Technology choice, glycemic control and patient-reported outcome measures in adults with type 1 diabetes: A randomized crossover trial comparing a smart insulin pen with an automated insulin delivery system (EBIACE-1).
TL;DR
AID provides superior glycemic control, although nearly half of participants achieved near-optimal control with SIP, supporting a personalized approach to technology selection.
Abstract
Aims
To compare glycemic outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between smart insulin pens (SIP) and an automated insulin delivery (AID) system in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), and to identify individuals able to maintain near-optimal glycemic control using SIP.
Methods
EBIACE-1 was a randomized, open-label, crossover trial including 31 adults with T1D. Participants received SIP (InPen™) and AID (MiniMed™ 780G) for 6 months each. Co-primary outcomes were time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) and HbA1c. Treatment effects were assessed using longitudinal models in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Predictors of near-optimal glycemic control with SIP were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.
Results
AID improved glycemic control versus SIP, with higher TIR (81 % vs 66 %; +15 %, 95 % CI 10-19; P < 0.001) and lower HbA1c (6.9 % [52 mmol/mol] vs 7.3 % [56 mmol/mol]; -0.4 %, 95 % CI - 0.6 to - 0.3; P < 0.001). Near-optimal glycemic control with SIP was achieved by 12 of 26 participants (46 %). In exploratory analyses, higher baseline diabetes-related life interference was associated with a lower probability of achieving this outcome.
Conclusions
AID provides superior glycemic control, although nearly half of participants achieved near-optimal control with SIP, supporting a personalized approach to technology selection.