Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2026
Survey of glucose levels in adults with T1DM attending clinic using automated insulin delivery (AID) devices compared with manual insulin delivery.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Seaton Kate M, Jones Hanna C, Lee Melissa H, Kilov Gary, Jenkins Alicia J, Wu Landy M, Pham Cecilia, Gao Frank, Ekinci Elif I, Taylor Pamela, Stranks Stephen, Herson Megan, Wong Jennifer, Paldus Barbora, Kevat Dev, Kriketos Adamandia, Fourlanos Spiros, Wentworth John, Wu Katherine, Kanagaretnam Harsan, Rodrigo Natassia, Kong Yee Wen, O'Neal David N
Аннотация
AIM: To compare real-world glycaemic and clinical outcomes in adults with Type 1 Diabetes (T1DM) using Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) vs. those using manual insulin delivery.
METHODS: Demographic and diabetes-related glycaemic and clinical data were prospectively collected via a survey from consecutive participants with T1DM attending TIDM clinics in Australia during 2024-25.
RESULTS: Of 406 participants surveyed (233 females [57.4%], age 45.6 ± 16.5 years). AID was used by 141 participants (34.8%), with 50.2% of non-users expressing interest in AID use. AID use vs. non-use was associated with lower HbA1c (7.2 ± 1.0% [63 ± 19 mmol/mol] vs 7.9 ± 1.6% [63 ± 18 mmol/mol], p < 0.001), Glucose Management Indicator (GMI) (7.2 ± 0.8% [55 ± 8 mmol/mol vs 8.0 ± 1.4% [63 ± 15 mmol/mol], p < 0.001), and higher Time In Range (TIR) (69.21 ± 14.79% vs 50.53 ± 21.8%, p < 0.001), with fewer severe hypoglycaemia episodes (n = 3 [2.1%] vs n = 31 [11.7%], p < 0.001). These associations were observed irrespective of Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) group.
CONCLUSION: AID use was associated with better glycaemic and clinical outcomes irrespective of socio-economic status. AID use tended to be more prevalent among the socio-economically advantaged. We strongly advocate for equitable AID access based on clinical need rather than financial means.
METHODS: Demographic and diabetes-related glycaemic and clinical data were prospectively collected via a survey from consecutive participants with T1DM attending TIDM clinics in Australia during 2024-25.
RESULTS: Of 406 participants surveyed (233 females [57.4%], age 45.6 ± 16.5 years). AID was used by 141 participants (34.8%), with 50.2% of non-users expressing interest in AID use. AID use vs. non-use was associated with lower HbA1c (7.2 ± 1.0% [63 ± 19 mmol/mol] vs 7.9 ± 1.6% [63 ± 18 mmol/mol], p < 0.001), Glucose Management Indicator (GMI) (7.2 ± 0.8% [55 ± 8 mmol/mol vs 8.0 ± 1.4% [63 ± 15 mmol/mol], p < 0.001), and higher Time In Range (TIR) (69.21 ± 14.79% vs 50.53 ± 21.8%, p < 0.001), with fewer severe hypoglycaemia episodes (n = 3 [2.1%] vs n = 31 [11.7%], p < 0.001). These associations were observed irrespective of Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) group.
CONCLUSION: AID use was associated with better glycaemic and clinical outcomes irrespective of socio-economic status. AID use tended to be more prevalent among the socio-economically advantaged. We strongly advocate for equitable AID access based on clinical need rather than financial means.