Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Objective:To analyze the transition patterns of anal sex and unprotected anal intercourse (UAI), estimate the transition intensity and probability, and identify factors influencing the transition patterns in men who have sex with men (MSM) in Shandong Province.Methods:In August 2019, MSM aged ≥18 years old were recruited as subjects from 11 cities in Shandong Province. The baseline survey were completed in December 2019, and followup surveys were conducted once every 3 mouths from June 2020 to March 2021. Time-continuous, state-discrete multi-state reversible Markov model was constructed based on the status of MSM's sexual behaviors with different types of sexual partners [anal sex occurred or not (S1=No, S2=Yes) and UAI occurred or not (S1=No,S2=Yes)] to analyze the transition patterns and the influencing factors.Results:A total of 735 MSM were included. The transition intensity of starting anal sex with stable and casual partners was 1.935 times and 0.595 times higher than that of discontinuing this behavior, respectively. While the transition intensity to start UAI with stable and casual partners was 0.430 times and 0.169 times higher than that of discontinuing it, respectively. During the follow-up, the transition probabilities of anal sex and UAI with both stable and casual partners increased first and then stabilized. For stable partners, the transition probability of starting anal sex was higher than that of discontinuing it at the same period, for casual partners, it was just the reverse. For both stable and casual partners, the transition probabilities of discontinuing UAI were higher than starting it at the same time. The results of multivariate analysis showed that participants who received intervention materials ( HR=1.47), had an associate degree ( HR=1.77) or a bachelor's degree and above ( HR=1.47) were at higher risk of starting anal sex with stable partners. Those who received intervention materials ( HR=1.39) were at higher risk of discontinuing anal sex with stable partners, while participants identified themselves as non-male gender ( HR=0.49) were at lower risk of discontinuing anal sex with stable partners. Participants received intervention materials ( HR=1.75) were at higher risk of starting UAI with stable partners. Those who lived apart, divorced, or widowed ( HR=3.22) were at higher risk of starting UAI with casual partners, whereas had a bachelor's degree and above ( HR=0.58) were at lower risk of starting UAI with casual partners. Participants identified themselves as non-male gender ( HR=0.45) at lower risk of discounting UAI with casual partners. Conclusions:The transition patterns of homosexual behavior in MSM are different. Marital status, gender identity, educational level and other factors are the influencing factors of sexual behavior status transitions. Future researches should develop targeted interventions for different types of sexual partners and characteristics of MSM.

Objective:To examine the effect of cumulative hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c) levels and insulin dosage on insulin resistance (IR)-related metabolic disturbances in newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods:This retrospective cohort study included T1D patients admitted to the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from November 2015 to March 2023. Clinical data collected comprised age, sex, disease duration, insulin dosage, body mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure, HbA 1c levels, islet autoantibodies, and fasting blood lipid profiles. IR-related metabolic disturbances assessed were overweight, obesity, central obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Cox regression and cluster analyses were applied to assess the influence of cumulative HbA 1c and insulin dosage on these metabolic disturbances. Results:A total of 235 patients were included, with 97 males (41.3%) and 138 females (58.7%). The median age was 19.8 (13.3, 31.1) years, and the median follow-up duration was 30.8 (20.8, 45.6) months. During follow-up, 41.6% (72/173) of patients developed IR-related metabolic disturbances. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that a cumulative HbA 1c ≥60 mmol/mol was an independent risk factor for any IR-related metabolic disturbance [ HR (95% CI): 1.739 (1.067-2.835) ] and for triglyceride abnormalities [ HR (95% CI): 3.277 (1.176-9.127)]. Additionally, a cumulative insulin dosage ≥0.5 U·kg -1·d -1 was identified as an independent risk factor for overweight, obesity, or central obesity [ HR (95% CI): 2.374 (1.059-5.323)]. Cluster analysis further identified that patients with higher levels of cumulative HbA 1c and insulin dosage, particularly those with adolescent-onset diabetes, had the highest likelihood of developing hypertension ( HR=2.460, 95% CI 1.008-6.005), overweight/obesity/central obesity ( HR=2.707, 95% CI 1.062-6.900), triglyceride abnormalities ( HR=5.495, 95% CI 1.842-16.391), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol abnormalities ( HR=11.054, 95% CI 4.107-29.751), and any IR-related metabolic disturbance ( HR=5.833, 95% CI 2.602-13.077). Conclusions:Elevated cumulative HbA 1c and insulin dosage levels in T1D patients are associated with an increased risk of developing IR-related metabolic disturbances. These findings underscore the urgent need for novel therapeutic strategies tailored to this population.