Retrospective analysis shows safety and improved glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes using an automated insulin delivery system.
INTRODUCTION: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems aim to safely optimize glycemic outcomes; however, data in the new-onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) period are limited. We evaluated safety and glycemic outcomes of Omnipod 5 AID System use in the new-onset period. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational analysis of youth at a single center who initiated Omnipod 5 within 90 days of T1D diagnosis. Safety outcomes included diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and severe hypoglycemia. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and insulin delivery data were analyzed across the first 3 months of use and between pediatric age groups (<6-year-olds, 6 to <12-year-olds, and 12 to <18-year-olds). RESULTS: Among 74 youth initiating Omnipod 5 within 90 days of T1D diagnosis, there was no occurrence of DKA or severe hypoglycemia in the first 3 months of AID system use. The time-weighted average glucose target value on the device setting was 118.8 mg/dL (6.6 mmol/L) with a median of 97% time in Automated Mode over 3 months. Median total daily insulin was 7.4 units (45.5% basal) in <6-year-olds, 11.4 units (48% basal) in 6 to <12-year-olds, and 25.7 units (45% basal) in 12 to <18-year-olds. The median glucose management indicator (GMI) was 7.1% (54 mmol/mol) and time in range (70-180 mg/dL, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 72.1% with minimal hypoglycemia: 1.0% Level 1 time below range (TBR, 54-69 mg/dL, 3.0-3.8 mmol/L) and 0% Level 2 TBR (<54 mg/dL, <3.0 mmol/L). CONCLUSION: These real-world observational data from youth with new-onset T1D using a tubeless AID system indicate safety and favorable glycemic outcomes with AID system initiation early after diagnosis. Future studies should assess the long-term glycemic and quality of life impact of early AID system adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DeSalvo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: