Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Sep 16;110(10):e3472-e3481.
doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaf006.

Changes in 90-Day Time in Range Among Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Initiating Different Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Sonia Gera  1 , Andrew Rearson  1 , Greyson Baker  1 , Julia L Douvas  1 , Nicole Alicea-Trelles  1 , Robert J Gallop  1   2   3 , Seema Meighan  1 , Brynn E Marks  1   2
Affiliations

Changes in 90-Day Time in Range Among Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Initiating Different Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Sonia Gera et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. .

Abstract

Context: Glycemic outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States using the 2 most common automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, Insulet Omnipod 5 (OP5) and Tandem Control IQ (CIQ), have not been compared.

Objective: We performed the first head-to-head analysis of changes in glycemic metrics among youth initiating AID.

Methods: This single-center, retrospective study included youth < 21 years with T1D, who started OP5 or CIQ between January 2020 and December 2023, and had ≥ 70% continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) active time. We obtained 14-day baseline and 90-day CGM and AID data. A multiple linear regression model assessed for changes in 90-day time in range (TIR) according to AID system, adjusting for covariates. Subanalyses were conducted according to baseline TIR categories.

Results: Among the 428 included youth, there were 214 (50%) in each AID group. OP5 users had a shorter T1D duration (1.6 vs 5.5 years, P < .001) and were more likely to have transitioned from multiple daily injections (76.1% vs 20.1%, P < .001). Baseline TIR was similar between groups (OP5 51.6% vs CIQ 53.1%, P = .70). 90-day TIR increased in both groups (P < .001), rising by 11.8 percentage points (95% CI [10.4, 13.3]) in OP5 users and 9.8 percentage points (95% CI [8.3, 11.2]) in CIQ users, without any significant between-group differences (P = .08). There were no between-group differences in 90-day TIR according to categorical baseline TIR.

Conclusion: There are no clinically significant differences in 90-day TIR among youth with T1D initiating the 2 most commonly used AID systems. Patient preference and shared decision making should continue to guide the selection of AID systems.

Keywords: automated insulin delivery; continuous glucose monitor; time in range; type 1 diabetes; youth.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Mayer-Davis EJ, Lawrence JM, Dabelea D, et al. Incidence trends of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among youths, 2002-2012. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(15):1419‐1429. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fang M, Wang D, Selvin E. Prevalence of type 1 diabetes among US children and adults by age, sex, race, and ethnicity. JAMA. 2024;331(16):1411‐1413. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Divers J, Mayer-Davis EJ, Lawrence JM, et al. Trends in incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among youths—selected counties and Indian reservations, United States, 2002-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(6):161‐165. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sherr JL, Schoelwer M, Dos Santos TJ, et al. ISPAD clinical practice consensus guidelines 2022: diabetes technologies: insulin delivery. Pediatr Diabetes. 2022;23(8):1406‐1431. - PubMed
    1. Ebekozien O, Mungmode A, Sanchez J, et al. 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. - PubMed