Efficacy and Safety of Different Hybrid Closed Loop Systems for Automated Insulin Delivery in People With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

AimsTo compare the efficacy and safety of different hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems in people with diabetes through a network meta‐analysis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling children, adolescents and/or adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, evaluating Minimed 670G, Minimed 780G, Control‐IQ, CamAPS Fx, DBLG‐1, DBLHU, and Omnipod 5 HCL systems against other types of insulin therapy, and reporting time in target range (TIR) as outcome.ResultsA total of 28 RCTs, all enrolling people with type 1 diabetes, were included. HCL systems significantly increased TIR compared with subcutaneous insulin therapy without continuous glucose monitoring (SIT). Minimed 780G achieved the highest TIR ahead of Control IQ (mean difference (MD) 5.1%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [0.68; 9.52], low certainty), Minimed 670G (MD 7.48%, 95% CI [4.27; 10.7], moderate certainty), CamAPS Fx (MD 8.94%, 95% CI [4.35; 13.54], low certainty), and DBLG1 (MD 10.69%, 95% CI [5.73; 15.65], low certainty). All HCL systems decreased time below target range, with DBLG1 (MD −3.69%, 95% CI [−5.2; −2.19], high certainty), Minimed 670G (MD −2.9%, 95% CI [−3.77; −2.04], moderate certainty) and Minimed 780G (MD −2.79%, 95% CI [−3.94; −1.64], high certainty) exhibiting the largest reductions compared to SIT. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis was similar to other types of insulin therapy.ConclusionsWe show a hierarchy of efficacy among the different HCL systems in people with type 1 diabetes, thus providing support to clinical decision‐making.Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023453717