T here have been many recent advancements in available technology for management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the past few years. Notably, the recent commercial approval of the Medtronic 670G system has made the first artificial pancreas (AP) available for use in patients older than 14 years. 1 Additional clinical studies are underway to develop, refine, and test various devices from almost a dozen industry and academic research groups. [2][3][4] Relatively few studies, however, have looked at AP use and feasibility in toddlers and young children; a population with unique management challenges such as unpredictable dietary habits, increased insulin sensitivity, and rapid glucose fluctuations with meals and activity, 5-7 as well as cognitive and verbal immaturity, which make it challenging to identify and report hypoglycemia. 8,9 These challenges cause significant parental stress and decreased quality of life for both the patients and their families. 9,10 Specifically, the fear of hypoglycemia (and its potential detrimental effects on neurocognitive development) leads to worse glycemic control and suboptimal HbA1c levels in this age group. [11][12][13][14] Recent technological advancements with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have led to decreased parental anxiety and improved quality of life in the T1D population. [15][16][17][18] Several small studies using AP in young children have shown reduced rates of hypoglycemia, although without significant improvements in glycemic control [19][20][21] as has been seen in older children and adults. [22][23][24][25] While these results are encouraging, widespread use of AP in young children may continue to be limited by parental fear of hypoglycemia. Specifically, fear regarding ability of the child to interact with increasingly complex devices and the risk of inadvertent delivery of inappropriate amounts of insulin, leading to either hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. As the incidence of T1D in young children is on the rise, 13,26 optimal management options, including the use of AP technology, are of great importance.In this issue of Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics, DeBoer et al. present results of a small, randomized, crossover trial assessing the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of an AP system in young children with T1D (age 5-8 years) compared to their usual home regimen of sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. 27 Unique to this study was the use of altered Diabetes Assistant control-platform software, which included child-resistant (password-protected) lock-out screens for pump settings and carbohydrate ingestion; an addition meant specifically to address the potential safety issue of accidental or intentional tampering with the control settings of an AP system. The authors report significantly improved glycemic control with increased time of blood glucose inrange (70-180 mg/dL) within the AP period versus the SAP period (73% vs. 47%; P < 0.001) and increased percent time of blood glucose in tight control ...