BACKGROUND: Automated insulin delivery (AID) has revolutionized care for people with type 1 diabetes. However, its efficacy and safety in older adults (≥60 years) and high-risk populations, including those with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia, or cognitive or functional impairment, have not been systematically evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CENTRAL, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 10, 2026. Studies on automated insulin delivery in older and high-risk individuals with type 1 diabetes were included. The primary outcome was time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]). Secondary outcomes included time above range, time below range, psychosocial well-being (Gold, Clarke, and Hypoglycemia Fear Survey score), and serious adverse events. Pooled effect sizes were estimated with random-effects models (PROSPERO, CRD420251273526). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies involving 967 participants (11 randomized controlled trials, 3 single-arm, and 9 cohort studies) were included. Automated insulin delivery increased time in range by 11.38% (95% CI: 8.07-14.70; I2 = 70%; P < .0001; very low certainty; equivalent to 2.7 hours/day). Time in range improvement was observed during the day (8.70%; 95% CI 5.18-12.22%) and overnight (13.35%; 95% CI 11.07-15.62%). Favorable improvement was also comparable among commercial and noncommercial systems. Automated insulin delivery reduced the time spent in hyperglycemia (-7.89%) and hypoglycemia (-1.16%). No significant differences in psychosocial well-being were observed. Diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia events were not significant. CONCLUSION: Automated insulin delivery exhibits favorable glycemic outcomes and safety profiles in older and high-risk individuals with type 1 diabetes, suggesting potential benefits for populations traditionally considered vulnerable, although no significant improvements were observed in psychosocial outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oktavian et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: