A comparison of ultra‐rapid and rapid insulin in automated insulin delivery for type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Pooled result · Percent TIR (3.9-10 mmol/L)Result — go to the resultPooled MD 1.07 % 95% CI 0.11–2.02Authors' conclusion
AID-URAI slightly improves the percentage of TIR and has a good safety profile without increasing the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with T1D; databases searched up to 30 October 2024
- Participants
- 664 patients16 RCTs
- Comparison
- Automated insulin delivery (AID) with ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogues (AID-URAI) vs AID with rapid-acting insulin analogues (AID-RAI)
- Outcome
- Percent TIR (3.9-10 mmol/L)
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Pooled MD
1.07 %
95% CI 0.11–2.02
P = 0.029
AID-URAIvs AID-RAI
pooled MD 1.07 % (95% CI 0.11–2.02); P = 0.029
Further pooled results
Time-in-range (TIR) in subgroups
- Favourable effect consistent in AID with automated bolus correction, adults, study duration >4 weeks and FIASP subgroups
Percent time-below-range (TBR) (<3.9 mmol/L)
- Lower percentage of TBR with AID-URAI vs AID-RAI
- 0.35%
Safety
- No significant differences in risk of DKA and severe hypoglycaemia between groups
Original publication
A comparison of ultra‐rapid and rapid insulin in automated insulin delivery for type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 25 February 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →