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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2025 Sep;27(9):719-727.
doi: 10.1089/dia.2025.0062. Epub 2025 May 30.

Fully Closed-Loop Improves Glycemic Control Compared with Pump with CGM in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes and HbA1c Above Target: A Two-Center, Randomized Crossover Study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Fully Closed-Loop Improves Glycemic Control Compared with Pump with CGM in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes and HbA1c Above Target: A Two-Center, Randomized Crossover Study

Nithya Kadiyala et al. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2025 Sep.

Abstract

Introduction: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) can struggle to reach recommended HbA1c targets more than other age groups. The safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop (FCL) insulin delivery, which does not require mealtime bolusing, have not been assessed in this cohort. We evaluated the use of FCL with faster insulin aspart (Fiasp) in adolescents with T1D whose HbA1c was above recommended targets. Materials and Methods: This two-center, randomized, crossover study included 24 adolescents (13-19 years) using insulin pump therapy with above-target HbA1c (mean age 16.2 years, median HbA1c 74 mmol/mol [8.9%]). Participants underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living, comparing FCL (CamAPS HX) with Fiasp, with standard nonautomated insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), in random order. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the percentage of time glucose was in target range (primary endpoint 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was higher during FCL than during pump with CGM use (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) 45.2% ± 7.2% vs. 32.3% ± 12.8%, mean difference 12.9 percentage points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.5 to 17.3, P < 0.001). Time spent in hyperglycemia >13.9 mmol/L and mean glucose were lower with FCL compared with pump with CGM (median time >13.9 mmol/L 28.7% vs. 39.6%, difference -7.3 percentage points, 95% CI -11.1 to -3.5, P < 0.001; mean glucose 11.1 mmol/L vs. 12.7 mmol/L, difference -1.2 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.8 to -0.5, P < 0.001). Proportion of time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L was similar between interventions (median: FCL 2.78% vs. pump with CGM 2.97%, difference -0.34 percentage points, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.35, P = 0.322). There was no difference in HbA1c after FCL compared with pump with CGM (median: 71 mmol/mol (8.6%) vs. 74 mmol/mol (8.9%), P = 0.227). There was no difference in total daily insulin dose (P = 0.276). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. Conclusions: FCL insulin delivery with CamAPS HX improved glucose outcomes compared with insulin pump therapy with CGM in adolescents with T1D and HbA1c above target.

Keywords: adolescents; artificial pancreas; automated insulin delivery; fully-closed loop; type 1 diabetes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Key trial eligibility criteria and description of the CamAPS HX fully closed-loop system.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Themes and sub-themes of adolescents’ experience of using the CamAPS HX fully closed-loop system.

References

    1. Rankin D, Kimbell B, Hovorka R, Lawton J. Adolescents’ and their parents’ experiences of using a closed-loop system to manage type 1 diabetes in everyday life: qualitative study. Chronic Illn. 2022;18:742–56. doi: 10.1177/1742395320985924. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hermann JM, Miller KM, Hofer SE, Clements MA, Karges W, Foster NC, et al. The Transatlantic HbA1c gap: differences in glycaemic control across the lifespan between people included in the US T1D Exchange Registry and those included in the German/Austrian DPV registry. Diabetic Medicine. 2020;37:848–55. - PubMed
    1. Godoi A, Reis Marques I, Padrão EMH, Mahesh A, Hespanhol LC, Riceto Loyola Júnior JE, 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 Syndr. 2023;15:190. doi: 10.1186/s13098-023-01144-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Phillip M, Nimri R, Bergenstal RM, Barnard-Kelly K, Danne T, Hovorka R, et al. Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice. Endocr Rev. 2023;44:254–80. doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnac022. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sherr JL. Closing the Loop on Managing Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: Children Are Not Just Small Adults. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:1572–8. doi: 10.2337/dci18-0003. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources