This narrative review assesses the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in managing persons with type 1 diabetes (PWD) in the pediatric population. It outlines current research, the differences between various AID systems currently on the market and the challenges faced, and discusses potential opportunities for further advancements within this field. Furthermore, the narrative review includes various expert opinions on how different AID systems can be used in the event of challenges with rapidly changing insulin requirements. These include examples, such as during illness with increased or decreased insulin requirements and during physical activity of different intensities or durations. Case descriptions give examples of scenarios with added user-initiated actions depending on the type of AID system used. The authors also discuss how another AID system could have been used in these situations.

BACKGROUND: Several different forms of automated insulin delivery systems (AID systems) have recently been developed and are now licensed for type 1 diabetes (T1D). We undertook a systematic review of reported trials and real-world studies for commercial hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems.
METHODS: Pivotal, phase III and real-world studies using commercial HCL systems that are currently approved for use in type 1 diabetes were reviewed with a devised protocol using the Medline database.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies were included in the systematic review (19 for 670G; 8 for 780G; 11 for Control-IQ; 14 for CamAPS FX; 4 for Diabeloop; and 3 for Omnipod 5). Twenty were real-world studies, and 39 were trials or sub-analyses. Twenty-three studies, including 17 additional studies, related to psychosocial outcomes and were analysed separately.
CONCLUSIONS: These studies highlighted that HCL systems improve time In range (TIR) and arouse minimal concerns around severe hypoglycaemia. HCL systems are an effective and safe option for improving diabetes care. Real-world comparisons between systems and their effects on psychological outcomes require further study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the use of do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIYAPS) in the UK, and whether self-reported outcomes associated with them are affected by the demographics of the user.
METHODS: An online survey was conducted to assess user demographic data and self-reported time-in-range (TIR) outcomes. Statistical analysis was undertaken to review the results and check whether there were major differences in change in TIR across age, gender and duration of diabetes.
RESULTS: Of 253 valid responses to the survey across a wide age range of users, 74.4% related to adult users and 25.6% related to under-16s. The majority (65.6%) used AndroidAPS, but there was greater use of Loop (43.1%) amongst under-16s than amongst adults (25.9%). Correspondingly, more under-16s (40.0%) than adults (24.3%) used Omnipod Eros. A 17.3% (± 13.7%) increase in time in range was reported across all participants, with no significant differences observed between age groups, genders or diabetes duration groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The results show that these systems are being used by both genders, and that users cover a wide range of ages and diabetes durations. They also show that improvements in self-reported DIYAPS healthcare outcomes may not be specific to any particular age, gender or duration of diabetes, and the results may provide additional insights into the applicability of the algorithms by demographic. This study may also inform healthcare professionals about the use and effectiveness of DIYAPS solutions.

Insulin pumps are commonly used for intensive insulin therapy to treat type 1 diabetes in adults and youth. Insulin pump technologies have advanced dramatically in the last several years to integrate with continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and incorporate control algorithms. These control algorithms automate some insulin delivery in response to the glucose information received from the CGM to reduce the occurrence of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia and improve overall glycemic control. The t:slim X2 insulin pump system became commercially available in 2016. It is an innovative insulin pump technology that can be updated remotely by the user to install new software onto the pump device as new technologies become available. Currently, the t:slim X2 pairs with the Dexcom G6 CGM and there are two advanced software options available: Basal-IQ, which is a predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) technology, and Control-IQ, which is a Hybrid Closed Loop (HCL) technology. This paper will describe the different types of advanced insulin pump technologies, review how the t:slim X2 insulin pump works, and summarize the clinical studies leading to FDA approval and commercialization of the Basal-IQ and Control-IQ technologies.

Application of artificial pancreas systems in type 1 diabetes (T1D) represents a change in approach to managing complex glucose and insulin dynamics using automated features with higher levels of safety, precision, and reliability than those afforded by manual adjustments. To date, limited commercial systems and more widely used open-source, hybrid closed loop, Do-It-Yourself Artificial Pancreas Systems (DIY APS) have been used in nontrial real-world management of T1D. The aims of this article are twofold. First, itsynthesizes the emerging literature on DIY APS and identifies a range of evidence including research, reviews, commentaries, and opinion pieces written by DIY APS users, healthcare professionals (HCPs), and researchers. It summarizes the emerging clinical evidence for DIY APS and provide insight into how the DIY APS movement began, has been disseminated throughout diabetes online communities, and is reshaping self-management of T1D in real-world settings. Second, the article provides commentaries that explore implications of DIY APS to healthcare practice. DIY APS are radically changing T1D management. Automating the process of frequently analyzing glucose readings and appropriately titrating insulin delivery is liberating people with T1D (PWD) from some of the demands of intensive management. Within this super-specialized area of T1D management, the expertise of DIY APS users has outstripped that of many HCPs. While educational, ethical, and legal constraints need to be resolved, HCPs still need to stay abreast of this rapidly developing area. Further research is needed to inform policy and practice relating to DIY APS. Meanwhile, HCPs continue to learn from PWD\'s real-world experiences of building and using DIY APS to improve metabolic and psychological outcomes.