]
Real-world studies analyzed longer duration of AID use than pivotal trials, mostly >6 months, average 9 months.
“Newer systems have shown increased time spent in automation, and the real-world studies have retrospectively analyzed longer duration of system use compared with their respective pivotal trials, with most analyses occurring for more than 6 months and an average duration of 9 months (227).”
From 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [227]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 79 · Cited by 59
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- CamDiab. CamAPS FX User Manual. Cambridge, United Kingdom; 2023.
- Authors
- Considine, E. G., & Sherr, J. L.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sherr, Jennifer L.
- Venue
- Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-02-05
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3_suppl
- Pages
- 53-65
- ISSN
- 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-8593
- PMC
- PMC10890954
- OpenAlex
- W4391982975
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 7
- FWCI
- 19.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001863)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
- Keywords
- artificial pancreas, type 1 diabetes, glycemic control, time in range, HbA1c, glucose management indicator, time below range, real-world evidence
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Retrospective Studies, Insulin, Regular, Human
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