Technology choice, glycemic control and patient-reported outcome measures in adults with type 1 diabetes: A randomized crossover trial comparing a smart insulin pen with an automated insulin delivery system (EBIACE-1)
Primary result · Co-primary: TIR (70-180 mg/dL)Result — go to the resultDifference +15 % 95 % CI 10–19Authors' conclusion
AID provides superior glycemic control, although nearly half of participants achieved near-optimal control with SIP
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T1D
- Participants
- 31 adults
- Comparison
- Automated insulin delivery (AID) vs smart insulin pens (SIP)
- Primary endpoint
- Co-primary: TIR (70-180 mg/dL) and HbA1c
Methodological detailsopen-label
- Open-label
Primary result
Co-primary: TIR (70-180 mg/dL)
Difference
+15 %
95 % CI 10–19
P < 0.001
By group
As reported in the abstract
Further findings
| Outcome | AID | SIP | Difference (%) (95 % CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-primary: HbA1cCo-primary outcome | 6.9 % [52 mmol/mol] | 7.3 % [56 mmol/mol] | −0.4 (- 0.6 to - 0.3) | P < 0.001 |
- Near-optimal glycemic control with SIP
- 46 % · 12 events
- Near-optimal glycemic control with SIP: 12 of 26 participants
Predictors of near-optimal control with SIP
- Higher baseline diabetes-related life interference associated with lower probability of near-optimal control with SIP
- Exploratory analyses
Original publication
Technology choice, glycemic control and patient-reported outcome measures in adults with type 1 diabetes: A randomized crossover trial comparing a smart insulin pen with an automated insulin delivery system (EBIACE-1). Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Published 18 August 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →