Glycemic Outcomes and Device Engagement Over 18 Months Following Initiation of Two Different Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in American Youth With Type 1 Diabetes
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Glycemic Outcomes and Device Engagement Over 18 Months Following Initiation of Two Different Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in American Youth With Type 1 Diabetes
We compared long-term, real-world glycemic outcomes and device engagement in U.S. youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using two automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.
Methods:
We included youth (ages 6–18) with T1D from a large academic center who started on Insulet Omnipod 5 (OP5) or Tandem Control IQ (CIQ) between January 2020 and June 2024. We collected 30-day continuous glucose monitor and 30-day AID data at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 18 months following AID initiation. We evaluated change in glycemic metrics and user behaviors (e.g., self-initiated bolusing and carbohydrate entry) by system using separate multivariable linear regression models at each time point while adjusting for baseline factors (age, sex, insulin regimen prior to AID initiation, diabetes duration, and baseline values for the respective glycemic metric).
Results:
All AID users (n = 722, median age 14.3 years, median diabetes duration 5.5 years, 83.9% previous pump users) had a significant change in time in range (TIR) across all time points (>9.9% increase). While CIQ users (n = 311) experienced a greater change in TIR at 3 and 6 months (+14.9% and +13.3%, respectively, vs. +10.0% and +10.2% among OP5 users), this difference waned with time (change in TIR at 18 months +9.9% with CIQ vs. +10.6% with OP5). Carbohydrate entry simultaneously decreased at the same intervals among CIQ users (199, 184, and 173 g at 3, 6, and 18 months, respectively) but not OP5 users (177, 184, and 181 g at 3, 6, and 18 months).
Conclusions:
Although glycemic outcomes are similar between devices over 18 months, AID user engagement changes with time and differs between systems, potentially as they “trust” their device more. Change in carbohydrate entry among CIQ users is likely a major contributor to the decline in TIR with longer duration of AID use.
BretonMD, KanapkaLG, BeckRW, iDCL Trial Research Group. et al.; A randomized trial of closed-loop control in children with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med2020;383(9):836–845; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2004736
2.
BretonMD, KovatchevBP. One year real-world use of the Control-IQ advanced hybrid closed-loop technology. Diabetes Technol Ther2021;23(9):601–608; doi: 10.1089/dia.2021.0097
3.
BrownSA, ForlenzaGP, BodeBW, Omnipod 5 Research Group. 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 Care2021;44(7):1630–1640; doi: 10.2337/dc21-0172
4.
CollynsOJ, MeierRA, BettsZL, et al.Improved glycemic outcomes with medtronic MiniMed advanced hybrid closed-loop delivery: Results from a randomized crossover trial comparing automated insulin delivery with predictive low glucose suspend in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care2021;44(4):969–975; doi: 10.2337/dc20-2250
5.
ConsidineEG, SherrJL. Real-World evidence of automated insulin delivery system use. Diabetes Technol Ther2024;26(S3):53–65; doi: 10.1089/dia.2023.0442
6.
CorderoTL, DaiZ, ArrietaA, et al.Glycemic outcomes during early use of the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop system with guardian 4 sensor. Diabetes Technol Ther2023;25(9):652–658; doi: 10.1089/dia.2023.0123
7.
ForlenzaGP, DeSalvoDJ, AleppoG, et al.Real-World evidence of Omnipod((R)) 5 automated insulin delivery system use in 69,902 people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2024;26(8):514–525; doi: 10.1089/dia.2023.0578
8.
GehrmannFE, SmithGJ, IrwineK, et al.Real-world glycaemic outcomes in children and young people on advanced hybrid closed-loop therapy: A population-based study in Western Australia. J Paediatr Child Health2025;61(1):106–112; doi: 10.1111/jpc.16723
9.
GeraS, IyerJ, MeighanS, et al.A review of real-world evidence about the use of automated insulin delivery systems in people with type 1 diabetes. Endocr Pract2025;31(9):1150–1161; doi: 10.1016/j.eprac.2025.06.004
10.
GrafS, HoferG, HirschmannR, et al.Real-world evidence supporting the use of advanced hybrid closed loop in poorly controlled type 1 diabetes patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract2025;222:112035; doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2025.112035
11.
MarksBE, MeighanS, ZehraA, et al.Real-World glycemic outcomes with early Omnipod 5 use in youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2023;25(11):782–789; doi: 10.1089/dia.2023.0337
12.
NallicheriA, MahoneyKM, GutowHA, et al.Review of automated insulin delivery systems for type 1 diabetes and associated time in range outcomes. touchREV Endocrinol2022;18(1):27–34; doi: 10.17925/EE.2022.18.1.27
13.
PihokerC, ShulmanDI, ForlenzaGP, MiniMed AHCL Study Group. et al.; Safety and glycemic outcomes during the MiniMed(TM) advanced hybrid closed-loop system pivotal trial in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2023;25(11):755–764; doi: 10.1089/dia.2023.0255
14.
PinskerJE, MullerL, ConstantinA, et al.Real-World patient-reported outcomes and glycemic results with initiation of Control-IQ technology. Diabetes Technol Ther2021;23(2):120–127; doi: 10.1089/dia.2020.0388
15.
SchoelwerMJ, RobicJL, GautierT, et al.Safety and efficacy of initializing the Control-IQ artificial pancreas system based on total daily insulin in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2020;22(8):594–601; doi: 10.1089/dia.2019.0471
16.
YangQ, ZengB, HaoJ, et al.Real-world glycaemic outcomes of automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab2024;26(9):3753–3763; doi: 10.1111/dom.15718
17.
ZengB, GaoL, YangQ, et al.Automated insulin delivery systems in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care2023;46(12):2300–2307; doi: 10.2337/dc23-0504
18.
CobryEC, BisioA, WadwaRP, et al.Improvements in parental sleep, fear of hypoglycemia, and diabetes distress with use of an advanced hybrid closed-loop system. Diabetes Care2022;45(5):1292–1295; doi: 10.2337/dc21-1778
19.
Beato-ViboraPI, ChicoA, Moreno-FernandezJ, et al.A multicenter prospective evaluation of the benefits of two advanced hybrid closed-loop systems in glucose control and patient-reported outcomes in a real-world setting. Diabetes Care2024;47(2):216–224; doi: 10.2337/dc23-1355
20.
BisioA, BrownSA, McFaddenR, et al.Sleep and diabetes-specific psycho-behavioral outcomes of a new automated insulin delivery system in young children with type 1 diabetes and their parents. Pediatr Diabetes2021;22(3):495–502; doi: 10.1111/pedi.13164
21.
AbrahamMB, de BockM, SmithGJ, Australian Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund Closed-Loop Research group. et al.; Effect of a hybrid closed-loop system on glycemic and psychosocial outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr2021;175(12):1227–1235; doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.3965
22.
AdamsRN, TanenbaumML, HanesSJ, et al.Psychosocial and human factors during a trial of a hybrid closed loop system for type 1 diabetes management. Diabetes Technol Ther2018;20(10):648–653; doi: 10.1089/dia.2018.0174
23.
CobryEC, KanapkaLG, CengizE, iDCL Trial Research Group. et al.; Health-Related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in parents and children with type 1 diabetes using closed-loop control. Diabetes Technol Ther2021;23(6):401–409; doi: 10.1089/dia.2020.0532
24.
HoodKK, Schneider-UtakaAK, ReedZW, PEDAP Trial Study Group. et al.; Patient reported outcomes (PROs) and user experiences of young children with type 1 diabetes using t: Slim X2 insulin pump with control-IQ technology. Diabetes Res Clin Pract2024;208:111114; doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2024.111114
25.
KudvaYC, LaffelLM, BrownSA, iDCL Trial Research Group. et al.; Patient-Reported outcomes in a randomized trial of closed-loop control: The pivotal international diabetes closed-loop trial. Diabetes Technol Ther2021;23(10):673–683; doi: 10.1089/dia.2021.0089
26.
Weissberg-BenchellJ, VescoAT, ShapiroJ, et al.Psychosocial impact of the insulin-only iLet bionic pancreas for adults, youth, and caregivers of youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2023;25(10):705–717; doi: 10.1089/dia.2023.0238
27.
MarksBE, GrundmanJB, MeighanS, et al.Hybrid closed loop systems improve glycemic control and quality of life in historically minoritized youth with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2024;26(3):167–175; doi: 10.1089/dia.2023.0450
28.
JalilovaA, PilanBS, DemirG, et al.The psychosocial outcomes of advanced hybrid closed-loop system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Eur J Pediatr2024;183(7):3095–3103; doi: 10.1007/s00431-024-05551-1
29.
NgSM, WrightNP, YardleyD, et al.Long-term assessment of the NHS hybrid closed-loop real-world study on glycaemic outcomes, time-in-range, and quality of life in children and young people with type 1 diabetes. BMC Med2024;22(1):175; doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03396-x
30.
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice C. 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025. Diabetes Care2025;48(Suppl 1):S146–S166; doi: 10.2337/dc25-S007
31.
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 Care2022;45(12):3058–3074; doi: 10.2337/dci22-0018
32.
HowardS. Then & Now: T1D Tech in 6 Years of the T1D Exchange Registry2025.
33.
NimriR, PhillipM. Automated insulin delivery systems for treatment of type 1 diabetes: Strategies for optimal performance. Horm Res Paediatr2025;98(4):371–383; doi: 10.1159/000543654
34.
SchiaffiniR, DeodatiA, NicolettiMC, et al.Comparison of two advanced hybrid closed loop in a pediatric population with type 1 diabetes: A real-life observational study. Acta Diabetol2022;59(7):959–964; doi: 10.1007/s00592-022-01886-z
35.
SantovaA, PlachyL, NeumanV, et al.Are all HCL systems the same? long term outcomes of three HCL systems in children with type 1 diabetes: Real-life registry-based study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)2023;14:1283181; doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1283181
36.
BunzelK, SanfilippoS, MoserO, et al.Head-to-head comparison of two automated insulin delivery systems in children with type 1 diabetes during a two-week summer camp: An exploratory prospective study. Horm Res Paediatr2025:1–9; doi: 10.1159/000548290
37.
FiskerS, ChristensenM, BachE, et al.Long-Term performance of two systems for automated insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: An observational study. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab2025;8(3):e70043; doi: 10.1002/edm2.70043
38.
GargouriI, CharfiH, BelabedW, et al.Precision medicine in type 1 diabetes: Comparing metabolic outcomes of Control-IQ and MiniMed 780G according to patient characteristics. Diabetes Obes Metab2025;27(3):1233–1241; doi: 10.1111/dom.16118
39.
FreckmannG, WehrstedtS, EichenlaubM, et al.A comparative analysis of glycemic metrics derived from three continuous glucose monitoring systems. Diabetes Care2025;48(7):1213–1217; doi: 10.2337/dc25-0129
40.
EichenlaubM, WaldenmaierD, WehrstedtS, et al.Performance of three continuous glucose monitoring systems in adults with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol2025:19322968251315459; doi: 10.1177/19322968251315459
41.
GeraS, RearsonA, BakerG, et al.Changes in 90-day time in range among youth with type 1 diabetes initiating different automated insulin delivery systems. J Clin Endocrinol Metab2025;110(10):e3472–e3481; doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaf006
42.
FolkS, ZappeJ, WyneK, et al.Comparative effectiveness of hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery systems among patients with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol2025;19(5):1374–1384; doi: 10.1177/19322968241234948
43.
PrahaladP, HardisonH, OdugbesanO, T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. et al.; Benchmarking diabetes technology use among 21 U.S. pediatric diabetes centers. Clin Diabetes2024;42(1):27–33; doi: 10.2337/cd23-0052
44.
MarchCA, FlintA, DeArmentD, et al.Pediatric diabetes care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned in scaling up telemedicine services. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab2021;4(1):e00202; doi: 10.1002/edm2.202
45.
de BockM, AgwuJC, DeabreuM, et al.International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2024: Glycemic targets. Horm Res Paediatr2024;97(6):546–554; doi: 10.1159/000543266
46.
BergetC, CobryE, EscobarE, et al.Sustained improvements in glycaemic and psychosocial outcomes for youth and caregivers using Omnipod 5 AID for 12 months. Diabetes Obes Metab2025;27(9):4942–4949; doi: 10.1111/dom.16538
47.
LindkvistEB, RanjanAG, NorgaardK, et al.Long-Term glycemic benefits and user interaction insights: Real-world outcomes of automated insulin delivery use in a pediatric population. Diabetes Technol Ther2025;27(9):696–703; doi: 10.1089/dia.2025.0068
48.
de VisserHS, WaraichS, ChhabraM, TEAM Trial Patient Coresearchers. et al.; Automated insulin delivery systems and glucose management in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr2025;179(11):1162–1171; doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.2740
49.
GodoiA, Reis MarquesI, PadrãoEMH, et al.Glucose control and psychosocial outcomes with use of automated insulin delivery for 12 to 96 weeks in type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Diabetol Metab Syndr2023;15(1):190; doi: 10.1186/s13098-023-01144-4
50.
BiesterT, BergetC, BoughtonC, et al.International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2024: Diabetes technologies—insulin delivery. Horm Res Paediatr2024;97(6):636–662; doi: 10.1159/000543034
51.
LuhrsT, KordonouriO, von Dem BergeT, et al.Long-Term glycemic outcomes in pediatric type 1 diabetes: A 2-Year Real-World analysis of different automated insulin delivery systems generations. Diabetes Technol Ther2026;28(3):219–227; doi: 10.1177/15209156251376708
52.
SegetS, Jarosz-ChobotP, OchabA, et al.Body mass index, basal insulin and glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes treated with the advanced hybrid closed loop system remain stable - 1-year prospective, observational, two-center study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)2022;13:1036808; doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1036808
53.
BombaciB, CalderoneM, Di PisaA, et al.Impact of automated insulin delivery systems in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes previously treated with multiple daily injections: A single-center real-world study. Medicina (Kaunas)2025;61(9):1602; doi: 10.3390/medicina61091602
54.
KovatchevBP, SinghH, MuellerL, et al.Biobehavioral changes following transition to automated insulin delivery: A large real-life database analysis. Diabetes Care2022;45(11):2636–2643; doi: 10.2337/dc22-1217
55.
CommissariatPV, BoyleCT, MillerKM, et al.Insulin pump use in young children with type 1 diabetes: Sociodemographic factors and parent-reported barriers. Diabetes Technol Ther2017;19(6):363–369; doi: 10.1089/dia.2016.0375
AddalaA, HanesS, NaranjoD, et al.Provider implicit bias impacts pediatric type 1 diabetes technology recommendations in the United States: Findings from The Gatekeeper Study. J Diabetes Sci Technol2021;15(5):1027–1033; doi: 10.1177/19322968211006476
58.
FangM, XuY, BallewSH, et al.Trends and disparities in technology use and glycemic control in type 1 diabetes. JAMA Netw Open2025;8(8):e2526353; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.26353
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
