In the last decade, technology developed by people with diabetes and their loved ones has added to the options for diabetes management. One such example is that of automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithms, which were created and shared as open source by people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) years before commercial systems were first available. Now, numerous options for commercial systems exist in some countries, yet tens of thousands of people with diabetes are still choosing Open-Source AID (OS-AID), previously called “do-it-yourself” (DIY) systems, which are noncommercial versions of these open-source AID systems. In this article, we provide point and counterpoint perspectives regarding (1) safety and efficacy, (2) regulation and support, (3) user choice and flexibility, (4) access and affordability, and (5) patient and provider education, for open source and commercial AID systems. The perspectives reflected here include that of a person living with T1D who uses and has developed OS-AID systems, a physician-researcher based in the United States who conducts clinical trials to support development of commercial AID systems and supports people with diabetes using all types of AID, and an endocrinologist with T1D who uses both systems and treats people with diabetes using all types of AID
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ForlenzaGP, BuckinghamBA, BrownSA, et al.First outpatient evaluation of a tubeless automated insulin delivery system with customizable glucose targets in children and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021; 23(6):410–424.
2.
Safety and glycemic outcomes during the MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop system pivotal trial in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2022; 24(3):178–189.
3.
PihokerC, ShulmanDI, ForlenzaGP, et al.Safety and glycemic outcomes during the MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system pivotal trial in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25(11):755–764.
4.
RussellSJ, BeckRW, DamianoER, et al.Multicenter, randomized trial of a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2022; 387(13):1161–1172.
Qualitative study of user experiences with loop, an open-source automated insulin delivery system. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2022; 24(6):416–423.
7.
BrauneK, GajewskaKA, ThieffryA, et al.Why #WeAreNotWaiting-motivations and self-reported outcomes among users of open-source automated insulin delivery systems: multinational survey. J Med Internet Res, 2021; 23(6):e25409.
8.
PeaseA, LoC, EarnestA, et al.The efficacy of technology in type 1 diabetes: A systematic review, network meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22(5):411–421.
9.
FagerbergAR, BorchL, KristensenK, HjelleJS. Prevalence, safety, and metabolic control among Danish children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using open-source automated insulin delivery systems. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2024
10.
LumJW, BaileyRJ, Barnes-LomenV, et al.A real-world prospective study of the safety and effectiveness of the loop open source automated insulin delivery system. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021; 23(5):367–375.
11.
Longitudinal trends in glycemic outcomes and technology use for over 48,000 people with type 1 diabetes (2016–2022) from the T1D exchange quality improvement collaborative. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25(11):765–773.
12.
ForlenzaGP, LalRA. Current status and emerging options for automated insulin delivery systems. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2022; 24(5):362–371.
13.
DowneyL, O’DonnellS, MelvinT, QuigleyM. A European regulatory pathway for Tidepool loop following clearance in the United States? Diabet Med; n/a(n/a):e15246.
14.
LewisDM. Errors of commission or omission: The net risk safety analysis conversation we should be having around automated insulin delivery systems. Diabet Med, 2022; 39(5):e14687.
15.
BurnsideMJ, LewisDM, CrocketHR, et al.Open-source automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2022; 387(10):869–881.
16.
Extended use of an open-source automated insulin delivery system in children and adults with type 1 diabetes: The 24-week continuation phase following the create randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25(4):250–259.
17.
NanayakkaraN, SharifiA, BurrenD, et al.Hybrid closed loop using a do-it-yourself artificial pancreas system in adults with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol; 0(0):19322968231153882.
18.
SamuelP, KhanN, KleinG, et al.Open-source artificial pancreas systems are safe and effective when supported in-clinic: Outcomes in 248 consecutive type 1 diabetes clients. Can J Diabetes, 2024; 48(1):59–65.e1.
19.
GawreckiA, Zozulinska-ZiolkiewiczD, MichalakMA, et al.Safety and glycemic outcomes of do-it-yourself AndroidAPS hybrid closed-loop system in adults with type 1 diabetes. PLoS One, 2021; 16(4):e0248965.
20.
PatelR, CrabtreeTSJ, TaylorN, et al.Safety and effectiveness of do-it-yourself artificial pancreas system compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions in combination with free style libre in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med, 2022; 39(5):e14793.
21.
JeyaventhanR, GallenG, ChoudharyP, HussainS. A real-world study of user characteristics, safety and efficacy of open-source closed-loop systems and Medtronic 670G. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2021; 23(8):1989–1994.
22.
WuZ, LuoS, ZhengX, et al.Use of a do-it-yourself artificial pancreas system is associated with better glucose management and higher quality of life among adults with type 1 diabetes. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab, 2020; 11:2042018820950146.
23.
MelmerA, ZügerT, LewisDM, et al.Glycaemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes using an open source artificial pancreas system (OpenAPS). Diabetes Obes Metab, 2019; 21(10):2333–2337.
24.
In silico trials of an open-source android-based artificial pancreas: A new paradigm to test safety and efficacy of do-it-yourself systems. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22(2):112–120.
25.
CooperD, ReinholdB, ShahidA, LewisDM. Glucose variability analysis in two large-scale and real-world data sets of open-source automated insulin delivery systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol; 0(0):19322968231198871.
26.
HussainS, LalRA, BrauneK. Open-source automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes—the evidence is out there. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 2022; 10(12):835–836.
27.
SteilGM, RebrinK, DarwinC, et al.Feasibility of automating insulin delivery for the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. Dec, 2006; 55(12):3344–3350.
28.
SteilGM, ReifmanJ. Mathematical modeling research to support the development of automated insulin-delivery systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2009; 3(2):388–395.
29.
AtlasE, NimriR, MillerS, et al.MD-logic artificial pancreas system: A pilot study in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2010; 33(5):1072–1076.
30.
SteilGM, HipszerB, ReifmanJ. Update on mathematical modeling research to support the development of automated insulin delivery systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2010; 4(3):759–769.
31.
MillerS, NimriR, AtlasE, et al.Automatic learning algorithm for the MD-logic artificial pancreas system. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2011; 13(10):983–990.
32.
SteilGM, PalermCC, KurtzN, et al.The effect of insulin feedback on closed loop glucose control. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2011; 96(5):1402–1408.
33.
RuizJL, SherrJL, CengizE, et al.Effect of insulin feedback on closed-loop glucose control: A crossover study. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2012; 6(5):1123–1130.
34.
GrosmanB, WuD, MillerD, et al.Sensor-augmented pump-based customized mathematical model for type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20(3):207–221.
35.
ClarkeWL, AndersonS, BretonM, et al.Closed-loop artificial pancreas using subcutaneous glucose sensing and insulin delivery and a model predictive control algorithm: The Virginia experience. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2009; 3(5):1031–1038.
36.
Dalla ManC, CaumoA, BasuR, et al.Minimal model estimation of glucose absorption and insulin sensitivity from oral test: Validation with a tracer method. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, 2004; 287(4):E637–643.
37.
KovatchevB, PatekS, DassauE, et al.Control to range for diabetes: Functionality and modular architecture. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2009; 3(5):1058–1065.
38.
KovatchevBP, BretonM, ManCD, CobelliC. In silico preclinical trials: A proof of concept in closed-loop control of type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2009; 3(1):44–55.
39.
PatekSD, MagniL, DassauE, et al.Modular closed-loop control of diabetes. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2012; 59(11):2986–2999.
40.
LeeJB, DassauE, SeborgDE, DoyleFJIII., Model-based personalization scheme of an artificial pancreas for Type 1 diabetes applications. Paper presented at: 2013 American Control Conference; 17–19 June 2013, 2013.
41.
DoyleFJIII, HuyettLM, LeeJB, et al.Closed-loop artificial pancreas systems: Engineering the algorithms. Diabetes Care, 2014; 37(5):1191–1197.
42.
LeeJB, DassauE, GondhalekarR, et al.Enhanced model predictive control (eMPC) strategy for automated glucose control. Ind Eng Chem Res, 2016; 55(46):11857–11868.
43.
El-KhatibFH, RussellSJ, NathanDM, et al.A bihormonal closed-loop artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes. Sci Transl Med, 2010; 2(27):27ra27.
44.
El-KhatibFH, RussellSJ, MagyarKL, et al.Autonomous and continuous adaptation of a bihormonal bionic pancreas in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2014; 99(5):1701–1711.
45.
HovorkaR, Shojaee-MoradieF, CarrollPV, et al.Partitioning glucose distribution/transport, disposal, and endogenous production during IVGTT. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, 2002; 282(5):E992–1007.
46.
HovorkaR, CanonicoV, ChassinLJ, et al.Nonlinear model predictive control of glucose concentration in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Physiol Meas, 2004; 25(4):905–920.
47.
BrownSA, KovatchevBP, RaghinaruD, et al.iDCL Trial Research Group. Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2019; 381(18):1707–1717.
48.
BretonMD, KanapkaLG, BeckRW, et al.iDCL Trial Research Group. A randomized trial of closed-loop control in children with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2020; 383(9):836–845.
49.
WadwaRP, ReedZW, BuckinghamBA, et al.Trial of hybrid closed-loop control in young children with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2023; 388(11):991–1001.
50.
ThabitH, TauschmannM, AllenJM, et al.Home use of an artificial beta cell in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2015; 373(22):2129–2140.
51.
BallyL, ThabitH, HartnellS, et al.Closed-loop insulin delivery for glycemic control in noncritical care. N Engl J Med, 2018; 379(6):547–556.
52.
WareJ, BoughtonCK, AllenJM, et al.DAN05 Consortium. Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A multicentre 6-month randomised controlled trial. Lancet Digit Health, 2022; 4(4):e245–e255.
53.
GargSK, GrunbergerG, WeinstockRS, et al.Improved glycemia with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) versus continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2022; 25(1):1–12.
