The Glycaemic Impact of AID Survey
A survey of glucose levels in adults with T1DM attending clinic using automated insulin delivery (AID) devices compared with manual insulin delivery
We surveyed 406 adults with type 1 diabetes attending clinics across Australia in 2024–25 to compare outcomes for people using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems with those managing insulin manually. The study found that AID users had substantially better glucose control and fewer serious low‑blood‑sugar events in routine clinical practice. These benefits were evident across neighbourhoods with differing socioeconomic advantage, although AID use was somewhat more common in the least disadvantaged areas.
Participants were consecutive adults (aged 18 years and over) with clinically diagnosed T1DM attending eight metropolitan and regional sites. Clinical and demographic information was collected during routine clinic visits, including recent HbA1c and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measures when available, complications, and current use of AID. Of the 406 people surveyed, 141 (about 35%) were using an AID system and 265 were not.
On average, AID users had a lower long‑term blood glucose (mean HbA1c 7.2% versus 7.9% in non‑users) and spent more time with glucose levels in the target range (mean Time In Range about 69% versus 50%). Serious hypoglycaemia events requiring third‑party assistance over the past year were much less common among AID users (2.1% versus 11.7%). AID users also had fewer major blood‑vessel (macrovascular) complications. These glycaemic and safety advantages were observed in both more and less advantaged socioeconomic groups as measured by SEIFA, and about half of non‑users expressed interest in using an AID system.
In conclusion, AID systems were associated with meaningful improvements in glucose control and safety for adults with T1DM in real‑world clinical settings. Given these benefits and clear interest from people not currently using AID, the findings support calls for equitable access to AID technologies based on clinical need rather than the ability to pay.
To read the publication, click here
The Glycaemic Impact of AID Survey
Whey Protein Ingestion Stimulates Glucagon Secretion and Raises Blood Glucose Levels in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes
We surveyed 406 adults with type 1 diabetes attending clinics across Australia in 2024–25 to compare outcomes for people using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems with those managing insulin manually. The study found that AID users had substantially better glucose control and fewer serious low‑blood‑sugar events in routine clinical practice. These benefits were evident across neighbourhoods with differing socioeconomic advantage, although AID use was somewhat more common in the least disadvantaged areas.
Participants were consecutive adults (aged 18 years and over) with clinically diagnosed T1DM attending eight metropolitan and regional sites. Clinical and demographic information was collected during routine clinic visits, including recent HbA1c and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measures when available, complications, and current use of AID. Of the 406 people surveyed, 141 (about 35%) were using an AID system and 265 were not.
On average, AID users had a lower long‑term blood glucose (mean HbA1c 7.2% versus 7.9% in non‑users) and spent more time with glucose levels in the target range (mean Time In Range about 69% versus 50%). Serious hypoglycaemia events requiring third‑party assistance over the past year were much less common among AID users (2.1% versus 11.7%). AID users also had fewer major blood‑vessel (macrovascular) complications. These glycaemic and safety advantages were observed in both more and less advantaged socioeconomic groups as measured by SEIFA, and about half of non‑users expressed interest in using an AID system.
In conclusion, AID systems were associated with meaningful improvements in glucose control and safety for adults with T1DM in real‑world clinical settings. Given these benefits and clear interest from people not currently using AID, the findings support calls for equitable access to AID technologies based on clinical need rather than the ability to pay.
To read the publication, click here