Glycaemic control and variability with different commercially available hybrid closed loop systems in people with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Authors' conclusion
In RCTs, commercial HCL systems show different achievements of CGM metrics and HbA1c in people with type 1 diabetes.
Study context
- Population
- Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling people with T1D, commercial hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems vs other insulin regimens, intervention ≥2 weeks, reporting time in range (TIR); pregnancy excluded37 studies
- Comparison
- Commercial HCL systems vs other insulin therapy regimens
- Outcome
- TIR
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Mean TIR, studies with mean age <18 years
- Pooled mean TIR (mean age <18 years), 95% CI 61-67.2
- 64.1%
Further pooled results
Mean
Omnipod 5
63.1%(CI 59.4–66.8)
MiniMed 780G
74.4%(CI 69.7–79.1)
- Pooled mean TIR (mean age ≥18 years), 95% CI 68.6-73
- 70.8%
- Range across systems: lowest Omnipod 5, highest MiniMed 780G
Percent
CamAPS Fx
6.7%(CI 6.6–6.9)
MiniMed 780G
7.9%(CI 6.9–9)
- Pooled HbA1c (mean age <18 years), 95% CI 7-7.7
- 7.4%
Percent
Control IQ
7.0%(CI 6.9–7.1)
MiniMed 670G
7.2%(CI 7–7.5)
- Pooled HbA1c (mean age ≥18 years), 95% CI 7-7.3
- 7.1%
Original publication
Glycaemic control and variability with different commercially available hybrid closed loop systems in people with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 29 September 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →