Cited by 69Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

Safety and efficacy of the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system in adults with type 2 diabetes: from injections to hybrid closed-loop therapy

Open access
Davis, Georgia M., Peters, Anne L., Bode, Bruce W., Carlson, Anders L., Dumais, Bonnie, Vienneau, Todd E., Huyett, Lauren M., Ly, Trang T.·2023·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Automated insulin delivery (AID) has rarely been studied in adults with type 2 diabetes. We tested the feasibility of using AID for type 2 diabetes with the Omnipod 5 System in a multicenter outpatient trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants previously were using either basal-only or basal-bolus insulin injections, with or without the use of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and had a baseline HbA1c ≥8% (≥64 mmol/mol). Participants completed 2 weeks of CGM sensor data collection (blinded for those not previously using CGM) with their standard therapy (ST), then transitioned to 8 weeks of AID. Participants who previously used basal-only injections used the AID system in manual mode for 2 weeks before starting AID. Antihyperglycemic agents were continued at clinician discretion. Primary safety outcomes were percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL and <54 mg/dL during AID. Additional outcomes included HbA1c and time in target range (TIR) (70–180 mg/dL). RESULTS: Participants (N = 24) had a mean (± SD) age of 61 ± 8 years, baseline HbA1c of 9.4% ± 0.9% (79 ± 10 mmol/mol), and diabetes duration of 19 ± 9 years. Percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL decreased with AID by 16.9% ± 16.2% (P < 0.0001), whereas percentage of time at <54 mg/dL remained low during both ST and AID (median [interquartile range] 0.0% [0.00%, 0.06%] vs. 0.00% [0.00%, 0.03%]; P = 0.4543). HbA1c (± SD) decreased by 1.3% ± 0.7% (14 ± 8 mmol/mol; P < 0.0001) and TIR increased by 21.9% ± 15.2% (P < 0.0001) without a significant change in total daily insulin or BMI with AID. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this feasibility trial of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes justify further evaluation of this technology in this population.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc22-1915

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Other studies showed reduction of total daily insulin in AID group previously using MDI.

    “Of note, an increase in total daily insulin dose was noted in the subjects while on the AID system (249), whereas other studies have shown either nonsignificant trends for a lower total daily dose of insulin in the AID group (250) or a reduction of total daily insulin in the AID group previously using MDI (251).”

    From 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [251]

  • Real-world studies have shown benefits of insulin pumps/AID in adults with type 2 diabetes.

    “Real-world studies have also shown benefits of these technologies in adults with type 2 diabetes (235,251).”

    From 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [251]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davis, G. M., Peters, A. L., Bode, B. W., Carlson, A. L., Dumais, B., Vienneau, T. E., Huyett, L. M., & Ly, T. T.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Atlanta Diabetes Associates (US)
  • Park Nicollet Clinic (US)
  • Insulet (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Ly, Trang T.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2023-02-14
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
742-750
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W4320716084
Cited by
69
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 8
FWCI
14.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Insulet Corporation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
artificial pancreas, Omnipod 5, type 2 diabetes, hybrid closed-loop therapy, continuous glucose monitoring, multiple daily insulin injections, HbA1c, time in range, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, insulin pump, feasibility trial, antidiabetic drugs
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Middle Aged, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, 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