54.
BergenstalRM, GargS, WeinzimerSA, et al.Safety of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in patients with type 1 diabetes. Jama, 2016; 316(13):1407–1408.
55.
GargSK, WeinzimerSA, TamborlaneWV, et al.Glucose outcomes with the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19(3):155–163.
56.
ForlenzaG, ShulmanD, WoodM, et al.Evaluation of The Minimed (TM) 670G system predictive low glucose management feature in children. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. FEB 2018, 2018; 20:A19–A20.
57.
ForlenzaGP, EkhlaspourL, DiMeglioLA, et al.Glycemic outcomes of children 2–6 years of age with type 1 diabetes during the pediatric MiniMed™ 670G system trial. Pediatr Diabetes, 2022; 23(3):324–329.
58.
CarlsonAL, SherrJL, ShulmanDI, et al.Safety and glycemic outcomes during the MiniMed™ Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop system pivotal trial in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021; 24(3):178–189.
59.
BrownSA, ForlenzaGP, BodeBW, et al.Multicenter trial of a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system with customizable glycemic targets in pediatric and adult participants with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2021; 44(7):1630–1640.
60.
SherrJL, BodeBW, ForlenzaGP, et al.Safety and glycemic outcomes with a tubeless automated insulin delivery system in very young children with type 1 diabetes: A single-arm multicenter clinical trial. Diabetes Care, 2022; 45(8):1907–1910.
61.
Da SilvaJ, LeporeG, BattelinoT, et al.Real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 780G system: First report of outcomes from 4'120 users. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021
62.
Da SilvaJ, BosiE, JendleJ, et al.Real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 670G system in Europe. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2021; 23(8):1942–1949.
63.
BretonMD, KovatchevBP. One year real-world use of the control-IQ advanced hybrid closed-loop technology. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021; 23(9):601–608.
64.
CriegoA, CarlsonAL, BrownS, et al.Two years with a tubeless AID system: A single-arm multicenter trial in children, adolescents, and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 26(1):11–23.
65.
SilvaJD, LeporeG, BattelinoT, et al.Real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 780G system: First report of outcomes from 4120 users. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2022; 24(2):113–119.
66.
BrauneK, HussainS, LalR. The first regulatory clearance of an open-source automated insulin delivery algorithm. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2023; 17(5):1139–1141.
67.
LitchmanML, RothwellE, EdelmanLS. The diabetes online community: Older adults supporting self-care through peer health. Patient Educ Couns, 2018; 101(3):518–523.
68.
CrocketH, LewisDM, BurnsideM, et al.Learning challenges of healthcare professionals supporting open-source automated insulin delivery. Diabet Med, 2022; 39(5):e14750.
PetruzelkovaL, NeumanV, PlachyL, et al.First use of open-source automated insulin delivery AndroidAPS in full closed-loop scenario: Pancreas4ALL randomized pilot study. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25(5):315–323.
72.
BoughtonCK, HartnellS, LakshmanR, et al.Fully closed-loop glucose control compared with insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control: A single-center, randomized, crossover study. Diabetes Care, 2023; 46(11):1916–1922.
73.
ShalitR, MinskyN, Laron-HirshM, et al.Unannounced meal challenges using an advanced hybrid closed-loop system. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25(9):579–588.
74.
ElSayedNA, AleppoG, ArodaVR, et al.7. Diabetes technology: Standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care, 2023; 46(Suppl 1):S111–s127.
CarlsonAL, MartensTW, JohnsonL, CriegoAB. Continuous glucose monitoring integration for remote diabetes management: Virtual diabetes care with case studies. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021; 23(S3):S56–s65.
77.
Garcia-TiradoJ, DiazJL, Esquivel-ZunigaR, et al.Advanced closed-loop control system improves postprandial glycemic control compared with a hybrid closed-loop system following unannounced meal. Diabetes Care, 2021
78.
Garcia-TiradoJ, LvD, CorbettJP, et al.Advanced hybrid artificial pancreas system improves on unannounced meal response - In silico comparison to currently available system. Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 2021; 211:106401.
79.
BiskupiakJE, RamosM, LevyCJ, et al.Cost-effectiveness of the tubeless automated insulin delivery system vs standard of care in the management of type 1 diabetes in the United States. J Manag Care Spec Pharm, 2023; 29(7):807–817.
80.
SherrJL, HeinemannL, FlemingGA, et al.Automated insulin delivery: Benefits, challenges, and recommendations. a consensus report of the joint diabetes technology working group of the european association for the study of diabetes and the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care, 2022; 45(12):3058–3074.
BrauneK, LalRA, PetruželkováL, et al.Open-source automated insulin delivery: International consensus statement and practical guidance for health-care professionals. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2022; 10(1):58–74.
83.
LewisDM, HussainS. Practical guidance on open source and commercial automated insulin delivery systems: A guide for healthcare professionals supporting people with insulin-requiring diabetes. Diabetes Ther, 2022; 13(9):1683–1699.
