Performance of an automated insulin‐glucagon delivery system versus automated insulin delivery system during challenging inpatient conditions. A single‐blind randomised controlled crossover trial
Authors' conclusion
Under challenging inpatient conditions, the AIGD system provided similar glucose control as AID but significantly reduced the need for carbohydrate rescue and enhanced TIR after exercise.
Study context
- Population
- Participants with T1D in a 33-h inpatient study with standardised challenges (50%, 100% and 130% meal boluses; 45-min unannounced bicycle exercise at 50% VO2max)
- Participants
- 13 participants
- Comparison
- Automated insulin-glucagon delivery vs AID
- Primary endpoint
- Co-primary: (1) number of 15-g carbohydrate treatments for plasma glucose <3.0 mmol/L; (2) percentage of time below 3.9 mmol/L
- Follow-up
- 33-h study period
Methodological detailssingle-blind, crossover, inpatient
- Single-blind
- Crossover
- Inpatient
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Co-primary endpoints
- AIGD vs AID: P = 0.02
- AIGD vs AID: P = 0.49
Further findings
TIR 3.9-10.0 mmol/L
P = 0.41
TAR >10.0 mmol/L
P = 0.46
- Mean glucose and CV · comparable
- P = 0.30
Post hoc: TIR after exercise and hypoglycaemia after meals · 0-3 h
- AIGD had significantly higher TIR 0-3 h after exercise and fewer hypoglycaemia events (<3.9 mmol/L) 0-3 h after each meal
- Post hoc analysis
Safety
Symptoms
- No differences in nausea, headache, hunger and palpitation
Original publication
Performance of an automated insulin‐glucagon delivery system versus automated insulin delivery system during challenging inpatient conditions. A single‐blind randomised controlled crossover trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 19 February 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →