A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis of real‐world evidence on commercially available automated insulin delivery systems in people with type 1 diabetes
Authors' conclusion
RWE demonstrated differences in glycaemic outcomes, including TIR, between commercially available AID systems. User age influenced outcomes for all systems. Results must be interpreted cautiously given challenges and potential biases with RWE.
Study context
- Population
- Ambulatory people with T1D using commercial automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in real-world studies with n ≥ 250 and ≥10 days of CGM data; PubMed and Embase searched to March 2025
- Participants
- 635,463 people34 studies
- Comparison
- Commercially available AID systems compared with each other
- MiniMed 780Gn = 16
- Control-IQn = 9
- MiniMed 670Gn = 6
- Outcome
- TIR and HbA1c (main outcomes)
Methodological detailsrandom-effects meta-analysis, AID system as moderator, scenario analyses by age and optimal device settings
- Random-effects meta-analysis
- AID system as moderator
- Scenario analyses by age and optimal device settings
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
TIR
Further pooled results
Percent
Loop
6.5%(CI 5.4–7.7)
MiniMed 780G
7.0%(CI 6.7–7.4)
- Between-system differences in HbA1c not significant
- 95% CI
Heterogeneity and effect modifiers
- Significant residual heterogeneity
- Age an important effect modifier; younger users had less favourable outcomes
- Optimal device settings improved glycaemic outcomes
Original publication
A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis of real‐world evidence on commercially available automated insulin delivery systems in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 8 October 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →