SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024
Hybrid closed-loop systems for managing blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and economic modelling.
Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07425912 (Real-World Efficacy and Safety of the TouchCare Nano Automated Insulin Delivery System With APGO Algorithm in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Real-World Efficacy and Safety of the TouchCare Nano Automated Insulin Delivery System With APGO Algorithm in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A Multicentre Observational Study
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence on commercially available automated insulin delivery systems in people with type 1 diabetes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Pooled it
- Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System With an Adaptive Control Algorithm (APGO) in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A Multicentre Observational Study.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Observational
- Patient satisfaction and performance of the A8+ TouchCare Nano in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2026Article
- The Silver Jubilee (2025) of Insulin Glargine: Introducing the Era of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues for Diabetes Mellitus.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Review
- Insulin pump therapy for T1D: a real-world analysis of a novel two-in-one insulin pump in Chinese adults with type 1 diabetes.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2026Article
- Special Issue-Diabetes Mellitus: Current Research and Future Perspectives, 2nd Edition.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Advances in diabetes technology: clinical implications, limitations, and future perspectives.Hormones (Athens, Greece) · 2026Review
- Association between comorbidity burden and glycaemic profiles in adults with type 1 diabetes using hybrid closed-loop systems.Internal medicine journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Insulin Deficiency Exacerbates Muscle Atrophy and Osteopenia inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcomes in studies of diabetes technology: What matters.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hybrid closed-loop systems are a new class of technology to manage type 1 diabetes mellitus. The system includes a combination of real-time continuous glucose monitoring from a continuous glucose monitoring device and a control algorithm to direct insulin delivery through an insulin pump. Evidence suggests that such technologies have the potential to improve the lives of people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and their families. Aim: The aim of this appraisal was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hybrid closed-loop systems for managing glucose in people who have type 1 diabetes mellitus and are having difficulty managing their condition despite prior use of at least one of the following technologies: continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, real-time continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring). Methods: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence following predefined inclusion criteria informed by the aim of this review. An independent economic assessment using iQVIA CDM to model cost-effectiveness. Results: The clinical evidence identified 12 randomised controlled trials that compared hybrid closed loop with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring. Hybrid closed-loop arm of randomised controlled trials achieved improvement in glycated haemoglobin per cent [hybrid closed loop decreased glycated haemoglobin per cent by 0.28 (95% confidence interval -0.34 to -0.21), increased per cent of time in range (between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/l) with a MD of 8.6 (95% confidence interval 7.03 to 10.22), and significantly decreased time in range (per cent above 10.0 mmol/l) with a MD of -7.2 (95% confidence interval -8.89 to -5.51), but did not significantly affect per cent of time below range (< 3.9 mmol/l)]. Comparator arms showed improvements, but these were smaller than in the hybrid closed-loop arm. Outcomes were superior in the hybrid closed-loop arm compared with the comparator arm. The cost-effectiveness search identified six studies that were included in the systematic review. Studies reported subjective cost-effectiveness that was influenced by the willingness-to-pay thresholds. Economic evaluation showed that the published model validation papers suggest that an earlier version of the iQVIA CDM tended to overestimate the incidences of the complications of diabetes, this being particularly important for severe visual loss and end-stage renal disease. Overall survival's medium-term modelling appeared good, but there was uncertainty about its longer-term modelling. Costs provided by the National Health Service Supply Chain suggest that hybrid closed loop is around an annual average of £1500 more expensive than continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring, this being a pooled comparator of 90% continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring and 10% continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + real-time continuous glucose monitoring due to clinical effectiveness estimates not being differentiated by continuous glucose monitoring type. This net cost may increase by around a further £500 for some systems. The Evidence Assessment Group base case applies the estimate of -0.29% glycated haemoglobin for hybrid closed loop relative to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring. There was no direct evidence of an effect on symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia events, and therefore the Evidence Assessment Group does not include these in its base case. The change in glycated haemoglobin results in a gain in undiscounted life expectancy of 0.458 years and a gain of 0.160 quality-adjusted life-years. Net lifetime treatment costs are £31,185, with reduced complications leading to a net total cost of £28,628. The cost-effectiveness estimate is £179,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusions: Randomised controlled trials of hybrid closed-loop interventions in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring achieved a statistically significant improvement in glycated haemoglobin per cent in time in range between 3.9 and 10 mmol/l, and in hyperglycaemic levels. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021248512. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR133547) and is published in full in
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.